Cyclical staffing assessment 2021-2026

Report submitted to the Public Service Commission: April 2026

---

Executive summary

The Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) has conducted a systematic assessment of the various components of the organizational framework of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC), including sub‑delegation, monitoring and reporting requirements, to determine whether the key requirements of the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument (ADAI) from the PSC were respected and to identify strengths and areas for improvement.

The PSC examined a small sample of appointments to assess the respect of essential requirements of the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), other applicable statutes and regulations, the ADAI, the PSC’s Appointment Policy as well as the sub‑delegation instruments and organizational staffing policies, if applicable.

Conclusion

The OPC has a solid, mostly compliant staffing system, but some documentation elements need to be strengthened to ensure complete, demonstrable compliance.

Action plan

Recommendation 1 – Staffing Framework

Implemented – May 2026

Add an element that the employer or bargaining agents have been consulted with respect to organizational staffing policies upon request, or if they consider such consultations necessary or desirable (ADAI Section 1).

Current version	Proposed change
The current framework does not mention this.	Add the following element under “Responsibilities and expected results — Head of Human Resources” on page 4: Consult, if necessary, the bargaining agents according to the nature and scope of the changes envisaged, and inform them of the substantive changes made to the present Staffing Framework or to the Staffing Sub‑delegation Instrument. May 2026

Recommendation 2 – Staffing Framework

Implemented – May 2026

For clarification, all actions that offer rights of recourse could be named.

Current version	Proposed change
Page 6 – Policy on Area of Selection Area of selection requirements apply to all internal and external advertised processes and to all internal non‑advertised processes for recourse purposes. Staffing sub‑delegated persons must establish areas of selection in a manner that: provides meaningful access to recourse when using an internal non‑advertised appointment process;	Modify the text: Area of selection requirements apply to all internal and external advertised processes and to all internal advertised and non-advertised processes for recourse purposes. Staffing sub‑delegated persons must establish areas of selection in a manner that: provides meaningful access to recourse when using an internal advertised or non‑advertised appointment process;

Recommendation 3 – Staffing Framework

Implemented – May 2026

The Staffing Framework could clearly mention the areas that the deputy head must report on each year (ADAI Annex D).

Current version	Proposed change
Page 8 The staffing monitoring and reporting approach consists of two core types of assessment, that is: Cyclical assessment and reports to the PSC (at minimum every five years): a robust review of the application of appointment authorities, which provide assurance that staffing activities comply with legislative and policy requirements.	Modify the text: The staffing monitoring and reporting approach consists of two core types of assessment, that is: Reports to the PSC, as required by ADAI Annex D: organizations must report to the PSC each year.

Recommendation 4 – Tool to identify biases and barriers in assessment methods for Advertised Appointments and Non‑advertised Appointments

Implemented – February 2026

1. Highlight the consideration of priority persons before all other candidates in non‑advertised appointment files and add a note to the file explaining why this was not possible, when applicable.
2. Tools to identify biases and barriers in assessment methods must be signed by the sub‑delegated person, show when the assessment took place, include a clear explanation in the absence of identified biases or barriers, and present efforts or measures taken, when applicable.

Current version	Proposed change
N/A	Tools were modified to include the date that the assessment was completed, the name of the sub‑delegated person, etc. The consideration of priority persons is already dated. Adding the date to the tools to identify biases and barriers in assessment methods will show that priority persons were considered before all other candidates.

Mandate and priorities of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

As part of its mandate, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is responsible for monitoring the application of the Privacy Act, which addresses the practices of processing personal information used by federal departments and agencies, and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which is Canada’s federal private‑sector privacy law.

The OPC’s mission is to protect and promote privacy rights of individuals.

In 2024, Privacy Commissioner of Canada Philippe Dufresne announced three strategic priorities in support of his vision for privacy.

• Protecting and promoting privacy with maximum impact
• Addressing and advocating for privacy in this time of technological change
• Championing children’s privacy rights

Background and Methodology

It should be noted that the OPC is independent of government and reports directly to Parliament. Section 6 of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s Policy on People Management states that the Commissioner is solely responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with this policy within the organization, as well as addressing any situations of non‑compliance.

The Internal Audit Committee supports the Commissioner’s role as OPC’s Accounting Officer before Parliament and provides objective advice and recommendations in the areas of risk management, control and governance.

With regard to staffing, the Office of the Commissioner is subject to the requirements of the Appointment Policy and the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument of the Public Service Commission’s (PSC). According to ADAI section 3, deputy heads must complete, at least every five years, a cyclical assessment of compliance with the requirements set out in the Instrument, the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), other applicable statutes and regulations, PSC’s Appointment policy, as well as in organizational staffing policies and the sub‑delegation instrument. As a result, the OPC is required to submit a cyclical assessment of its staffing system to the PSC before May 1, 2026. According to the ADAI, deputy heads of smaller organizations (500 employees or less) may establish an arrangement with the PSC to do the cyclical assessment on their behalf if the organization does not have the resources to do it. It is within this context that the OPC asked the PSC to carry out this cyclical assessment on its behalf.

