Employment Equity Act Review

A Report to the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities

December 2001

1.  Executive Summary

1.1  Context

Return to Table of Contents

The 1996 Employment Equity Act requires a committee of the House of Commons to assess, every five years, the provisions of the Act, specifically their operation and their impact. The questions to be addressed are simple. Is the Act working? If not, why not? Can it be improved and if so, how?

In order to assist the Committee to answer these questions, officials held a series of consultation sessions across the country. They heard from representatives of employers, labour unions, and organisations that speak for, or are interested in, the four designated groups: women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and visible minorities. Nearly 350 people attended the meetings and another twenty sent in written comments. To facilitate the process, a Discussion Paper (Appendix A) was provided to participants (Appendix B).

In addition to the consultation meetings with stakeholders, a consultant was engaged to conduct an independent evaluation of the Federal Contractors’ Program (FCP). The Legislated Employment Equity Program (LEEP) is currently being evaluated by another consultant firm. Labour Program staff also held meetings with a number of federal departments and agencies sharing an interest in employment equity. They include the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and the Public Service Commission.

The latest statistics in this report were taken from employer reports reflecting workforce representation in 1999 and tabled in the Minister of Labour’s annual report to Parliament in February 2001. The data show that persons with disabilities and Aboriginal peoples in the workforce covered by the Act are represented at rates well below their labour market availability. Women and visible minorities are fairly well represented in the workforce, but lag behind in several occupational categories, demonstrating a concentration in lower paying positions.

Employment equity is not just about numbers, but also fair employment policies and practices. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has not yet had an opportunity to audit all employers in the federal jurisdiction to ensure they have implemented, or have plans to implement, policies and practices to ensure a welcoming environment for all Canadians.

The intent of the Employment Equity Act, however, remains constant: to ensure all Canadians are provided with fair employment and promotion opportunities, and are treated with respect. Employment equity is not just the right thing to do. It is also the "bright" thing to do. This report includes a review of several studies showing the economic impact of employment equity, including one which concludes that under-utilisation of women and visible minorities costs the economy about $40 billion annually in GNP.

1.2  Layout of this Report

Return to Table of Contents

This report is designed to assist members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and Persons with Disabilities in the review of the Employment Equity Act as mandated by that legislation. The current Act came into force October 24, 1996. Section 44(1), states:

"Five years after the coming into force of this Act, and at the end of every five year period thereafter, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act, including the effect of those provisions shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose".

In this report opinions expressed by stakeholders during the consultation sessions reflect the diversity within and between the designated groups and also regional differences. Indigenous Nova Scotian blacks, for example, have a different outlook within the visible minority community than immigrant Japanese high-tech workers in British Columbia.

The sections which follow are:

• Historic & Contemporary Overview

Traces the development of employment equity, a non-quota based system different from the American affirmative action program. The original (1986) Employment Equity Act is described and the steps are traced which led to the 1996 Act.

• Other Jurisdictions

Draws attention to Canada’s leadership role in the international community and identifies provincial activity.

• Key Roles & Responsibilities

Describes the roles and responsibilities of the key players (employers, Minister of Labour, President of the Treasury Board, Canadian Human Rights Commission).

• Social and Economic Impact of Employment Equity

Examines economic benefits to Canada’s productivity and links employment equity with major social programs aimed at poverty, the homeless, immigration and youth employment. Implementation of the 1986 Act focused on employment equity as the right thing to do in terms of fairness. Recent studies, however, demonstrate employment equity also has a significant positive impact on the corporate bottom-line.

• Designated Groups

Compares, briefly, federally regulated private sector employers, for which the Minister of Labour is responsible, and the federal public service, which falls under the jurisdiction of the President of the Treasury Board. Within the federally regulated private sector, the progress of each designated group is traced since the first reporting year of 1988 through the 1999 reporting year. Barriers to recruitment and promotion are discussed.

• Consultations with Stakeholders

Categorises and summarises comments expressed during the consultation meetings with stakeholders. In addition, a series of quotes is appended to this report.

• Program Considerations

Outlines some of the difficulties experienced in the administration and implementation of the program. These are areas currently being addressed by staff and may not require a legislative solution. They are presented to round out the description of the employment equity program in practice and to ensure that the committee members have a complete picture of operational issues.

• Postscript

Consolidates and summarises the above information.

2.  Historical & Contemporary Context

Return to Table of Contents

During the 1970s and 1980s, there was an increasing recognition in Canada of the negative impact of systemic discrimination. Although discrimination was prohibited under human rights statutes, there was a growing awareness that proactive steps were required to change systems and practices which had become entrenched in a traditionally white male dominated workplace. Initially this led to a number of voluntary programs in the federal sector targeted at official languages, women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and blacks in Nova Scotia. While major gains were made for francophones, the problems for women and blacks were more deeply embedded. This attitudinal change coincided with an increasing emphasis on legal tools to effect change. For example, the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms takes a substantive rather than a formalistic approach to equality. Indeed, the drafters included subsection 15(2) to ensure that programs aimed at improving the conditions of disadvantaged groups by a misplaced emphasis on formalistic equality. The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that s. 15(1) "can embrace ameliorative programs of the kind that are contemplated by s. 15(2)."¹

On June 27, 1983, the Government of Canada announced the establishment of the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment. Its terms of reference required the Commission to:

"Explore the most efficient, effective and equitable means of promoting equality in employment for four groups: women, native people, disabled persons, and visible minorities".

The report, tabled on November 29, 1984 by Judge Rosalie Abella, used the term "employment equity" to distinguish the Canadian initiative from American affirmative action programs which had been associated with quotas². The recommendations led to the enactment of the first Employment Equity Act in 1986. It promoted employment equity as the right thing to do and reflected the Canadian value of fairness while demonstrating that Canada was encouraging workforce participation of the four designated groups: women, Aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, and visible minorities. The stated purpose of the Act was and still is:

"…to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences".

The 1986 Employment Equity Act covered federally regulated companies with 100 or more employees. These employers operate primarily in the banking, transportation, and communications industries. Employers were required to identify workplace barriers and to develop and implement equity plans for the four designated groups. Employers were also required to report annually to the responsible Minister, currently the Minister of Labour, on the representation of target groups within their workforce. There were no enforcement mechanisms in the Act, other than for failure to report. The intent was that employers would be encouraged to implement employment equity based on public scrutiny of the reports and knowledge that the data could be used to file systemic discrimination complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act. A Federal Contractors Program for employment equity was also created in 1986 requiring enterprises with 100 or more employees doing business with the federal government to certify their commitment to implement employment equity initiatives in order to bid on contracts over $200,000.

