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.