The approach and methodology of cyclical assessments completed by the PSC on behalf of smaller organizations are based on:

• PSC’s guidance for a cyclical staffing assessment;
• The PSC’s guidance for a rigorous assessment providing reliable, relevant results;
• A risk assessment to identify the areas and requirements that the cyclical assessment should focus on;
• An assessment of the organizational staffing framework (for example, the policies in place, the sub‑delegation instrument); and
• An examination of a sample of appointment files to verify compliance.

PSC Findings

Assessment of Organizational Staffing Framework

It was determined that the OPC’s Staffing Framework and the OPC Appointment Subdelegation and Accountability Instrument meet the ADAI requirements. However, the following clarifications could be added.

• Add an element that the employer or bargaining agents have been consulted with respect to organizational staffing policies upon request, or if they consider such consultations necessary or desirable.
• The “Monitoring and Reporting” section of the Staffing Framework could clearly mention the areas that the deputy head must report on each year, that is, those mentioned in ADAI Annex D.
• In the Policy on area of selection, which forms part of the Staffing Framework, all actions that offer rights of recourse could be named, rather than only specifying a non‑advertised internal appointment process.

Compliance assessment

The PSC examined a targeted sample of eight appointments carried out between 2020 and 2025. This examination consisted of assessing the nine core requirements.^{Footnote 1} The results indicate a high rate of overall compliance. Seven of the nine core requirements were respected. The two core requirements needing attention are:

• Assessment methods and identification of biases and barriers
  • Section 36(2) of the PSEA states that: Before using an assessment method, the Commission shall conduct an evaluation to identify whether the assessment method and the manner in which it will be applied includes or creates biases or barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to any equity‑seeking group and, if one is identified, make reasonable efforts to remove it or to mitigate its impact on those persons.
  • This requirement applies to only three appointments, all the non‑advertised appointments. The template used for the assessment does not include the date, lacks context/clarity and does not include a clear explanation for the absence of identified biases or barriers.
• Considering persons with a priority entitlement
  • For three non‑advertised appointments, since the assessment against the statement of merit criteria was not signed by the manager, the PSC was not able to confirm whether the assessment of priority persons was completed before the assessment of the person appointed.
  • For a non‑advertised appointment, priority persons were considered after the assessment of the person appointed. For increased clarity, a note could have been added to the file to explain why it was not possible to consider priority persons before the person appointed.

Response from the HR Directorate

The HR Directorate is satisfied with this positive result. Throughout the cyclical assessment process, the PSC kept HR representatives informed of the methodology used and met with them to explain the assessment. As a result, the HR Directorate agrees with the process and is confident that the findings are an accurate reflection of the strength of the OPC staffing system.

Next steps

Organizational Framework

Administrative changes were made to the Staffing Framework and the Staffing Sub‑delegation Instrument (see the executive summary action plan on page 3).

Compliance

The PSC’s two findings in terms of compliance can be addressed by the same update to the tool used to identify possible biases and barriers in the assessment method that could disadvantage persons belonging to any equity‑seeking groups, and to determine appropriate mitigation strategies.

Changes were made to the tool used during non‑advertised appointments. This new tool has been in effect since February 2026, and the OPC will consult the PSC to ensure it now meets the requirements.

It is worth noting that the tool used for advertised appointments was not reviewed in the current assessment. However, it was updated for the first time in fall 2025 to take into account the information requirements on identification of biases and barriers published by the PSC earlier in 2025. It was also improved in February 2026, following PSC’s findings during the cyclical assessment.

Presentation of results

A presentation of the findings of the current cyclical assessment will be given to the OPC Audit Committee as well as during the next labour‑management meeting. Finally, the current report will be published on the OPC’s website.

Deputy Head Attestation

In accordance with the requirements of the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument, I am submitting to the Public Service Commission the cyclical organizational assessment report completed this year.

---

Appendix A — PSC full report

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada cyclical staffing assessment report

Assessment conducted by the Public Service Commission

Report submitted to the organization:

February 2026

Executive summary

At a glance

• Framework: compliant/partially compliant
• Assessment of files: four compliant/four partially compliant

Strengths

✔ Structured, consistent staffing policies.

✔ Systemic respect of the priorities’ requirements.

✔ Fully compliant with official languages.

✔ Respect of qualification standards.

Key Risks

⚠ Insufficient documentation of the assessment of biases and barriers.

⚠ Difficulty determining whether individuals benefiting from priority entitlements were considered first.

Recommended actions

 Strengthen documentation of assessment analyses (biases/barriers).

 Ensure that the assessment’s full results are archived for each file.

 Add the consultation and reporting requirements to the framework (ADAI Appendix D).

Conclusion

The OPC has a solid, mostly compliant staffing system, but some documentation elements need to be strengthened to ensure complete, demonstrable compliance.

Next steps

Send the cyclical assessment report to the PSC by May 1, 2026.

Context

Since April 2016, in accordance with the PSC’s renewed oversight framework, deputy heads have been required to monitor and report their staffing monitoring activities, as the ADAI describes.

According to ADAI section 3, deputy heads must complete, at least every five years, a cyclical assessment of compliance with the requirements set out in the Instrument, the PSEA, other applicable statutes and regulations, PSC’s Appointment policy, as well as in organizational staffing policies and the sub‑delegation instrument.

These cyclical assessment results must be sent to the PSC within a year of the assessment, either separately or in the annual report for the PSC, as requires ADAI Annex D.

