Changes

This step is functionally the most important because any error or bias in how the future work is defined will flow through the entire 14‑step process and cannot be fully corrected later. This requires heightened diligence now: use current evidence, apply equity and accessibility checks, and verify language requirements, because downstream stages (scope, pool formation, assessment, and selection) rely on the quality of Step 1.

This step is functionally the most important because any error or bias in how the future work is defined will flow through the entire 14‑step process and cannot be fully corrected later. This requires heightened diligence now: use current evidence, apply equity and accessibility checks, and verify language requirements, because downstream stages (scope, pool formation, assessment, and selection) rely on the quality of Step 1.

* '''The lag between Census data and current workforce reality. Official Workforce Availability (WFA) benchmarks are derived from national Census data, which is only collected every five years and published with significant delays. For rapidly changing demographic groups, such as members of visible minorities, these benchmarks often fail to capture the actual growth of qualified people in the current labor market.''' Expanded guidance: Availability estimates can be materially outdated relative to present labour market conditions. When planning against only historical WFA, there is a risk of concluding that representation is adequate when the external labour market has evolved. In fast‑growing groups, this gap can be substantial and may misinform decisions about where reductions occur.  If the organization relies solely on this lagging data during its initial analysis, it risks a state where the department looks representative on paper even though it is falling behind real‑world market realities. This creates a situation where reductions appear to meet Employment Equity goals but actually entrench underrepresentation relative to the current talent pool. Managers must document the Census year used and the time gap between that data and the current workforce numbers to ensure the analysis is grounded in reality.  Implementation detail: Always record the specific Census year and publication date alongside the current date and any more recent labour market indicators consulted (for example, Labour Force Survey). Include a brief note on how data lag may affect interpretation to ensure clarity for reviewers.

==== '''The lag between Census data and current workforce reality''' ====

* '''Applying growth‑adjusted benchmarks for accurate modeling. To address the data lag, managers should not rely exclusively on the official WFA numbers for their internal planning. Instead, they should apply a more accurate threshold using the following formula: Adjusted\ Availability = Official\ WFA + (Recent\ LFS\ proportion - Census\ proportion). This incorporates the most recent Labour Force Survey (LFS) trends to find a more realistic representation threshold.''' Expanded guidance: Calculating an adjusted availability aligns planning with more current labour market conditions while still acknowledging the official benchmark. The adjustment should be calculated transparently, with data sources, dates, and calculations documented and retained.  By calculating an "Attainment Ratio" (Internal\ Representation \div Adjusted\ Availability), the department can identify if a unit is at risk of creating a new representation gap. If the ratio is above 1.0 against the old Census but below 1.0 against the adjusted benchmark, the organization should document this representation risk in the Step 1 Decision Record before proceeding with any layoffs. This ensures that the department does not accidentally reduce its workforce below the actual availability of the Canadian labor market.  Implementation detail: Include attainment ratios both against the official WFA and against the adjusted availability. Where ratios disagree, note the variance and the potential equity impact, and consider mitigations (for example, scope choices, assessing organizational needs, or sequencing reductions).

Official Workforce Availability (WFA) benchmarks are derived from national Census data, which is only collected every five years and published with significant delays. For rapidly changing demographic groups, such as members of visible minorities, these benchmarks often fail to capture the actual growth of qualified people in the current labor market.  Expanded guidance: Availability estimates can be materially outdated relative to present labour market conditions. When planning against only historical WFA, there is a risk of concluding that representation is adequate when the external labour market has evolved. In fast‑growing groups, this gap can be substantial and may misinform decisions about where reductions occur.  If the organization relies solely on this lagging data during its initial analysis, it risks a state where the department looks representative on paper even though it is falling behind real‑world market realities. This creates a situation where reductions appear to meet Employment Equity goals but actually entrench underrepresentation relative to the current talent pool. Managers must document the Census year used and the time gap between that data and the current workforce numbers to ensure the analysis is grounded in reality.  Implementation detail: Always record the specific Census year and publication date alongside the current date and any more recent labour market indicators consulted (for example, Labour Force Survey). Include a brief note on how data lag may affect interpretation to ensure clarity for reviewers.