In 1991, a Committee of the House of Commons, with a mandate to review the Employment Equity Act, heard from many major stakeholders and those with special interest in equity issues. Entitled A Matter of Fairness, the report contained recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the Act including inclusion of the federal public service, elaboration of guidelines to assist employers in the implementation of the Act, and empowerment of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) to monitor and enforce the Act. In 1992, the legislative mandate for employment equity in the federal public service was given to the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission, through the Public Service Employment Act and Financial Administration Act.

The new Employment Equity Act of 1996 was introduced as Bill C-64. Between November 1994 and June 1995, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons reviewed both Bill C-64 and the then existing Employment Equity Act.

A new Employment Equity Act received royal assent on December 15, 1995, and subsequently came into force on October 24, 1996. This Act extends coverage to the federal public service, mandates the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) to conduct on-site compliance reviews, and provides for final enforcement of the Act, where necessary, by an Employment Equity Review Tribunal, empowered to hear disputes and issue orders. The Minister of Labour is responsible for advising employers, analysing employers’ reports, reporting to Parliament on progress achieved and implementing the Federal Contractors Program. The Act also mandates a review of the legislation to be undertaken every five years by a committee of the House of Commons.

3.  Other Jurisdictions

3.1  International

Return to Table of Contents

In the current context of economic globalisation, and in the face of increasing international competition, the need to take advantage of the wide pool of available individuals in the workforce cannot be overstated. Women, people with disabilities and racial minorities constitute more than half of the workforce in many communities. Governments are becoming increasingly aware of the potential of these groups to contribute to the economy and the need for effective legislation, programs and policies to address barriers they now encounter.

Internationally, Canada is recognised as a world leader in welcoming diversity and including all ethnic and racial groups in the nation’s social and economic life. Canada has one "umbrella" piece of legislation for its four designated groups, while most other industrialised countries have fragmented legislation. We can mention, for example, Australia, Great Britain, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United States which have been the focus for international comparison studies on employment equity³.

Despite the differences in legislative framework between the countries, there are some similarities in programs and the targeted groups. In general, countries tend to set up two categories of programs: general programs addressing all jobseekers’ needs, with particular attention to disadvantaged groups, and specific programs for each designated group.

Australia has developed a panoply of laws protecting the rights of its disadvantaged groups: racial minorities (including Aboriginal people), women and persons with disabilities. The Racial Discrimination Act was enacted in 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act was enacted in 1984, and a legislative framework for the protection of persons with disabilities took effect in 1992. The Australian federal government has also set up a wide range of programs to support its employment equity legislation. Some programs have general orientations but others pay particular attention to disadvantaged groups only.

In Great Britain, three main pieces of legislation form the cornerstone of the Government’s platform for equal opportunities: the 1976 Race Relations Act, the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act and the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act. Great Britain’s approach to programming for equal opportunities follows the legislative framework with a Commission assigned to each of the three pieces of legislation.

Sweden has two main pieces of legislation: the Ethnic Discrimination Act and the Equal Opportunities Act. It pursues the general goal of full participation in the labour force for all members of society. Ombudspersons are also assigned to women, visible minorities and people with disabilities with the objective of providing compensation to those who are victims of discrimination.

The Netherlands’ equality legislation is focused on improvement of the representation of ethnic minorities and disabled people in the workplace. Its programs tend to be more specific.

In the United States, a number of laws and programs protect women, individuals who are over 40 years of age, persons with disabilities, war veterans and racial minorities. Affirmative action programs are fragmented and the complaint system is court-oriented. Legislation has been in place for 30 years but progress is uneven.

South Africa is another country with noteworthy equity legislation. In 1998, under the presidency of Nelson Mandella (Canada’s second honourary citizen), it passed legislation modelled after the Canadian Employment Equity Act.

3.2  Provincial and Territorial

Return to Table of Contents

Provincial employment equity policies and programs are highly variable and uneven. At present, eight provinces in Canada have some sort of employment equity policy in place: British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. With the exception of Quebec, provincial employment equity policies apply only to the public service.

Quebec has just taken a positive step regarding employment equity by implementing An Act respecting equal access to employment in public bodies and amending the Charter of human rights and freedoms as of April 1, 2001. This Act applies to all public bodies with 100 or more employees in the municipal sector and in the education, health and social service systems. It also applies to other organizations, such as Crown corporations, and the Sûreté du Québec with regard to its police force. It is designed to promote employment equity for women, Aboriginal people, members of visible minorities and members of ethnic minorities whose mother tongue is neither English nor French.

Enforcing the Quebec legislation is the responsibility of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse. Employers subject to the Act must first conduct an analysis of their workforce and report to the Commission. After comparing these analyses with current statistics, the Commission informs employers of any groups that are under-represented within their companies and orders them to develop positive policies or an employment equity program. When employers develop their programs, they must consult employees and their representatives. These programs are then examined by the Commission, which can make recommendations if an employer has failed to comply with its orders. Every three years, each employer covered by the Act is required to submit a report to the Commission regarding the implementation and results of its program. Any conflict arising between an employer and the Commission with regard to submitting reports and/or complying with recommendations is resolved by the Tribunal des droits de la personne.

In Ontario, employment equity legislation was enacted in 1993 but was repealed less than two years later and replaced by Equality of opportunity policy for the public service.

Newfoundland and Alberta do not have equity legislation or policies. As for Newfoundland, what little discussion has taken place focussed only on gender equality; discussions in Alberta were limited to a lively debate with no legislation being enacted.

4.  Key Roles And Responsibilities Under The Act

Return to Table of Contents

This section highlights the roles and responsibilities of the key players under the Employment Equity Act.

4.1  Types of Employers Covered by the Act

Return to Table of Contents

Several different types of employers are covered by the Employment Equity Act, including private sector employers with 100 or more employees that fall under federal jurisdiction, the Treasury Board, and separate employers. In total, employees represented by these employers account for 10% of the Canadian workforce.