According to the ADAI, deputy heads of smaller organizations (500 employees or less) may establish an arrangement with the PSC to do the cyclical assessment on their behalf if the organization does not have the resources to do it. It is within this context that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner asked the PSC to carry out this cyclical assessment on its behalf.

The OPC presented its last cyclical assessment to the PSC on July 6, 2021. This cyclical assessment report is the OPC’s second report and must be sent to the PSC by May 1, 2026.

Methodology

The approach and methodology of cyclical assessments completed by the PSC on behalf of smaller organizations are based on PSC’s guidance for a cyclical staffing assessment, as well as on the observations and best practices for the processes of the previous cyclical assessment pilot project. This project was completed by the PSC’s Audit Directorate in 2019.

Even though there is no set approach or methodology for cyclical staffing assessments, the PSC’s guidance states that the assessment must be rigorous and provide reliable, relevant results. In addition, it must be completed with a risk assessment to identify the areas and requirements that the cyclical assessment should focus on. Finally, the assessment must include an assessment of the organizational staffing framework (for example, the policies in place, the sub‑delegation instrument) and must examine a sample of appointment files to verify compliance.

The PSC’s Staffing Oversight Reference Tool is a resource that outlines the various requirements stemming from the PSEA, other applicable statutes and regulations, the PSC’s Appointment Policy and the ADAI from the PSC to deputy heads. While the tool is not an exhaustive list of all the staffing requirements and its use is optional, it was used in the methodology framework when the OPC’s representatives were asked to inform the PSC of the sectors and staffing requirements to be covered by the cyclical assessment as well as the scope and staffing file samples to be examined.

The PSC helped OPC representatives identify risk areas, taking into account all the available, relevant information.

The PSC has conducted a systematic assessment of the various components of the OPC’s organizational framework, including sub‑delegation, monitoring and reporting requirements, to determine whether the key requirements of the PSC’s ADAI were respected and to identify strengths and areas for improvement.

Finally, the PSC examined a small sample of appointments to assess the respect of the essential requirements of the PSEA, other applicable statutes and regulations, the ADAI and the PSC’s Appointment Policy, as well as sub‑delegation instruments and organizational staffing policies, when applicable.

Organizational staffing context

On March 31, 2025, the organization had 353 employees. This data comes from the Population of the federal public service by department or agency — Canada.ca website, and it is important to note that the number of employees is for the Offices of the information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada. The organization actually has 205 employees.

Table 1 provides an overview of all of the OPC’s staffing actions since 2020.

Table 1: Staffing actions taken between the 2020-2021 and 2024-2025 fiscal years.

Fiscal year	Internal advertised appointments (IA)	Internal non‑advertised appointments (INA)	External advertised appointments (EA)	External non‑advertised appointments (ENA)	Total
2020‑2021	6	5	13	1	25
2021‑2022	22	33	36	5	96
2022‑2023	2	17	6	5	30
2023‑2024	7	47	19	3	76
2024‑2025	1	8	7	4	20
Source: Public Service Commission’s Staffing Dashboard

Assessment of Organizational Staffing Framework

Deputy heads must include the minimum requirements set out in the PSC’s ADAI in their organizational staffing framework.

The scope of the assessment includes an examination of staffing policies and related documentation required by the OPC for the period from 2020 to 2025.

Organizational staffing system–ADAI Section 1

The OPC’s deputy head implemented the organizational staffing system requirements defined in the PSC’s ADAI as follows:

• Establish a policy on area of selection for internal appointment processes that, at a minimum:
  • Provides reasonable access when advertising;
  • Provides reasonable access to recourse; and
  • Respects the lifeline provisions of employees from Veterans Affairs Canada and the National Energy Board.

Main findings:

The deputy head established a policy on area of selection that complies with the ADAI requirements above.

Main findings for point 1a:

Page 6 of the staffing framework in effect since September 2023 reads as follows:

“Staffing sub‑delegated persons must establish areas of selection in a manner that:

• provides reasonable access to advertised appointment processes (internal to OPC, external to OPC but within the Public Service and external to the Public Service) that build a Public Service that includes people from across Canada able to serve Canadians in the official language of their choice;”

Main findings for point 1b:

Page 5 of the organizational staffing framework reads as follows: “Therefore, it is important to carefully evaluate the conditions under which this choice is made and to respect the associated recourse rights.”

On page 6 of the OPC’s staffing framework, it is specified that “area of selection requirements apply to all internal and external advertised processes and to all internal non‑advertised processes for recourse purposes.”

That said, further down it states that “staffing sub‑delegated persons must establish areas of selection in a manner that: provides meaningful access to recourse when using an internal non‑advertised appointment process.”

Recommendation:

All actions that offer rights of recourse could be named, rather than only specifying a non‑advertised internal appointment process.

Main findings for point 1c:

On page 6, the organizational staffing framework states that the manager needs to make sure that the area of selection “respects the lifeline provisions of employees from Veterans Affairs Canada and the National Energy Board.”

• Establish direction, through policy, planning or other means, on the use of advertised and non‑advertised appointment processes.