* '''Requirements based on historical access to high‑profile assignments. When defining the Future State, there is a risk of defining required work around "prestige" assignments or high‑profile experience that has not been equally accessible to all employees. If future skills are based on factors like "acting at senior levels" or "executive briefing exposure," the process will naturally favor those who were historically given those opportunities through informal networks and sponsorship.'''  Expanded guidance: Requirements should be expressed in terms of what the job needs done, not the prestige of past opportunities. Screening for phrases that signal access rather than ability (for example, “central agency exposure”) helps avoid embedding historical privilege.  Employment Equity groups often face systemic barriers to these specific types of high‑visibility roles. To ensure fairness, every continuing function must be justified by its actual operational necessity rather than its historical prestige. Managers should replace these historical access requirements with clear, competency‑based descriptions of the tasks, ensuring that merit is based on the ability to do the work rather than having had a specific "seat at the table."  Implementation detail: For each essential qualification, include a plain description of the linked duty and the observable behaviour that evidences competence (for example, “prepares clear briefings for senior audiences” rather than “has briefed executives”).

 

* '''The concentration of diversity in urban work centers. Restructuring often involves moving work from regional offices to urban centers. Diversity levels are not spread evenly across the country; for instance, representation for members of visible minorities is often significantly higher in major cities compared to rural regions.''' Expanded guidance: Location choices materially affect representation. Consolidating to or from urban centres should be modelled for demographic impact, so decision makers can see the representation consequences of each option.  If the Future State involves closing an urban office without modeling the demographic impact, the organization may unintentionally eliminate a large portion of its diverse workforce. A "Geographic Representation Snapshot" must be completed to ensure that consolidation does not create a "diversity desert" and that the department maintains its commitment to a workforce that reflects the Canadian population it serves.  Implementation detail: The snapshot should show current representation by site, projected representation after proposed changes, and differences from departmental baselines and adjusted availability. Summarize findings in the Step 1 Decision Record and note mitigation steps where risks are identified.

==== '''Applying growth‑adjusted benchmarks for accurate modeling.''' ====

* '''Linguistic requirements and the risk of rising language profiles. Official language requirements must be set objectively based on the actual functions of the position, as required by the Official Languages Act. There is a risk that language profiles are raised (for example, from Level B to Level C) as a hidden tool to reduce the number of people who can qualify for the retention pool.''' Expanded guidance: Language profiles must be justified by the nature of work, such as direct service to the public, supervision, or internal service delivery in both official languages. Any proposed profile changes should reference concrete duties that require that level.  Raising language requirements without a proven operational need acts as a structural filter that pushes out high‑performing employees who may not have been given equal access to language training. The Official Languages unit must provide written confirmation that any profile changes are justified by the work, ensuring language is used for service delivery and not as a shortcut for headcount management.  Implementation detail: Attach the Official Languages written confirmation to the Step 1 file. Ensure the rationale is specific (for example, “regular, direct service to the public in both official languages at advanced complexity requires Level C reading/writing/oral”).

To address the data lag, managers should not rely exclusively on the official WFA numbers for their internal planning. Instead, they should apply a more accurate threshold using the following formula: Adjusted\ Availability = Official\ WFA + (Recent\ LFS\ proportion - Census\ proportion). This incorporates the most recent Labour Force Survey (LFS) trends to find a more realistic representation threshold.  Expanded guidance: Calculating an adjusted availability aligns planning with more current labour market conditions while still acknowledging the official benchmark. The adjustment should be calculated transparently, with data sources, dates, and calculations documented and retained.  By calculating an "Attainment Ratio" (Internal\ Representation \div Adjusted\ Availability), the department can identify if a unit is at risk of creating a new representation gap. If the ratio is above 1.0 against the old Census but below 1.0 against the adjusted benchmark, the organization should document this representation risk in the Step 1 Decision Record before proceeding with any layoffs. This ensures that the department does not accidentally reduce its workforce below the actual availability of the Canadian labor market.  Implementation detail: Include attainment ratios both against the official WFA and against the adjusted availability. Where ratios disagree, note the variance and the potential equity impact, and consider mitigations (for example, scope choices, assessing organizational needs, or sequencing reductions).

* '''Performing a prediction of future representation rates. Before any positions are eliminated, the department should perform a review to predict the representation rates of the retained group. The formula used is: Projected\ Representation = (Current\ EE\ employees - Proposed\ reductions) \div Future\ total\ positions.''' Expanded guidance: This projection should be prepared for each affected unit and for the aggregate affected part. Assumptions should be stated (for example, which positions are proposed for elimination and the demographic composition of those positions).  This projection allows the organization to see the "diversity outcome" of their business decisions before they are finalized. Where the projection falls below adjusted availability or departmental baselines, the manager must document why the reduction will not deepen existing gaps. This ensures structural awareness and prevents the unintentional erosion of progress in Employment Equity.  Implementation detail: If projections fall below adjusted availability or internal baselines, record the specific risk, the business constraint, and any mitigations (for example, reconsider scope, revisit essential qualifications to ensure fidelity to duties, or set an organizational need in Step 7 where appropriate and lawful).