4.1.1  Federally Regulated Employers

Return to Table of Contents

The largest group of employers directly subject to the Act are federally-regulated private sector employers and Crown Corporations with over 100 employees. At present almost 620,000 Canadians are engaged by about 410 federally-regulated employers. Most of these employers are in the banking, transportation, and communication industries.

4.1.2  Public Sector

Return to Table of Contents

The 1996 Employment Equity Act expanded coverage to the federal Public Service. Under Schedule I Part I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Treasury Board is the employer for 66 departments with a workforce of 150,000 people. The Public Service Commission shares employer responsibilities under the Employment Equity Act. All departments, regardless of size, are subject to the Act.

The 1996 Act, upon orders of the Governor in Council, also provided coverage to the Canadian Security and Intelligence System and to uniformed members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The orders need to receive the recommendation of the Treasury Board and be processed by the Privy Council Office.

4.1.3  Separate Employers

Return to Table of Contents

Separate employers are special operating agencies or corporations under Schedule I Part II of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. They are outside the traditional public service and are subject to the Act if they employ 100 employees or more. In 1996, there were just over half a dozen. Today, there are approximately 30, 15 of which have 100 or more employees, including the Canada Custom and Revenue Agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the National Capital Commission, the Office of the Auditor-General, and the National Film Board. These employers engage approximately 60,000 individuals.

4.1.4  Federal Contractors

Return to Table of Contents

The Federal Contractors’ Program (FCP) requires non-federally regulated contractors with 100 or more employees who bid on contracts of $200,000 or more to commit to, and implement, employment equity. These 845 employers represent approximately 1.1 million employees. The Minister of Labour is responsible for administering the program.

4.2  Responsibilities of Employers Covered by the Act

Return to Table of Contents

All employers have similar responsibilities. A key stage is identifying the equity issues in their workplace. This involves, first, a workforce analysis. It is essentially an assessment of whether the designated groups are under-represented in the occupational groups in their workforce, based on a self-identification survey of their employees. This internal information is then compared to labour market availability data. These data are provided by the Minister of Labour to private sector employers, and by the President of the Treasury Board, in concert with the Public Service Commission, to federal government departments. Next, a review of their employment systems, policies and practices is conducted to determine whether they pose barriers to the designated groups. Employers must consult and collaborate with unions and employee representatives in identifying the issues and preparing the plan.

An employment equity plan is prepared once the issues have been identified. The plan should eliminate barriers that obstruct the hiring and promotion of designated group members, establish positive policies and set short-term and longer-term numerical goals to ensure that reasonable progress is made in addressing any under-representation. These goals are flexible targets, which may be adjusted, and should not be confused with the quota system used for U.S. affirmative action programs. In fact, section 33(e) of the Act specifically prohibits the Employment Equity Tribunal from imposing quotas. Finally, the employer implements the plan and monitors its implementation to assess whether modifications are needed.

Private sector employers file statistical reports on an annual basis with the Minister of Labour, while public sector departments file reports with the Treasury Board Secretariat. Separate employers file reports with the Treasury Board which tables them, without analysis, in Parliament. All employers are also required to co-operate with the Canadian Human Rights Commission when it conducts compliance audits. This includes keeping accurate records to assist the Commission in its reviews.

4.3  Minister of Labour

Return to Table of Contents

The Minister of Labour has key responsibilities under the Employment Equity Act. These include analysing employer reports, providing labour market information, data, public education and advice to private sector employers, and the administration of the Federal Contractors’ Program. The federally-regulated private sector program is administered by the Legislated Employment Equity Program (LEEP) of the Labour Program of Human

Resources Development Canada. Each June, private sector employers must file reports with the Minister of Labour on their workforce representation for the previous year. The Minister makes these reports publicly available, provides them to the CHRC and files a report to Parliament, which consolidates and analyses the data, no later than 15 sitting days after the report is completed. The 1996 Act provides the Minister with the authority to issue administrative monetary penalties, a fact that is frequently communicated to employers to persuade them to meet the reporting obligations.

The Minister of Labour is mandated to make available relevant labour market information on workers, or those actively seeking work, who are members of designated groups and who are qualified or eligible for the jobs within each occupational group of the employer’s workforce. This information is used to determine the representation in the geographical area or areas from which the employer may reasonably be expected to draw employees.

A second key responsibility is public education and guidance to private sector employers, in the form of information, guidelines and advice. For example, tools and guidelines were developed over the past five years to assist employers in meeting their obligations under the Act, including a set of 11 guidelines ranging from setting up an employee survey, to conducting a workforce analysis. A reporting manual is provided to assist employers with the annual reporting responsibility. An Employment Equity Computerised Reporting System (EECRS) was produced and distributed to employers to facilitate electronic reporting and to reduce reporting burdens. Also, a web site was created to provide documentation and other information on the Act.

A third key responsibility is the administration of the Federal Contractors’ Program (FCP). The FCP covers companies with 100 employees or more that submit bids or tender for contracts for goods or services valued at over $200,000. These employers are obligated to certify their commitment to implement employment equity initiatives in order to bid as a condition of their contract. The Act specifies that the requirements of the Program are to be equivalent to those under the Employment Equity Act. At present, 845 FCP employers have a workforce of 1,100,000 people.

4.4  President of Treasury Board

Return to Table of Contents

The President of the Treasury Board has similar responsibilities for the public service to the Minister of Labour for private sector employers. Departments and agencies submit their annual reports directly to Treasury Board. The President of the Treasury Board then sends copies of the reports to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and presents an overall analysis and review to Parliament. The President of Treasury Board also determines the availability data for departments. Reports from separate employers are tabled without analysis.

4.5  Canadian Human Rights Commission(CHRC)

Return to Table of Contents

One of the key initiatives in the 1996 Act was to provide the CHRC with the power to conduct compliance audits, negotiate undertakings and issue directions. The Act specifies that non-compliance is to be resolved by focusing on persuasion, with directions to be issued as a last resort. Employers may contest directions before the Employment Equity Tribunal, while the CHRC may apply to the Tribunal for an order confirming a direction if an employer is not complying. The Tribunal may confirm, vary or rescind the Commission’s direction. A Tribunal order is enforceable as an order of the Federal Court.