Main findings

Page 4 of the OPC’s staffing framework includes a policy on the choice of the appointment process, which guides the choice between an advertised and non‑advertised appointment process to guarantee efficient, fair staffing that is adapted to organizational needs. It emphasizes making rational decisions, taking into account resources, internal talents and principles of inclusion.

• Establish requirement(s) for sub‑delegated persons to articulate, in writing, their selection decision.

Main findings

Page 7 of the OPC’s staffing framework includes a policy on the articulation of selection decision, which states that “the articulation of the selection decision must be written and should include at a minimum” the following elements:

• Ensure that the employer or bargaining agents have been consulted with respect to organizational staffing policies upon request, or if they consider such consultations necessary or desirable.

Main findings

The staffing framework makes no mention of this; however, it may be that the OPC does not consider it necessary or desirable to do so.

Recommendation:

This could be added if needed.

• Ensure the review of their appointment or appointment‑related employment systems, policies and practices, where underrepresentation has been identified, to determine whether they present any biases or barriers to persons who are members of the designated groups as defined in section 3 of the Employment Equity Act and, if so, make reasonable efforts to eliminate them or to mitigate their impact on such persons.

Main findings

The OPC sets out its staffing monitoring and reporting approach on page 8 of its staffing framework. These apply to all staffing actions and, among other things, “ensure the review of the OPC’s appointment or appointment‑related employment systems, policies and practices, where underrepresentation has been identified, to determine whether they present any biases or barriers to persons who are members of the designated groups as defined in section 3 of the Employment Equity Act and, if so, make reasonable efforts to eliminate them or to mitigate their impact on such persons.”

Sub‑delegation–ADAI Section 2

For the purposes of sub‑delegating appointment powers and related powers, OPC’s deputy head implemented all of the ADAI sub‑delegation requirements, as described below:

• Identify and document the appointment and appointment‑related authorities being sub‑delegated and to whom those authorities are being sub‑delegated.

Main findings

The Staffing Sub‑delegation Instrument that has been in effect since July 2024 accurately sets out the staffing powers and the level of sub‑delegation required to carry out the process and/or make appointments based on the following levels:

“LEVEL OF SUB‑DELEGATION BY THE DH
LEVEL 1
Sector Head
LEVEL 2
Executive or equivalent
LEVEL 3
All incumbents with supervisory role reporting to Level 2, 1 or the DH
FUNCTIONAL—HR (F)
Human Resources professional
Note: As a functional head of staffing, the Departmental Head of HR who is designated by the Deputy Head may exercise all staffing authorities for all levels across the OPC, except those maintain specifically at the deputy head level.”

• Establish training pre‑requisites for sub‑delegation, which must include training on unconscious bias.

Main findings

On the first page, the Staffing Sub‑delegation Instrument sets out the sub‑delegation prerequisites, that is:

“All levels, except level “Functional—HR”: Prior to being sub‑delegated staffing authorities at the OPC a person must meet the follow prerequisites:

A. To conduct a process (refer to definition on page 5)
— Have successfully completed the course COR120 — Inclusive Hiring Practices for a Diverse Workforce offered by the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS).
— Have completed the in‑house staffing orientation training.
— Have signed the sub‑delegated letter/attestation form.

B. To appoint (refer to definition on page 5)
— Have successfully completed the course COR120 — Inclusive Hiring Practices for a Diverse Workforce offered by the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS).
— Have successfully completed the course COR132 — Staffing: A Resourcing Tool for Managers offered by the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS) or an equivalent training.
— Have completed the in‑house staffing orientation training.
— Have signed the sub‑delegated letter/attestation form.”

• Prior to sub‑delegating, ensure that persons being sub‑delegated:
  
  1. Have completed the training requirements; and
  2. Have signed an attestation form that, at a minimum, includes the requirements found in Annex C and the following clause:

“I will ensure the assessment is inclusive and conducted in a manner that is supportive of an individual’s right to accommodation, where reasonable efforts have been made to remove biases or barriers, or mitigate their impact.”

Main findings for point 3a:

The letter to sub‑delegated managers sets out the following:

“This sub‑delegation must be exercised in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) Staffing Sub‑delegation Instrument. Any breach of the terms of this agreement might result in withdrawal, restriction or additional condition to the sub‑delegated authorities, including disciplinary and performance actions depending on the nature of the misuse or abuse of authority.”

Main findings for point 3b:

The letter to sub‑delegated managers clearly sets out the requirements in Annex C and the following clause:

“I will ensure the assessment is inclusive and conducted in a manner that is supportive of an individual’s right to accommodation, where reasonable efforts have been made to remove biases or barriers, or mitigate their impact.”

• Provide, in writing, to persons being sub‑delegated, the terms and conditions of sub‑delegation and the appointment and appointment‑related authorities being sub‑delegated:

Main findings

The letter to sub‑delegated managers refers to terms and conditions of the OPC Staffing Sub‑delegation Instrument.

• Ensure that sub‑delegated persons are provided with the information and human resources advice and services they require to exercise their sub‑delegated authorities.

Main findings

The terms and conditions of sub‑delegation in the Staffing Sub‑delegation Instrument read as follows:

“Terms and Conditions of Sub‑delegation

• The SDPs are expected to exercise staffing authorities that have been sub‑delegated to their level as identified in the Instrument within their own area of responsibility and with respect to employees or positions reporting to them (unless otherwise stipulated in this Instrument) and in consultation with the Human Resources Representative (HRR) who provides advice and guidance.”