 

==== '''Requirements based on historical access to high‑profile assignments.''' ====

When defining the Future State, there is a risk of defining required work around "prestige" assignments or high‑profile experience that has not been equally accessible to all employees. If future skills are based on factors like "acting at senior levels" or "executive briefing exposure," the process will naturally favor those who were historically given those opportunities through informal networks and sponsorshi'''p.'''  Expanded guidance: Requirements should be expressed in terms of what the job needs done, not the prestige of past opportunities. Screening for phrases that signal access rather than ability (for example, “central agency exposure”) helps avoid embedding historical privilege.  Employment Equity groups often face systemic barriers to these specific types of high‑visibility roles. To ensure fairness, every continuing function must be justified by its actual operational necessity rather than its historical prestige. Managers should replace these historical access requirements with clear, competency‑based descriptions of the tasks, ensuring that merit is based on the ability to do the work rather than having had a specific "seat at the table."  Implementation detail: For each essential qualification, include a plain description of the linked duty and the observable behaviour that evidences competence (for example, “prepares clear briefings for senior audiences” rather than “has briefed executives”).

 

==== '''The concentration of diversity in urban work centers.''' ====

Restructuring often involves moving work from regional offices to urban centers. Diversity levels are not spread evenly across the country; for instance, representation for members of visible minorities is often significantly higher in major cities compared to rural regions.  Expanded guidance: Location choices materially affect representation. Consolidating to or from urban centres should be modelled for demographic impact, so decision makers can see the representation consequences of each option.  If the Future State involves closing an urban office without modeling the demographic impact, the organization may unintentionally eliminate a large portion of its diverse workforce. A "Geographic Representation Snapshot" must be completed to ensure that consolidation does not create a "diversity desert" and that the department maintains its commitment to a workforce that reflects the Canadian population it serves.  Implementation detail: The snapshot should show current representation by site, projected representation after proposed changes, and differences from departmental baselines and adjusted availability. Summarize findings in the Step 1 Decision Record and note mitigation steps where risks are identified.

 

==== '''Linguistic requirements and the risk of rising language profiles.''' ====

Official language requirements must be set objectively based on the actual functions of the position, as required by the Official Languages Act. There is a risk that language profiles are raised (for example, from Level B to Level C) as a hidden tool to reduce the number of people who can qualify for the retention pool.  Expanded guidance: Language profiles must be justified by the nature of work, such as direct service to the public, supervision, or internal service delivery in both official languages. Any proposed profile changes should reference concrete duties that require that level.  Raising language requirements without a proven operational need acts as a structural filter that pushes out high‑performing employees who may not have been given equal access to language training. The Official Languages unit must provide written confirmation that any profile changes are justified by the work, ensuring language is used for service delivery and not as a shortcut for headcount management.  Implementation detail: Attach the Official Languages written confirmation to the Step 1 file. Ensure the rationale is specific (for example, “regular, direct service to the public in both official languages at advanced complexity requires Level C reading/writing/oral”).

 

==== '''Performing a prediction of future representation rates.''' ====

Before any positions are eliminated, the department should perform a review to predict the representation rates of the retained group. The formula used is: Projected\ Representation = (Current\ EE\ employees - Proposed\ reductions) \div Future\ total\ positions.  Expanded guidance: This projection should be prepared for each affected unit and for the aggregate affected part. Assumptions should be stated (for example, which positions are proposed for elimination and the demographic composition of those positions).  This projection allows the organization to see the "diversity outcome" of their business decisions before they are finalized. Where the projection falls below adjusted availability or departmental baselines, the manager must document why the reduction will not deepen existing gaps. This ensures structural awareness and prevents the unintentional erosion of progress in Employment Equity.  Implementation detail: If projections fall below adjusted availability or internal baselines, record the specific risk, the business constraint, and any mitigations (for example, reconsider scope, revisit essential qualifications to ensure fidelity to duties, or set an organizational need in Step 7 where appropriate and lawful).

=== STEP 2: Determine the Affected Part(s) of the Organization ===

=== STEP 2: Determine the Affected Part(s) of the Organization ===