The Commission commenced its audits in 1998 and by October, 2001, had completed 340 audits, including initial audits and follow-up audits, with 113 ongoing and 70 employers in compliance⁴. (Employers are in compliance when they have an employment equity plan to eliminate barriers and rectify under-representation, not just when they have equitable representation and policies and practices.) Twenty directions have been issued but no case has been heard by the Employment Equity Tribunal. The Commission noted that, because it had focused on larger employers, it has audited 87% of the public sector and 61% of the private sector workforce. It is on track for an estimated seven year audit cycle despite the necessity of re-visiting many employers who took no action until Commission auditors returned. (Of the 70 employers who are in compliance, only 8 were in compliance initially). The Commission is now scheduling return visits to verify that employers are taking reasonable steps to implement their employment equity plans.

5.  Social and Economic Impact of Employment Equity

Return to Table of Contents

"Reducing inequality isn’t just moral – it’s economically efficient as it fosters economic growth"5.

The Employment Equity Act has far-reaching social and economic implications for Canada. Employment equity was introduced in 1986 as the right thing to do, reflecting the Canadian value of fairness. More recently, it has become recognised as the bright thing to do, as it contributes to Canadian prosperity in a globalised world economy. Equity is no longer viewed as an issue of distribution of wealth but also of production of wealth. It helps to get more people into productive jobs and it improves the distribution of wealth which ultimately helps reduce social tension. A country cannot achieve a winning economic policy without an equally strong social policy.

5.1  Equity and Inclusion

Return to Table of Contents

Employment equity encourages the redistribution of opportunities and ultimately of opportunities and wealth to all skilled and willing members of society. This reduces resentment on the part of the less fortunate, and promotes their participation in society, thus fostering inclusion, social solidarity and cohesion.

Twentieth century dogma maintained you could either sustain efficiency, and thus produce greater wealth, or alternatively, sustain equity, and creating less wealth but better distribution. Researchers have been re-assessing these traditional theories, however, and discovered that achieving equity leads to higher standards of living for everybody. One seminal study suggests:

"..the reduction of inequality in Canadian society should be high on the priority list for government action…It makes sense to address this issue not only for equity reasons, but also for efficiency reasons as reducing inequality can, in the medium-to-long run, foster economic growth"6."

Canada’s real wealth lies in large part with the skills of the population. Inequity impedes development because low-income persons have fewer financial resources and limited access to credit, and thus less ability to achieve a decent level of education. A more equal distribution of income could spur greater human capital accumulation for the less advantaged and have a positive effect on output and growth.

The purpose of legislation such as the Employment Equity Act is not only to bring about fairness, but also to encourage employers to take advantage of the knowledge and skills of all Canadians.

5.2  Globalisation and the Workplace

Return to Table of Contents

In the past ten years, Canadians have witnessed a new world of emerging technologies, converging international markets and trading arrangements. This has created a huge impact on the types of occupations in the Canadian labour market and on industrial structures and stratification. These changes have helped to shape the way we view labour relations, wage structures, education, and the role of government, unions, and employers. As a result employment equity will be even more important in the economy of the 21^st century. Canadians will be working in a multidisciplinary environment, and the participation in the workforce of members of designated groups will increase in all occupations, considering improvements in health, education and life expectancy. All designated groups, including visible minorities, will be viewed in the context of a global labour market where relevant skills are becoming scarce. Skilled persons with disabilities will represent a greater number of Canadians within the ageing population and the need to accommodate limitations resulting from disabilities will increase. Aboriginal peoples will face the impact of globalisation on local cultures and Canadian society in general, while at the same time providing the skills required for more self government.

5.3  The Knowledge Based Economy

Return to Table of Contents

The 21^st century economy is now being fuelled by brainpower. Industrialised countries have experienced a considerable shift from dependence on natural resources and manufactured goods to a knowledge-based labour market. Members of the four designated groups represent a strategic resource in an economy crucially dependent on human capital.

Even employment trends are shifting. Modern economies are now measured by know-how and economic growth is driven by innovation. Over the past five years, over two million jobs were created for people with university and post-secondary education and 139,000 with secondary education. However, almost a million Canadians with primary or no education lost their jobs in the same period.

Productivity has increased in the past decade but knowledge-based workers are becoming scarce. The number of graduates is not meeting the rising demand in the labour market for certain skills. In a knowledge-based economy, the under-utilisation of skills has an even greater cost to the Canadian GDP. Failure to embrace the knowledge revolution in a global economy will result in giving up rare human resources to other nations.

"In the past, workforces were homogenous by legal or customary exclusion or due to physical isolation. Now, not only ideas but workers and their families are spreading around the world, changing the assumptions of societies and cultures that receive and welcome them"7

Many of these skilled people are available in the labour market, but if they are not being hired into the workforce, employers, individuals, and the Canadian economy all lose. Employers cannot ignore the real and potential costs of ignoring the skills and talents of all Canadians. In a globalised market, countries with knowledge of more languages fare better⁸. Aside from the two official languages, Canadian diversity guarantees a stock of heritage languages that could be exploited in the new economy. The top seven languages other than English or French are Chinese, Italian, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, and Polish.

5.4  The Shortage of Skills

Return to Table of Contents

Immigration is regarded as a positive factor in the Canadian economy. It contributes skills and replenishes the declining population. Canada receives approximately 225,000 immigrants every year, almost 75% of whom are likely to come from visible minority source countries. There has been much discussion recently about the shortage of skills and the coming crisis of diminishing human resources in Canada. HRDC studies have shown a need for over a million skilled individuals in key industries over the next ten years. The growing number of opportunities for Canadians to work elsewhere, mainly the United States, is making this shortage more acute, as almost 40,000 talented Canadians leave every year⁹.

The ageing of the Canadian workforce is another factor that contributes to this shortage. People are spending fewer active years in the labour market: in 1921 the average Canadian spent 45 years in active participation, but by 1986, this had dropped to 39. The average person lives 12 years longer, but the added longevity is spent in retirement. This demographic shift will lead to a search for replenishing the workforce through immigration, extending the retirement age, accommodating skilled individuals, and better use of women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and visible minorities.

5.5  The Cost of Under-Employment

Return to Table of Contents

While the loss of Canadian talent to other countries is offset by a "brain gain" due to immigration, the issue is far from resolved. Even if immigration policies have achieved considerable success in attracting skilled individuals by their emphasis on education and other forms of human capital, the task remains to integrate these talents into a barrier-free Canadian labour market.