Monitoring and reporting–ADAI Section 3

The OPC’s deputy head implemented all the monitoring and reporting requirements defined in the ADAI as follows:

As per the ADAI, deputy heads must:

1. As a component of the on‑going monitoring of their staffing system, assess on a cyclical basis, adherence to the requirements established in this delegation instrument, the PSEA, other applicable statutes and regulations, the PSC’s Appointment Policy, as well as organizational staffing policies and the sub‑delegation instrument.

Main findings

The organizational staffing framework includes the following staffing monitoring and reporting approach on page 8:

“It provides a consistent means to monitor and analyze performance in staffing. It serves to:

• Ensures the overall health and integrity of the OPC staffing regime;
• Ensures the adheres to requirements stated in the PSC Appointment Policy and the ADAI;
• ensure the review of the OPC’s appointment or appointment‑related employment systems, policies and practices, where underrepresentation has been identified, to determine whether they present any biases or barriers to persons who are members of the designated groups as defined in section 3 of the Employment Equity Act and, if so, make reasonable efforts to eliminate them or to mitigate their impact on such persons.

The staffing monitoring and reporting approach consists of two core types of assessment, that is:

• Ongoing monitoring and internal reporting: organizations observe, track and record information on staffing‑related activities (may include effectiveness and efficiency reviews, time to staff, internal data analysis, staffing trends, hiring demographics, etc.);
• Cyclical assessment and reports to the PSC (at minimum every five years): a robust review of application of appointment authorities, which provide assurance that staffing activities comply with legislative and policy requirements.”

2. Ensure that appropriate remedial action is taken to address any deficiencies.

Main findings

The organizational staffing framework includes consequences for non‑compliance on page 9:

“The Commissioner may withdraw, restrict or impose additional conditions of sub‑delegation to sub‑delegated persons, including imposing disciplinary or administrative actions where sub‑delegated persons take action contrary to or create a potential risk of non‑compliance with human resources legislations, regulations, policies, collective agreements, terms and conditions of employment, this framework or other applicable requirements.”

3. Report to the PSC on areas identified in ADAI Annex D:

Main findings

The staffing monitoring and reporting approach does not explicitly mention ADAI Annex D. However, it is possible that this sentence on page 8 of the organizational staffing framework could be added to indirectly reference it:

“Cyclical assessment and reports to the PSC (at minimum every five years): a robust review of application of appointment authorities, which provide assurance that staffing activities comply with legislative and policy requirements.”

Recommendation:

The staffing framework could clearly mention the areas that the deputy head must report on each year, that is those mentioned in ADAI Annex D.

Compliance assessment

For the compliance assessment, while departments and agencies are responsible for respecting all the legislative and strategic requirements, deputy heads can determine the extent of the requirements to assess in their cyclical assessment.

As a starting point, some core requirements can be assessed to ensure the integrity of the staffing system, for example:

1. Assessment methods/Identification of biases and barriers
2. Application of a national area of selection for all external advertised appointment processes (applicable exceptions)
3. Considering persons with a priority entitlement
4. Official languages obligations
5. Qualification Standards
6. Merit‑based staffing
7. Preference given to veterans, Canadian citizens and permanent residents
8. Attestation form
9. Oath or solemn affirmation

Based on the context and risk assessment, and in consultation with the PSC, the organization can adapt the choice of requirements reviewed during the cyclical assessment.

For the OPC, the organization determined that the continuous monitoring activities are a risk for compliance due to the fact that there is only one full‑time staffing advisor, who is also responsible for creating and applying staffing policies, as well as ensuring respect of various staffing requirements.

This organization brought up the lack of documentation to demonstrate their improvements, the way in which they address issues. When gaps are identified, they are resolved without formal documentation. The lack of documentation could pose a risk, for example, if a member of the staffing team leaves.

The organization also highlighted concerns about the use and accessibility of OPC data. First, the data has often been amalgamated with that of the Information Commissioner of Canada and in the past, the data from the Staffing and Non‑Partisanship Survey, Staffing Dashboard, etc., has not necessarily been analyzed in depth. Fortunately, their new 2025‑2030 Integrated HR Plan includes actions to address this gap and continue with more systematic analyses.

Scope and sampling

Based on discussions with the OPC about risks related to staffing and the assessment of the organizational staffing system described in the previous sections of this report, the PSC examined a sample of eight appointments completed between 2020 and 2025 to assess the respect of legislative and policy requirements:

• Two external non‑advertised processes;
• Two internal non‑advertised processes;
• Two external advertised processes;
• Two internal advertised processes.

A proportional number of appointments stemming from a non‑advertised process were included in the sample so that the concerns about these types of appointments could be properly assessed during the review of the files.

Refer to Annex A to see a list of core requirement examined as part of this cyclical assessment.

Compliance results

Assessment methods/Identification of biases and barriers

PSC expectations:

Before using an assessment method, complete an assessment to establish if there are biases or barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to any equity‑seeking group. If the assessment allows biases and barriers to be identified, reasonable efforts must be made to eliminate or mitigate their impacts on these persons.

