2025 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey

Ironic timing, released at the same time as the Fox ethics scandal:

…Fairness

In 2025, more than three quarters (76%) of employees agreed that the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly, consistent with 2023 (77%).

Employees who perceived the selection process as unfair were asked to describe how. The main reasons cited were a perception that appointments in their work unit are not transparent, that they are based on “who you know” and that some appointees have benefitted from nepotism or favoritism.

Expanding on the perceptions of fairness in staffing processes, a new question on non-advertised appointments was introduced in 2025. Overall, 71% of employees agreed that non-advertised appointments are done fairly. The main reasons cited by respondents who perceived non-advertised appointments as unfair were that non-advertised appointments depend on who you know (74%) and that they are not transparent (70%).

Statements related to fairness20232025
Process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly77%76%
Non-advertised appointments are done fairlyn/a71%
Reasons2025
Non-advertised appointments depend on who you know74%
Non-advertised appointments are not transparent70%
Non-advertised appointments are not based on merit48%
Non-advertised appointments are never fair30%
Non-advertised appointments are not inclusive28%
Other12%

Employment equity and equity-seeking groups’ perceptions on fairness

With the exception of women, all employment equity groups expressed less positive perceptions than their respective comparator groups.

Employees identifying as two-spirit and intersex had less positive perceptions of both statements related to fairness compared to all other identities

Employees identifying as another gender had the least positive perceptions of fairness in the staffing process of all groups

Members of visible minorities, Indigenous Peoples and persons with disabilities had less positive perceptions of fairness in the staffing process than their respective comparator groups

Members of religious communities had less positive perceptions of fairness in the staffing process compared with employees who are not members of religious communities

Employees who are separated, divorced or widowed had less positive perceptions of fairness in the staffing process compared with employees who are married, living common-law or single

Employees identifying as asexual and pansexual had less positive perceptions of fairness compared with all other sexual orientations

Source: 2025 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey

Yakabuski: A deputy minister’s ethics violation will further sap morale in the Canadian public service

Time to accept the inevitable. Hard to see how she can avoid resigning or retiring given the clear judgement, arrogance and obliviousness to MP concerns, impact on public service morale and overall credibility of deputies:

…Participants expressed that there appear to be few, if any, consequences for senior leaders who act in contravention of values and ethics, as compared to consequences imposed upon employees, particularly those who are members of racialized groups,” it found. 

To remedy the problem, the task team recommended that “deputy ministers ensure that obligations under the Values and Ethics Code, and departmental codes of conduct, are clear and are upheld with consequences for violations regardless of level or position.”

That recommendation has suddenly taken on new resonance in the wake of the federal Ethics Commissioner’s finding that Christiane Fox, one of the deputy ministers who made up the task team, violated the Conflict of Interest Act by using her position to influence a departmental decision to hire an acquaintance who was unqualified for the job.

In a 35-page report released last week, Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein concluded that as deputy minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in 2023, Ms. Fox used her authority to give an “old acquaintance” from university “preferential treatment, by ensuring he met with departmental officials quickly, seeking updates about his hiring, giving him internal information, and pushing for a higher job classification.”…

Merit-based hiring remains the bedrock of a professional public service. Ms. Fox appears to have lost sight of that principle. Her bosses must not. 

Source: A deputy minister’s ethics violation will further sap morale in the Canadian public service

Deputy minister found breaching ethics rules says she was following diversity mandate

Sigh… Given the breach and how it undermines trust, arguably a resignable offence to demonstrate accountability:

Deputy minister of national defence Christiane Fox says she was trying to bring in outside perspectives when she influenced her former department to hire an acquaintance.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein published an investigation on Wednesday finding that Fox pressed Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to hire Björn Charles when she was deputy minister of that department in March 2023. 

Fox had known Charles since they were both athletes at university together, according to the report.

She said in a statement posted on the Defence Department’s website on Friday that she was “motivated by a genuine desire to bring in outside perspectives.”

“My efforts were focused on advancing diversity and inclusion across the public service, an objective explicitly set for deputy ministers,” she said.

“I approached that mandate with care and intent, including a focus on bringing in outside perspectives and voices that could help drive meaningful change. This included removing barriers that limited how talent was recognized both inside and outside government.”

Explanation not credible, report says

Von Finckenstein’s report noted that IRCC — which has reported problems with racism in the past — was ” focused on anti-racism, diversity and inclusion” while Fox was the deputy minister. But he didn’t find Fox’s explanation credible.

Source: Deputy minister found breaching ethics rules says she was following diversity mandate

Ottawa hoping to convince reluctant civil servants of the benefits of working from the office

Good luck trying to convince public servants that this is good for them even if it likely is in terms of career advancement.

But would be better for Christians Fox to be upfront and just tell public servants to “suck it up” given the realities of public opinion and that most private sector companies have also been introducing back to the office policies:

The federal government is preparing to welcome a frustrated workforce back to its offices on Sept. 9.

Under a new policy announced in May, federal civil servants will have to spend at least three days per week in the office, while executives will have to spend at least four. Currently, civil servants are required to be in their offices only two days per week.

Federal employees’ unions say most civil servants oppose the planned reduction in telework and report struggles with transportation and work-family balance. Many also say they’re more productive when they work from home.

Hoping to cool the discontent, a senior civil servant is making the case for spending more time at the office.

Christiane Fox, deputy clerk of the Privy Council Office, told Radio-Canada the new policy will improve the overall performance of the federal public service and help individual civil servants advance their careers.

“It’s to build a sense of teams that collaborate towards difficult public policy challenges,” she said.

Fox added the goal is to ensure that new public servants “understand the role of a public service and [are] in a position to learn by observation, by the things they see happening in their workplace.”

The government may also be hoping that bringing civil servants back to their offices can improve the public service’s reputation — which has been damaged by a perception in some quarters that employees are taking it easy when they work from home.

“Of course, we can’t ignore the perceptions and the comments that are made about the public service,” said Fox, adding that is not the rationale for the decision….

Source: Ottawa hoping to convince reluctant civil servants of the benefits of working from the office

McLaughlin: There’s a troubling amount of churn at the top of Canada’s public service

Valid commentary.

Perhaps the recent example of Christiane Fox, who spent less than two years at IRCC, implemented a major reorganization at IRCC, and then left for PCO without having to live through the implementation nor see whether it was successful, provides an illustration:

…Fresh perspective on a task or mission is always useful, and promoting people into senior ranks is necessary for talent-building. But rampant shuffling has consequences. It commodifies deputy ministers. It devalues subject matter expertise and institutional wisdom in favour of management and system conformity. It weakens the crucial minister-deputy relationship that comes from longer periods of working together, and it does the same for the extensive stakeholder and delivery apparatus that surrounds modern government. It undermines the institutional memory and corporate knowledge that underpins the whole ethos of an independent, permanent public service.

Most importantly, it divorces senior officials from results. Individual responsibility for seeing things through is diminished when you know it will be your successor who will be carrying the can. This accountability serves as a form of collective protectionism – a kind of omerta – for the public service system as a whole.

Post-pandemic, Canadians are expecting that the institutions of government perform better. Right now, that is wanting. From procurement to service delivery to appointments, there are obvious institutional failures.

As voters increasingly clamour for change and accountability at the highest political levels, now is the time for the highest public service levels to adopt this same attitude as their own. Arresting the churn at the top should be at the top of that list.

Source: There’s a troubling amount of churn at the top of Canada’s public service