Evidence indicates that occupational discrimination and wage discrimination in the Canadian labour market results from the under-utilisation of the talents of the four designated groups. The loss from under-utilisation of human resources is a serious one and is tantamount to a "brain waste"¹⁰. With a portion of the workforce under-employed and underpaid, the costs are borne by these individuals, and ultimately by the economy as a whole. A typical illustration of this situation is a visible minority person holding a Ph.D. driving a taxi, or a woman with a finance degree working as a bank teller.

A recent study conducted by University of Toronto Professor Edward Harvey focused on the under-utilisation of women and visible minorities, many of whom are concentrated in low paying jobs, to state that under-employment may be costing the Canadian economy as much as $40 billion, or 4% of the GDP, annually¹¹. Also, the 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples estimated the cost for the under-utilisation of Aboriginal peoples at approximately $7.5 billion in 1996 alone. The message from this study and other research is clear: inequality costs the Canadian economy money. This issue can be expected to be increasingly important as Canada, like other nations, evolves rapidly toward a knowledge-based economy based on human capital. Such economies cannot afford artificial barriers that produce discrimination and under-employment of certain groups in the labour market. Employment equity policies have a vital role to play because they focus on occupational desegregation and foster expanded and more efficient use of human resources.

5.6  The Business Case

Return to Table of Contents

In the labour intensive service industries, many employers have indicated that a diverse workforce makes them more competitive. The banks can serve a multi-ethnic multi-lingual clientele by having diverse personnel, which contributes to the company’s financial bottom line¹². Banks in Toronto (the most diverse city in the world), for example, hire people from the immediate communities they serve, improving their linkages to clients while creating employment for members within the local community.

Implementing employment equity has also led to an overall improvement in human resources management practices, and to a modern corporate culture that speaks a universal language that is useful in a globalised economy¹³. A company with no barriers in its employment systems will have an improved image, a solid team, and strong human resources management.

5.7  Linkage to Poverty and Homelessness

Return to Table of Contents

Four million Canadians live under the poverty line (12%-13%)¹⁴. Women, visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples, and persons with disabilities make up 60% of the Canadian labour force, yet they face a disproportionate level of poverty, homelessness, and lower access to job opportunities. Forty-five per cent of single mothers live in poverty, against 12-13% of all Canadians. On a gender basis, 13% of all women live in poverty against 11.4% of all men¹⁵.

Another method for measuring social stratification is the proportion of Canadians earning a low income ($17,132 or less). A disproportionate percentage of the designated group population earns less than this cut-off compared to the non-designated population. While 40% of all individual Canadian workers earned $17,000 or less in 1996, the percentage was 66% for the Aboriginal population, and even higher for Aboriginal women and visible minority women. The Aboriginal People’s Survey showed incomes for Canada’s Aboriginal population to be much lower than the national average. The most recent data on persons with disabilities¹⁶ show that 60% of women with disabilities and 36% of men with disabilities have low incomes.

The 1997 Survey of Consumer Finances showed lone parents, disabled persons, recent immigrants and single persons over 45 were at high-risk of being poor. Within the female workforce, single working mothers live in a vicious circle of poor education and poverty: 43% of single parents live at or below the poverty line.

Employer reports submitted annually to HRDC/Labour, Employment Equity reveal the existence of ghettos and poverty pockets in the labour force under the Employment Equity Act for all four designated groups. The Act calls not only for the recruitment of skilled members of the designated groups but for their promotion in the workplace. The ratings in the Minister’s Annual Report measure the progress of employers in promoting employment equity in their respective workforces.

For example, while women make up over 70% of the workforce in the banking industry, a substantial number are still in low-paying clerical and support staff positions. Positive measures and pro-active removal of barriers would allow women to improve their skills and realise higher salaries.

Canada has developed social programs to help combat poverty within the four designated groups. A longer-term solution that will guarantee all Canadians a decent standard of living will depend on better education, health, and housing for the poor.

Homelessness is directly related to poverty. Those caught in the cycle of poverty and homelessness cannot be expected to contribute to society and are viewed by some observers as a liability.

Current statistics suggest almost one in seven Canadian youth under 18 live below the poverty line (identified as the low income-after-tax-cut-off), a higher proportion than in 1989. Even when educated, youth have difficulties entering the labour market. Designated groups make up the majority of young, post-secondary graduates (almost 70% of the total), emphasising the need for employment equity to remove the barriers confronting these young people when they enter the labour market.

6.  Designated Groups

6.1  The Federally Regulated Private Sector and the Public Service

Return to Table of Contents

The following four sections outline the progress under the Act and relevant issues affecting the four designated groups in the federally regulated private sector, the sector which was covered by the first Employment Equity Act of 1986. This coverage continues under the current legislation, providing the private sector with the longest period over which the impact of employment equity legislation can be studied.

6.2  An Overview

Return to Table of Contents

The information below is meant to give a quick overview of differences and similarities between private sector employers under the Act and the federal public service. Bearing in mind that the following four sections relate to designated groups in the federally regulated private sector, the graph below provides a snapshot of the 1999 calendar year for federally regulated employers and the 98/99 fiscal year for the federal public service.



The bars show the ratio of representation of each group in the workplace over its workforce availability. At 100%, representation equals the applicable labour market availability. Note that in the private sector, the members of the available workforce are in age groups 15 and over. In the public sector the age range is 18-65 and the members are Canadian citizens. Also, the labour market availability data is based on fewer occupational groups since not all private sector jobs exist in the public service.

6.2.1  Women:

Return to Table of Contents

In the federally regulated private sector the representation of women (44.8%) was lower than their labour market availability (46.4%). In the public sector women’s representation (51.4%) is higher than public sector availability (48.7%).

6.2.2  Aboriginal Peoples:

Return to Table of Contents

Aboriginal peoples make up 1.5% of the federally regulated private sector workforce and their representation is below the labour market availability (2.1%). In the public sector, Aboriginal peoples constitute 3.3% compared to a public sector workforce availability of 1.7%.

6.2.3  Persons with Disabilities:

Return to Table of Contents

Persons with disabilities are more highly represented, based on their labour force availability in the public sector, than in the federally regulated private sector. Persons with disabilities may have benefited from the physical accommodation requirements required by the Government of Canada to serve the people of Canada. While the Treasury Board Secretariat, as employer, has provided specific accommodation needs for persons with disabilities, physical access to government buildings was, in many cases, available early and tangentially to accommodate the visiting public.