Ensuring the assessment is inclusive and conducted in a manner that is supportive of an individual’s right to accommodation, where reasonable efforts have been made to remove biases or barriers, or mitigate their impact.

Findings:

Only three out of eight files allowed the assessment of compliance with this element, given the type of action and the actual dates of assessments. In one of these three files, certain boxes of the assessment form were not checked, suggesting that the assessment was not fully completed.

In two of the three files, even though the check list was completed, the method used to complete the assessment does not show if biases or barriers were identified or when the assessment took place.

Finally, none of the three files clearly explained the absence of identified biases or barriers. Since the sub‑delegated manager did not sign the assessment (and the mitigation strategies, if applicable), we cannot confirm whether it respects subsection 36(2) of the PSEA.

Area of selection

PSC expectations:

According to the PSC’s Appointment Policy, the deputy heads must define a national area of selection for external advertised appointment processes, except in cases set out in Annex A of the Appointment Policy.

Findings:

This requirement was respected in both files that it applied to.

Considering persons with a priority entitlement

PSC expectations:

The PSEA and the Public Service Employment Regulations (PSER) entitles certain people who meet specific conditions to be appointed in priority to others. According to the PSC’s Appointment Policy, the deputy heads must assess persons with a priority entitlement and must respect the requirements to administer priority entitlements as set out in the Priority Administration Directive, including obtaining priority authorization before initiating an appointment process.

Section 8.2.i of the Priority Administration Directive states that organizations must “assess persons with a priority entitlement before considering other persons for all indeterminate and specified term appointments.” This requirement strengthens the Appointment Policy’s expectation that individuals benefiting from priority entitlements must be considered first. However, in some situations, this requirement can be difficult to apply, for example, for the non‑advertised appointment process and during subsequent advertised appointments completed using an already established pool.

Findings:

This requirement was respected in two of the assessed files. This requirement could not be applied as part of the subsequent advertised appointment processes completed using an already established pool (two files). For the three non‑advertised appointments, since the assessment against the statement of merit criteria was not signed by the manager, it is difficult to confirm this information. In one of the files, priority persons were considered after the assessments of the candidate.

Official languages obligations

PSC expectations:

According to the PSC’s Appointment Policy, deputy heads must respect official languages obligations throughout the appointment process, such as providing complete and accurate information concerning the appointment process in both official languages. This requirement also reinforces the commitment set out in the Official Languages Act to ensure that the Government of Canada provides English‑ and French‑speaking Canadians with equal employment and advancement opportunities in federal institutions.

Findings:

Official languages obligations for each applicable step of the file are as follows:

• Priority clearance requests
• Job postings (for advertised appointment processes)
• Assessment tools (for advertised appointment processes)
• Notifications (for internal appointment processes)

These were all respected in the relevant files.

Qualification Standards

PSC expectations:

Under the PSEA, the Treasury Board of Canada, as employer of the public service, is in charge of setting qualification standards, including for training, professional certification or other qualifications it considers necessary or desirable, based on the nature of the work to be done. Managers who received sub‑delegated staffing authorities must ensure that the applicable qualification standards are respected or exceeded when establishing the credentials required for the position to be filled.

Findings:

This requirement was respected in all of the assessed files.

Merit‑based staffing

PSC expectations:

The PSEA states that all internal and external appointments to the public service must be based on merit. Section 30 (2) of the Act sets out the elements to be considered in determining merit, which include essential qualifications for the work to be performed and, if applicable, any additional qualifications, operational requirements and/or organizational needs identified by the deputy head.

According to Annex B of the PSC’s Appointment Policy, deputy heads must ensure that information about the appointment, including the assessment and results for all candidates, is accessible online or through other means for a minimum period of five years. Finally, authorization must be received from the PSC before using psychological tests of intelligence, personality, integrity and aptitude and tests of mental health.

Findings:

1. For all the appointments assessed, the person appointed had all the essential qualifications.
2. For all of the appointments assessed in which the qualifications considered an asset, and/or operational requirement, and/or operational need were applied, the appointed person met them.

Preference given to veterans, Canadian citizens and permanent residents

PSC expectations:

According to subsection 39(1) of the PSEA, in an external advertised appointment process, any of the following who meet the essential qualifications must be appointed ahead of other candidates, in the following order: a person who is in receipt of a pension by reason of war service, a veteran, a survivor of a veteran and a Canadian citizen, within the meaning of the Citizenship Act, and a permanent resident, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, in any case where a person who is not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident is also a candidate.

Findings:

For all examined external advertised appointments, the order of preference was respected.

When appointing

PSC expectations:

According to the ADAI, sub‑delegated persons must sign the attestation form before offering the appointment. The attestation form must also include a reference to ensure the assessment is inclusive and conducted in a manner that is supportive of an individual’s right to accommodation, where reasonable efforts have been made to remove biases or barriers, or mitigate their impact.

Furthermore, for an appointment from outside the Public Service, the oath or solemn affirmation is taken and subscribed to by the person appointed on or before the date the appointment took effect.

Findings:

1. For every appointment examined, the person who made the offer of appointment had signed the attestation form prior to making the offer.
2. Of the eight appointment processes examined, two required the appointed person to take and sign the oath or solemn affirmation, which, in these cases, was done before or no later than the date on which the appointment took effect.

