An Evaluation of the Employment Equity Act in Canada

AS and A Level Law

An Evaluation of the Employment Equity Act in Canada

~ a Research Essay ~

CAST 300 – Communities and Identities

June 23, 2004

Canada has a population of approximately twenty six million people. With the

introduction of the federal government’s multiculturalism program, the social

demographic make up of Canada is quite vast, bringing together people of many different

nations to join those already living here. Taking the population as a whole into account,

it is no secret that historically, certain members of this social order have been denied fair

access to the employment system. The federal and provincial governments had

undertaken steps to address the issue through a wide range of programs such as equal

employment and other affirmative action programs to “promote equal opportunity in the

public service for segments of the population that have historically been underrepresented

there”. 1

Today, those designated groups, underrepresented in the labour force include

women, Aboriginal peoples, disabled people, and persons who are, because of their race

or colour, is a visible minority in Canada. In October 1984, Judge Rosalie Silberman

Abella submitted a Royal Commission Report on equality in employment (the Abella

Report) to the federal government. “The Commission was established in recognition of

the fact that women, visible minorities, the handicapped and native peoples were being

denied the full benefits of employment”. 2 Based on the findings of the Abella

Commission, the federal government implemented “The Employment Equity Act” in

1986.

This paper will evaluate the success of the “Act” and will argue that although

some progress has been made, the Canadian labour force still does not reflect the

demographic composition of Canada as the Act had implemented.

For the purposes of implementing Employment Equity, certain individuals or

groups who are not at an employment disadvantage are designated to benefit from

Employment Equity. The Employment Equity Act describes the designated groups as

“women, aboriginal peoples; Indians, Inuit or Metis, who so identify themselves to their

employer, or agree to be identified by an employer, for the purposes of the Employment

Equity Act. Persons with disabilities; are people who, because of any persistent physical,

mental, psychiatric, sensory or learning impairment, believe that they are potentially

disadvantaged in employment, and who so identify themselves to an employer, or agree

to be so identified by an employer, for the purposes of the Act”. 3 Members of visible

minorities are persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or

non-white in colour, and who so identify themselves to an employer, for the purposes of

the Act. 4

The designated groups, in particular women, have essentially been discriminated

against for a substantial period of time. A 1977 study of women in federal Crown

Corporations conducted by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, reported that

the federal government is the largest employer in Canada, with almost 49% of its

employees (excluding the Army) employed by the federal Crown Corporations. 5 At that

time, employees of Crown Corporations were not subject to the Public Service Employee

Act, which prohibited discrimination in all aspects of employment including personnel

hiring and promotion. The study showed that women made up 37% of the Canadian

labour force population and 33% of federal public service employee population.

However, only 15.4% of the total employee population of federal Crown Corporations

were female. 6

The underrepresentation of women in federal Crown Corporations are clearly

evident. According to the 1981 census, women were at a disadvantage in a number of

ways. In comparison to men, women have higher unemployment rates, lower

participation rates and are concentrated in lower paying ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

hiring and promotion. The study showed that women made up 37% of the Canadian

labour force population and 33% of federal public service employee population.

However, only 15.4% of the total employee population of federal Crown Corporations

were female. 6

The underrepresentation of women in federal Crown Corporations are clearly

evident. According to the 1981 census, women were at a disadvantage in a number of

ways. In comparison to men, women have higher unemployment rates, lower

participation rates and are concentrated in lower paying jobs, regardless of their

education. 7

There is also evidence that the other designated groups were at a disadvantage to

fair access to employment. Studies have shown that Aboriginal peoples have

significantly lower participation rates and higher unemployment rates than those

generally experienced in the Canadian labour force. They also have significantly

lower levels of education and are paid lower average salaries.8 The 1981 census indicates

that of the total Aboriginal population, 50.4% worked in the Canadian labour force in

1981. Persons with disabilities have also been at a disadvantage in the Canadian labour

force. Like Aboriginal peoples, they too have higher unemployment rates, lower

participation rates and lower levels of education. The 1981 census statistics for disabled

persons in the labour force were not readily available, however it has been suggested that

whatever the figure was, between 1984 and 1986 their participation in the labour force

had increased by 11%. 9

Although members of visible minority groups have relatively high levels of

education and relatively high participation rates, they are generally concentrated in

particular occupational groups. The Abella Commission found that the essence of the

problem with respect to why women and the other designated groups were not reaping

the full potential benefits from their participation in the labour force was “systemic” in

nature. 10

In other words, the prevailing socio-economic system in which all Canadians

worked had a set of social and political values and institutions in place which often

unintentionally discriminated against these groups. The Abella Commission harboured

the opinion that the discriminating systemic barriers could only be eliminated through the

systemic remedies, thus, comprehensive programs had to be adopted and put in place to