6.2.4  Visible Minorities:

Return to Table of Contents

In the federally regulated private sector the representation of visible members (10.5%) is slightly higher than their labour market availability (10.3%). However, the data show a serious under-representation of visible minorities in the public sector. Their representation (5.5%) and hiring (5.7%) are at rates significantly below their availability, even when the availability is restricted to Canadian citizens. The Supreme Court of Canada has reserved its decision in the Lavoie case, a Charter challenge to the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act mandating the citizenship preference¹⁷.

6.3  Women

6.3.1  Federally Regulated Private Sector

Return to Table of Contents


1996 census availability = 46.4%




Overall Representation: Since the 1986 Employment Equity Act the representation of women in the federally regulated private sector workforce covered by the Act has increased significantly from 40.9% in the 1987 reporting year to a peak of 45.5% in 1993, almost matching the 1991 workforce availability data for women. Since then, apart from some minor fluctuations, the numbers have remained fairly constant. The 1999 representation was 44.8%.

Hires and Terminations: Overall, there are fewer hirings than when the Act began, and were reported at 39.8% of the total hirings in 1999, down from 41.3% in the previous year. For the last three reporting years, terminations of women have exceeded hirings. In 1999, 40.9% of total terminations were women, a figure which has historically wavered between 39.2% and 41.9%.

Promotions and Occupational Segregation: The number of promotions given to women has fluctuated from a low of 52.5% of total promotions given in 1987 to a high of 59.7% in 1990. Good progress has been made in occupations previously viewed as non-traditional for women and in 1999, women received 53.9% of promotions. Women’s average salary against men’s has increased, further reducing the wage gap. In 1999, women in the workforce working full-time under the Act earned 77.6% of men’s average salary, up from 75.9% in 1996.

6.3.2  Public Sector

Return to Table of Contents

Overall Representation: More than half of all employees are women (51.4%), almost the same proportion as a year earlier. The population of both indeterminate and term employees increased. Just about half of all indeterminate employees (49.7%) are women, a similar situation to a year ago (49.2%). Women continue to make up over 6 in 10 of all term employees (61.6%), although the proportion has declined from previous years. Fewer than a quarter of all seasonal employees are women.

The proportion of women who are also members of another designated group (for example, Aboriginal women) increased over the fiscal year to 14.3% from 13.7% in 1998–99. The actual numbers decreased, however, to 10,383 from 12,567 in 1998–99, largely because data on Revenue Canada employees are not included. This organisation became a separate employer and was renamed the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in 1999.

Hires and Terminations: Close to 6 of 10 persons hired into the federal Public Service were women, the same proportion as for the past three years.

Promotions and Occupational Segregation: In 1999, women received close to 6 in 10 of all promotions, similar to last year’s share. Continuing the firm trend noted throughout the 1990s, the proportion of women in the Executive category increased by more than one percentage point to 28.4% from 26.9%.

6.3.3  Main Barriers

Return to Table of Contents

Glass Ceiling: The "glass ceiling" continues to exist for women in the workforce. As previously stated, in 1999, women received fewer promotions than in 1998, at 53.9% of all employees promoted in the workforce under the Act. However, women’s share of promotions was higher than their representation (51.4%) and higher than men’s share of promotion at 46.1% in 1999. Nevertheless, women in the workforce under the Act in 1999 were highly concentrated in clerical-related occupations. Compared to 1998, women had a lower share of hiring in the workforce under the Act in 1999.

In the public sector, representation data for women slightly exceed labour market availability, but significant clusters remain in clerical and support staff positions. Women are still under-represented in the executive category (less than 30%), indicating that a glass ceiling persists. Many of the barriers faced by women in the public sector, such as work-family conflict, the glass ceiling, and concentration, are shared with women in the private sector. These factors will be outlined in more detail the section that follows.

Pink-Collar Ghettos: While women have increased their representation in non-traditional occupations, they continue to be concentrated in traditional jobs, such as clerical and retail positions. Women comprise the majority of students in the social sciences, education, and health¹⁸. Men, in contrast, are concentrated in engineering, applied sciences, mathematics, and physical sciences, although it should be noted that women aged 20 to 29 have greater representation in these areas than in previous years¹⁹.

Education in traditionally female areas often leads to jobs and careers in lower paying occupations with potentially less opportunity for advancement. These positions are the lowest paying perpetuating the aforementioned glass ceiling analogy. Salary gap is not a pure employment equity issue but still merits attention. The average woman working full-time in the workforce under the Act currently earns 77.6% of men’s average salary. Although the gap is narrowing women remain concentrated in low-paying jobs.

Double/Triple Jeopardy: Double or triple jeopardy for some women, encountered as a result of belonging to more than one designated group, has been a prevalent theme throughout the consultation process. Progress for women in double or triple jeopardy situations, particularly for Aboriginal women with disabilities who are the most disadvantaged of all groups covered under the Act, has been slow and some feel this issue needs to be specifically addressed in the legislation.

Work-Family Conflict: Women are often caught in the situation of "Work-Family Conflict", in which they either participate fully, or opt for part-time employment, in the labour force while assuming a heavy load of household and family responsibilities. Reasonable accommodation in the workplace, such as child care or flexible work hours, could alleviate this problem, thereby reducing stress and increasing both satisfaction and productivity in women’s lives²⁰.

6.4  Aboriginal Peoples

6.4.1  Federally Regulated Private Sector Return to Table of Contents


1996 Census Availability Data = 2.1%




Overall Representation: Since the enactment of the Employment Equity Act, there has been a slight increase in the representation of Aboriginal peoples in the workforce under the Act. However, there is still a significant under-representation problem. In 1987, representation was 0.7% of availability levels; by 1999 it had only reached 1.5%.

Hires and Terminations: Not only is there a hiring problem, but also a major retention problem which is partially illustrated in the statistics above. In 1999, for the fifth year in a row, Aboriginal terminations exceeded 1,000.

Promotions: Aboriginal share of promotions dropped from 1.5% to 1.4% in 1999, or from 914 promotions in 1998 to 737 promotions in 1999. Many Aboriginal employees who manage to obtain jobs do not remain in them long enough to be promoted.

6.4.2  Public Sector

Return to Table of Contents

Overall Representation: Aboriginal peoples accounted for 3.3% of the federal public service workforce, up from 2.9% on March 31, 1999. Among large departments, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada continues to employ the highest proportion of Aboriginal employees at 28.5%.