Overview of Compliance Results

Table 2 summarizes the results of our examination of the appointments. According to the information provided to the PSC about compliance with staffing requirements:

3. Four appointments were compliant
4. Three appointments were partially compliant with the assessment of assessment methods and identification of biases and barriers
5. Four appointments were partially compliant with considering priority persons

Table 2: Compliance rates by requirement

Core requirements	File 1	File 2	File 3	File 4	File 5	File 6	File 7	File 8
Assessment methods and identification of biases and barriers	Partially met	N/A	N/A	N/A	Partially met	N/A	Partially met	N/A
National area of selection (exceptions apply)	N/A	Compliant	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	Compliant
Considering persons with a priority entitlement	Impossible to conclude	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Impossible to conclude	Partially met	Impossible to conclude	Compliant
Official languages obligations	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant
Qualification Standards	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant
Merit: Essential qualifications/education/official languages	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant
Merit: Asset qualifications/operational requirements/organizational needs	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant
Preference given to veterans, Canadian citizens and permanent residents	N/A	Compliant	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	Compliant
Oath or solemn affirmation	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	Compliant	N/A	Compliant	N/A
Attestation form	N/A	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant

Conclusion and areas for improvement

• For appointment files 2, 3 and 4, there are no improvements to note.
• For appointment file 1, the assessment of assessment methods and the identification of biases and barriers could have been more detailed to demonstrate whether corrective actions were taken and, when applicable, how they were implemented.
  Also, the assessment against the statement of merit criteria must be signed by the manager to demonstrate whether individuals benefiting from priority entitlements were considered first.
• For appointment file 5, the assessment of assessment methods and the identification of biases and barriers could have been more detailed to demonstrate whether corrective actions were taken and, when applicable, how they were implemented.
  Also, the assessment against the statement of merit criteria must be signed by the manager to demonstrate whether individuals benefiting from priority entitlements were considered first.
• For appointment file 7, the assessment of assessment methods and the identification of biases and barriers could have been more detailed to demonstrate whether corrective actions must be taken and, when applicable, how they were implemented.
  Also, the assessment against the statement of merit criteria must be signed by the manager to demonstrate whether individuals benefiting from priority entitlements were considered first.
• For file 6, an explanation must be added to demonstrate why individuals benefiting from priority entitlements were not considered first.

Annex A: Next Steps for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner

Corrective action recommended

For the appointment framework

For the cyclical staffing assessment, the OPC is encouraged to integrate a provision specifying that the employer or bargaining agents will be consulted when required by PSC policies or when they considered it necessary or desirable. Although there is no indication that this consultation was necessary in the current context, the absence of any mention of it in the organizational documents creates uncertainty. Adding this would formalize the approach, ensure greater transparency and demonstrate that the organization is mindful of these consultation obligations, when they apply.

For the monitoring and reporting requirements defined in the ADAI, the staffing framework could clearly mention the points that the deputy head must report on, that is, those mentioned in ADAI Annex D.

For the staffing files

To respect the Appointment Policy’s expectation that individuals benefiting from priority entitlements must be considered first, the OPC must make sure to document these files, either by signing the assessment against the merit criteria for non‑advertised appointment processes or by adding a note to the file for advertised appointments.

Finally, the organization must implement a process that is more structured and better documented to analyze the assessment methods to determine whether there are biases and barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to any equity‑seeking group. The current assessment of tools could be more detailed to demonstrate whether, and how, reasonable efforts have been made to eliminate biases and barriers or mitigate the effects on these people. Such an approach would contribute to strengthening the equity, inclusion and accessibility of the selection process, while clearly demonstrating compliance with ADAI requirements.

Presentation of the cyclical assessment report to the PSC between now and May 1, 2026.

Departments or agencies must send the PSC the results of the cyclical staffing assessment compared to the requirements selected during the year the assessment took place, either separately or in the annual report for the PSC, as required by ADAI Annex D.

---

Annex B: Organizational staffing system — List of requirements assessed for compliance

Organizational staffing system–ADAI Section 1

• Establish a policy on area of selection for internal appointment processes that, at a minimum:
  • Provides reasonable access when advertising;
  • Provides reasonable access to recourse; and
  • Respects the lifeline provisions of employees from Veterans Affairs Canada and the National Energy Board.
• Establish direction, through policy, planning or other means, on the use of advertised and non‑advertised appointment processes.
• Establish requirements for sub‑delegated persons to articulate, in writing, the selection decision.
• Ensure that the employer or bargaining agents have been consulted with respect to organizational staffing policies upon request, or if they consider such consultations necessary or desirable.
• Ensure the review of their appointment or appointment‑related employment systems, policies and practices, where underrepresentation has been identified, to determine whether they present any biases or barriers to persons who are members of the designated groups as defined in section 3 of the Employment Equity Act and, if so, make reasonable efforts to eliminate them or to mitigate their impact on such persons.