enable target groups to overcome the systemic barriers of employment and that a new

term “employment equity” be adopted to describe programs of positive remedy for

discrimination in the workplace. 11

In 1986, the federal government passed the Employment Equity Act. The Act

required that all federally regulated employers with 100 or more employees to implement

equity programs and provide for minimal commitments on the part of employers to file

bare census information on their work force with the Canada Employment and

Immigration Commission and to develop their own defined employment equity program

to remedy systemic discrimination. On September 1, during the same year, the federal

government implemented the Federal Contractors Employment Equity Program,

requiring that all contractors with 100 employees or more, tendering for goods and

services with the federal government to implement employment equity within their

organization. 12

The Act’s essentially aimed at making the demographic characteristics of the

Canadian labour force to be representative of the demographic base of Canada. In its full

sense, employment equity is a comprehensive planning process designed to bring about

not only equality of opportunity but equality in results. Its primary objective is to ensure

that the Canadian labour force is an accurate reflection of the composition of the

Canadian population given the availability of required skills. This objective is essentially

an ethical goal based on the value of ensuring equity.

Although some progress has been made since the enactment of the Employment

Equity Act, to date the target groups are still underrepresented in the labour force, in

addition there are other difficulties facing these groups in relation to the Act. Provisions

were made in the Act requiring mandatory reporting of progress in the companies

affected by the Act (all federally regulated companies with more than 100 employees).

From the information provided by these companies, which approximates 350, the

Minister of Employment and Immigration Canada is required to compile an annual

report, to analyze and monitor the progress of the Act and to ensure compliance. 13

The 1989 report indicated there had been an increase over the previous year in

representation in the work force by each target group. Women increased their

representation from 40% to 42%. Aboriginal peoples increased their representation from

.66% to .73%. Persons with disabilities increased their representation from 1.59% to

1.71% and members of visible minorities increased their representation from 4.99% to

5.69%. Of the women employees that had to be reported by employers under the

Act, they constituted 42% of the work force. This constituted about a 1% increase over

the previous year. Their representation under the Act remained lower than their

representation in the Canadian labour force which is 44%. 14

Aboriginal peoples in the work force under the Act increased very slightly in the

same period and remained under represented. They represented .73% of the work force

under the Act compared with 2.1% representation in the Canadian labour force. 10 289

persons with disabilities were reported by employers and constituted 1.71% of all

employees reported under the Act. Like the women and the Aboriginal peoples, they too

remained under represented in each province for which employees provided a report. A

slight increase in representation was reported for the visible minority group, however, the

report indicated that despite the increase, they remained underrepresented in the work

force under the Employment Equity Act. 15

The 1992 Annual Report shows that two of the four target groups exceeded

representation in the work force under the Act, compared to representation in the

Canadian labour force. Both the women and the visible minority groups achieved this

mark, however the Aboriginal peoples and persons of disability remained under

represented in the work force under the Act. Women increased their representation to

44%, Aboriginal peoples increased to .96%, the representation of persons with disabilities

increased from 2.39% in the previous year to 2.50% and visible minorities increased to

7.55%, which was slightly higher than it was for the Canadian labour force (6.3%) at the

time of the 1986 census. 16

Though the government may want to pat themselves on the back and claim partial

success of the program, in reflecting the achievements of the women and visible minority

target groups, there is a concern that factors other than the Act may have influenced the

rise in the participation rate of these two groups. 17 In occupations that were

traditionally male dominated, i.e. lawyers and notary publics, etc., women have been

slowly but gradually playing catch up. This is in part due to the fact that more and more

women are graduating from university. 18 In 1987, Canadian universities granted more

than 103 000 degrees at the bachelor level. This number represented growth of more than

21% from 1981. Female graduates outnumbered male graduates for the seventh year in a

row and by 1987 accounted for 53% of those receiving bachelors degrees. 19 The

question then is did the doors to accessible employment open to women because of the

Employment Equity Act or did the women provide access for themselves by attending

university? Unless there is some equity program in place for university attendance, it

would be unreasonable to surmise that the Employment Equity program was the sole

vehicle for allowing women fair access into the workplace. But even still, there is no real

success to speak of. Although gaps are being closer to being closed, women are still

underrepresented in some occupations such as upper level managerial positions and over

represented in traditionally female occupations. For example, under the Act women

comprise .21% of upper level managers compared to 1.53% of men and they comprise

60.97% of clerical workers compared to 14.59% of men. Much of the indicators are

similar for that of visible minority groups. 20

As indicated previously, there are problems associated with the Act. Complaints

have been raised from public servants and from their unions that equal opportunity

programs violate the merit principle and discriminate against candidates outside the target

groups for appointment and promotion. 21 White males in particular feel that they have