Hires and Terminations: Aboriginal peoples make up 3.9% of all new hires into the federal Public Service, up from 3.3% a year earlier. In terms of type of employment, most new Aboriginal employees (81.2%) were hired for a specified term. Almost three-quarters of all Aboriginal peoples who separated from the federal Public Service were term employees; the converse, one quarter, were indeterminate employees, down from almost half compared with last year.

Promotions: In terms of promotions in the public sector, Aboriginal employees received 3.3% of all promotions, up from 3% a year ago.

6.4.3  Main Barriers

Return to Table of Contents

Double/Triple Jeopardy: A prominent theme throughout the consultation process was the problem of double or triple jeopardy. This situation is faced by people who belong to more than one designated group, and therefore face heightened discrimination. In particular, Aboriginal peoples with disabilities (estimated in one source to be at over 30% of the Aboriginal population²¹), and Aboriginal women, are among the most disadvantaged in the labour market.

Workplace Issues: The turnover of Aboriginal employees is very high in both the public and private sectors, making employee recruitment and retention an important workplace issue. Reasons for this include lack of cultural acceptance among co-workers, lack of mentoring and counselling, unfriendly work environments, and lack of support systems to deal with the differences between corporate and Aboriginal cultures. It could be addressed by mentorship and cultural accommodations, as well as development of various other support systems in the workplace.

Further reasons for fluctuating levels of hirings, promotions, and terminations include the fact that many Aboriginal employees are hired into temporary, seasonal, or unstable jobs, which are not conducive to retention in the workforce, or to increasing overall employment levels.

Youth: Aboriginal peoples are the fastest growing demographic group in the country and have a higher proportion of children and youth than the overall Canadian population. This adds a sense of urgency to address issues that will have an impact on young Aboriginal people entering the labour market.

6.5  Persons with Disabilities

6.5.1  Federally Regulated Private Sector

Return to Table of Contents


1991 HALS survey: 6.5%




Overall Representation: According to the 2000 of HRDC/Labour Annual Report, people with disabilities represented 2.4% of the workforce in 1999, drastically below the labour market availability of 6.5%. It is expected this imbalance will increase when new data from the 2001 Participation and Activities Limitations Survey (PALS) is available in 2003.

The first Employment Equity Actin 1987 appeared to have a significant impact on the total numbers of people with disabilities in the workforce, in that the percentage rose from 1.7% in 1987 to 2.3% in 1989. Since that time, however, people with disabilities have experienced little improvement in their workforce representation (currently 2.4%) and have only reached 37% of their overall potential labour market availability in 1999.

Hires and Terminations: People with disabilities had a 0.9% share of hirings only and a 2% share of terminations in 1999. These numbers suggest a net loss of persons with disabilities in the workforce (746 more people terminated than hired). People with disabilities and Aboriginal peoples are the only groups where a net loss has occurred over the last ten years, and according to the statistics from the 2000 Annual Report the net loss of people with disabilities (3,469 people in the last five years) appears to be significantly higher than for Aboriginal peoples.

Promotions: Most persons with disabilities are concentrated in clerical occupations. Even though the share of promotions received by them increased from 1.8 % to 1.9 % in 1999, it’s still lower than the record level of 2.8 % observed in 1990 and it’s below their representation of 2.4 %.

6.5.2  Public Sector

Return to Table of Contents

Overall Representation: The representation of persons with disabilities in the federal public service workforce increased marginally to 4.7% from 4.6% as at the end of March 1999. Of the large departments, Human Resources Development Canada employs the highest proportion of employees with disabilities, at 8.5%.

Hires and Terminations: In 1999, just under 1 in 8 persons with disabilities was hired as an indeterminate employee, down from approximately 1 in 5 two years ago. Eight of 10 persons with disabilities entered the federal Public Service in the Administrative Support or Administrative and Foreign Service categories. Almost 50% of persons with disabilities separating from the federal Public Service are indeterminate employees, down from 2 out of 3 observed last year.

Promotions: Employees with disabilities received 4.1% of all promotions, up marginally from 3.9% last year, but still below their internal representation of 4.7%.

6.5.3  Main Barriers

Return to Table of Contents

Double/triple jeopardy: Some people with disabilities face a complex interplay of barriers. For example, women with disabilities are the least likely of all groups to have worked full-time for the full year and are most likely to have gone without work all year. Aboriginal women with disabilities are the most disadvantaged of all groups covered under the Act.

Accommodation: The private sector lags behind the public sector in the engagement of persons with disabilities. While there are costs associated with physical and work tools accommodation, the problem may be more attitudinal on the part of employers. Given the economic linkages to employment equity already presented, there are opportunity costs associated with the under-utilisation of this talent pool. The return on investment may be significant. Working age adults need work-related supports in order to earn their own living. In the 1991 Health and Activity Limitations Survey (HALS), persons with disabilities identified lack of job accommodation and flexible hours, loss of disability supports and income, and inadequate training as some of the factors that prevented them from participating in the labour market²².

Links with other social issues: Key employment issues include a low level of participation in the labour market, less likelihood of having full-time, full-year employment, and high unemployment. Yet:

"Effective practices show that employers can be successful when they take a proactive approach to recruiting and maintaining persons with disabilities as part of their skilled workforce"23.

Education: Overall, persons with disabilities are underrepresented among those with a university degree and over-represented among those who have less than a secondary school education. For example, 36% of working-age persons with disabilities have not completed high school compared to 18.3% of persons without disabilities and 36.4% of persons with disabilities have graduated from a post-secondary institution compared to 51.4% of persons without disabilities. There is a strong link between educational attainment and labour market performance for persons with disabilities. 46.4% of persons with disabilities with a university degree were employed throughout the entire year during 1998, while only 19.6% of persons with disabilities who had not completed high school worked year-round. (Statistics Canada’s Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics, 1993-98)

6.6  Visible Minorities

6.6.1  Federally Regulated Private Sector

Return to Table of Contents


1996 census availability: 10.3%




Overall Representation: Representation of visible minorities in the workforce covered by the Employment Equity Act has improved since the Act has been in force. Statistics show that during this time, representation has doubled, from 5% in 1987 to 10.5% in 1999. Since, according to the 1996 census, the availability rate for visible minorities is 10.3%, they have achieved over 100% representation. It should be noted however, that the immigration rate is rising, and the availability of visible minorities in the labour market is continually increasing. It is estimated that the availability rate for visible minorities will reach 14% in the year 2001²⁴.