Sub‑delegation–ADAI Section 2

• Identify and document the appointment and appointment‑related authorities being sub‑delegated and to whom those authorities are being sub‑delegated.
• Establish training pre‑requisites for sub‑delegation, which must include training on unconscious bias.
• Prior to sub‑delegating, ensure that persons being sub‑delegated:
  • Have completed the training requirements; and
  • Have signed an attestation form that includes, at least, the requirements in Annex C and the following clause:
    
    “I will ensure the assessment is inclusive and conducted in a manner that is supportive of an individual’s right to accommodation, where reasonable efforts have been made to remove biases or barriers, or mitigate their impact.”
• Provide, in writing, to persons being sub‑delegated, the terms and conditions of sub‑delegation and the appointment and appointment‑related authorities being sub‑delegated:
• Ensure that sub‑delegated persons are provided with the information and human resources advice and services they require to exercise their sub‑delegated authorities.

Monitoring and reporting–ADAI Section 3

1. As a component of the on‑going monitoring of their staffing system, assess on a cyclical basis, adherence to the requirements established in this delegation instrument, the PSEA, other applicable statutes and regulations, the PSC’s Appointment Policy, as well as organizational staffing policies and the sub‑delegation instrument.
2. Ensure that appropriate remedial action is taken to address any deficiencies.
3. Report to the PSC on areas identified in Annex D.

---

Annex C: File examination — List of requirements assessed for compliance

Assessment methods/Identification of biases and barriers	References
An evaluation was done to: Identify whether the assessment method and the manner in which it was applied included or created biases or barriers likely to disadvantage persons belonging to an equity‑seeking group; and Whether there were reasonable efforts to remove it or mitigate its impact on these persons.	PSEA para. 36 (2) Appointment Policy, Annex B (5), (Information requirement) ADAI s. 2.2, s. 2.3, Annex C — Attestation form

Area of selection	References
Application of a national area of selection for an external advertised appointment process (applicable exceptions).	Appointment Policy s. 6, Annex A3 PSEA para. 34 (1), 35 (1), s. 44, 45, para. 50 (4)

Considering persons with a priority entitlement	References
The organization obtained a number of priority clearances from the PSC for this appointment (if required).	PSEA s. 38, para. 39,1, s. 40, para. 41 (1), 43 PSEA para. 4 (1) — (10) Appointment Policy s. 2, Annex B2 ADAI, Annex A (C) Priority Administration Directive s. 8.2, 8.2.6, 8.2.7
If section 43 of the PSEA was invoked for the non‑application of priority entitlements, evidence supporting the reason was in the file.	PSEA s. 43
There were no differences between the requirements used in the request for priority clearance and those used to make the appointment given that differences might prevent persons with priority entitlements from being considered. Particular attention must be paid according to: Appointment process type Tenure, location, group and level Essential qualifications Conditions related to the appointment and employment	Appointment Policy s. 2 Priority Administration Directive s. 8.2.4, 8.2.6
Interested persons with a priority entitlement identified by the Public Service Commission or who self‑refer are assessed before assessing other persons.	Appointment Policy s. 1 Priority Administration Directive s. 8.2.4

Official languages obligations	References
There were no differences between the French and English versions of the following that could have had an impact on persons eligible to apply/participate in the appointment process or its outcome: Priority clearance request (essential qualifications & conditions of employment) Announcement/posting Merit Criteria Assessed Assessment tools Notifications or Notice of acting appointment	Appointment Policy s. 5 (Official language) OLA, para. 39 (1), s. (2), (3)

Qualification Standards	References
The education requirement (essential qualification) meets or exceeds the applicable Treasury Board Secretariat qualification standard established by the employer.	Appointment Policy s. 15, Annex B1.6 Qualification standards for employment in the core public administration PSEA para. 31 (1) (2), s. 32

Merit‑based staffing	References
The person appointed meets the greater of the required education/occupational certification or the applicable qualification standard (essential qualification). The Canadian equivalent was obtained if applicable.	Appointment Policy s. 15, Annex B1.6 Qualification standards for employment in the core public administration PSEA para. 30 (1) (2) (3)
The person appointed, including those appointed with a priority entitlement, meets all other established essential qualifications (merit criteria) including the official language proficiency.	Appointment Policy s. 15, Annex B1.6 PSEA para. 30 (1) (2), 31 (1) (2), s. 36, 38 Exceptions: PSEA s. 14, 15, 16 Directive on Official Languages for People Management Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order Public Service Official Languages Appointment Regulations
The person appointed meets the asset qualifications, operational requirements and/or organizational needs applied in the appointment decision.	Appointment Policy s. 15, Annex B1.6 PSEA para. 30 (1) (2) (3)
Public Service Commission approval is received prior to using psychological tests of intelligence, personality, integrity and aptitude tests, and tests of mental health (if applicable).	Appointment Policy s. 9 Public Service Commission approval of psychological tests

Preference given to veterans, Canadian citizens and permanent residents	References
For an advertised external appointment process, the order of preference is respected.	PSEA para. 39 (1), s. 40, 41

When appointing	References
For an appointment from outside the Public Service, the oath or solemn affirmation is taken and subscribed to by the person appointed on or before the date the appointment took effect.	PSEA s. 54, 55, 134 ADAI, Annex C Appointment Policy s. 15, Annex B11
The offer of appointment is made in writing by a delegated or sub‑delegated person at the latest by the date on the offer of appointment and who signed an attestation form that, at minimum, includes the requirements found in ADAI Annex C.	Appointment Policy s. 17, Annex B12, ADAI s. 2.2, s. 2.3, Annex C — Attestation form