become victims of reverse discrimination. As such problems occur when they retaliate

against the system by employing candidates in the target group who are sometimes not

competent for the position hired, in an attempt at hindering that person’s opportunities for

advancement within the company. 22

Another problem that becomes present is that when a qualified candidate in a

target group is promoted, concerns are raised among those outside the target group, that

the candidate did not excel because of his or her merit but rather, because of the

affiliation to one of the target groups. 23

Employment equity was initially seen as good social policy. Most people would

agree that it is unjust and unacceptable for a society to have individuals facing barriers to

employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability. These people were

underemployed because they are women, Aboriginal peoples, members of visible

minorities, or persons with disabilities. Despite the governments efforts to address the

issue, and although some gains have been made, there is still a significant number in the

target groups that still face systemic barriers.

Perhaps the government has not done enough to change the status quo. Perhaps

allowing the employers to set their own goals and time tables was an error and should be

reviewed. But given the data presented thus far in their own annual reports and the

continuous controversy surrounding the issue, the Employment Equity Act as far as I’m

concerned, has only partially attained its goal.

Endnotes:

Employment Equity Act, 1995, c. 44
Employment Equity Act, 1995, c. 44
Employment Equity Act, 1995, c. 44
Worklife Report, “Ontario’s Employment Equity Act Sets “Goals”, not “Quotas” 1994, Vol. 9, Issue 3, p3, 2p.
p3
Hum, Derek. Simpson, Wayne. “ Wage Opportunities for Visible Minorities in Canada” Canadian Public Policy; Sept. 99, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p379, 16 pg, 5 charts.
“The Canadian Human Rights Commission. Legislation and Policies: Aboriginal Employment Preferences Policy”

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/legislation_policies/aboriginal_employment-en.asp.

Hum, Derek. Simpson, Wayne. “ Wage Opportunities for Visible Minorities in Canada” Canadian Public Policy; Sept. 99, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p379, 16 pg, 5 charts.
Hawaleshka, Danylo. “Face of a Nation” Maclean’s, 03/03/98, Vol 111 Issue

9, p18, 1p, 1c.

p18
Worklife Report, “Ontario’s Employment Equity Act Sets “Goals”, not

“Quotas” 1994, Vol. 9, Issue 3, p3, 2p.

p3
p3
p4
p4
Worklife Report, “Recent Supreme Court of Canada Decisions” 1999, Vol

12, Issue 1, p12, 3p.

Calleja, Dawn. “Equity or Else” Canadian Business; 03/19/2001, Vol. 74

Issue 5, p.28, 6p, 2c

p.28
p.29
Calleja, Dawn. “Equity or Else” Canadian Business; 03/19/2001, Vol. 74 Issue 5, p.28, 6p, 2c
Worklife Report, “Recent Supreme Court of Canada Decisions” 1999, Vol 12, Issue 1, p14, 3p.
Champion, Chris. “In Quest of the Perfectly Modern Mountie” Alberta Report/Newsmagazine; 09/02/96, Vol. 23 Issue 38, p28, 1p, 1bw.

Bibliography:

J. Helen Beck, Jeffrey G. Reitz, and Nan Weiner. Addressing systemic racial discrimination in employment: The Health Canada Case and Implications of Legislative Change.

March 2002.

Calleja, Dawn. “Equity or Else” Canadian Business; 03/19/2001, Vol. 74 Issue 5, p.28, 6p, 2c

Champion, Chris. “In Quest of the Perfectly Modern Mountie” Alberta Report/Newsmagazine; 09/02/96, Vol. 23 Issue 38, p28, 1p, 1bw.

Employment Equity Act, 1995, c. 44

Hawaleshka, Danylo. “Face of a Nation” Maclean’s, 03/03/98, Vol 111 Issue 9, p18, 1p, 1c.

Hum, Derek. Simpson, Wayne. “ Wage Opportunities for Visible Minorities in Canada” Canadian Public Policy; Sept. 99, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p379, 16 pg, 5 charts.

Mulawka, Brian. “Equality Cops on the Prowl”, Alberta Report/Newsmagazine; 07/20/98, Vol 25, Issue 31, p 17, 1/3p.

“The Canadian Human Rights Commission. Legislation and Policies: Aboriginal Employment Preferences Policy”

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/legislation_policies/aboriginal_employment-en.asp.

Statistics Canada. June, 2003 The rise in low-income rates among immigrants in Canada.

Worklife Report, “Recent Supreme Court of Canada Decisions” 1999, Vol 12, Issue 1, p12, 3p.

Worklife Report, “Ontario’s Employment Equity Act Sets “Goals”, not “Quotas” 1994, Vol. 9, Issue 3, p3, 2p.

An Evaluation of the Employment Equity Act in Canada