Hires and Terminations: The progress made by the private sector in hiring members of visible minorities is undeniable. Terminations of visible minorities as a proportion of all terminations were reported as 9.9%, which is up from 1998.

Promotions: In the private sector, visible minorities primarily occupy scientific and professional positions, and their membership in the management group remains very low. In 1999, promotions for visible minority employees under the Act remained unchanged from the previous year at 14.1%.

6.6.2  Public Sector

Return to Table of Contents

Overall Representation: Persons in a visible minority group represented 5.5% of the federal public service workforce at the end of March 2000. Excluding data for the former Revenue Canada, this reflects an increase of half a percentage point from the situation as of March 31, 1999. When Revenue Canada became Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, a separate employer, the number of persons in a visible minority group in the Public Service was reduced by almost one third.

Among the large departments, Health Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada employ the highest proportion of persons in a visible minority group, both at 9.5%.

Hires and Terminations: Of all new hires, 5.7% were persons in a visible minority group, up from 4.4% a year earlier. Of all new indeterminate hires, 8.3% were employees in a visible minority group, up from 6.9% a year earlier. Persons in a visible minority group accounted for 4.2% of separations by indeterminate employees, up from 3.7% a year ago.

Promotions: Employees in a visible minority group received 6.3% of all promotions, up from 6.1% a year ago, and higher than their internal representation of 5.5%.

6.6.3  Main Barriers

Return to Table of Contents

Under-utilisation of Skills of New Immigrants: More than 20% of the population were born outside Canada, and of these, more than 75% are members of a visible minority group²⁵. Integration of white immigrants into Canadian society is easier than the integration of members of visible minorities, and, as a result, members of visible minority groups are the most disadvantaged in the labour market in terms of wages and occupational levels. This problem amounts to a form of racial discrimination²⁶.

Although members of visible minorities are generally, better educated than the average Canadian, they hold marginal jobs that under-utilise their capabilities, often because foreign education credentials are not recognised by Canadian institutions and organisations. Visible minorities are thus unable to make use of their qualifications, and earn up to 25% less than those of white Canadians²⁷. Only half of new immigrants who belong to visible minority groups have been able to find work suited to their level of knowledge and qualifications. Moreover, visible minorities are rarely found in management positions. In the top 20% of the salary scale, their representation is half that of white Canadians with the same level of education²⁸. Blacks appear to form the most disadvantaged group; with the same professional qualifications and the same work experience, white job applicants are offered three times as many jobs as Black candidates²⁹.

Glass Ceiling: Some attribute the unfavourable situation of visible minorities in the labour market to cultural differences, language problems and the new immigrants’ poor quality of education. This does not explain, however, why members of visible minorities born and educated in Canada, face the same dismal situation. Graduates from low-income families and visible minority families have difficulty finding full-time employment³⁰.

Even when they do find employment, it is rare for them to obtain senior management positions. This has been attributed to long-standing practices such as the "old boys’ network’ and the tendency to promote "clones", that is, those who are the most like us.

Until sufficient visible minorities are in positions of authority that attitudes change and visible minority senior managers are no longer seen as token, this practice will likely continue to be perpetuated³¹.

Some action is being taken to correct the situation of visible minorities in the public service. The Treasury Board Secretariat has given its approval to an action plan, entitled Embracing Change in the Federal Public Service, proposed by the Task Force on the Participation of Visible Minorities in the Federal Public Service³². The Task Force believes a benchmark objective of one in five in external public service hirings is attainable by 2003 and one in five for management appointments by 2005.

6.7  Data-Related Issues

Return to Table of Contents

Many issues surrounding self-identification and definition of some designated groups surfaced in consultations. However, they are also addressed in this section because they affect the data.

6.7.1  Aboriginal Peoples Self-identification

Return to Table of Contents

The Aboriginal community is concerned people are falsely self-identifying as Aboriginal as a way to benefit from programs designed to help Aboriginal peoples gain, retain, and move up in employment. Similar concern was expressed about people self-identifying as Aboriginal despite distant ancestry and, more important, if they have no connection to their Aboriginal heritage or culture.

6.7.2  Visible Minorities Self-identification

Return to Table of Contents

Several members of visible minorities refuse to take part in voluntary self-identification, claiming that they would not be proud to potentially obtain employment or advancement in their career based on the fact that they belong to a designated group. Consequently, the representation of members of visible minorities is sometimes understated. Some even attribute the apparent under-representation of visible minorities in the public sector to the failure of this method of collecting data. There also exists the situation in which people identify themselves in Statistics Canada surveys, but not on an employer’s workforce analysis survey, leading to incorrect representation data.

6.7.3  Persons with Disabilities Definition

Return to Table of Contents

During consultations it was suggested that the definition under the EEA be changed to correspond with the World Health Organisation (WHO) definition, which is based on employability rather than physical ability³³. The two differ in part because the WHO definition requires medical certification in order to be viewed as having a disability. The EEA self-identification policy, however, does not allow the use of medical certificates. This proposed amendment could also help to clarify employees’ questions or confusion surrounding the self-identification process.

A fundamental problem with the current Act, according to employers, centres on the issue of self-identification. An employer may spend tens of thousands of dollars accommodating an employee with a disability only to find that they did not self-identify once their disability has palliated and they are as able to do their job as any other employee. Given sections 9(2) and 18(4) of the Act, employers cannot count an employee as a designated group member if he or she does not self-identify.

There are limited sources of data on persons with disabilities. Data collection is underway this year for the Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) 2001, the first major survey on persons with disabilities to be undertaken since 1991 when the Health and Activity Limitation Survey (HALS) was carried out.

6.7.4  Visible Minorities Definition

Return to Table of Contents

Section 2 of the Act states that "‘members of visible minorities’ means persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour." This definition does not make a distinction between different subgroups, which may be identified by criteria such as region of origin, region of residence, or even the time of arrival in Canada. The Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, however, had already stated in its October 1984 report that without such distinctions the real issue may not be addressed:

"To combine all non-whites together as visible minorities for the purpose of devising systems to improve their equitable participation, without making distinctions to assist those groups in particular need, may deflect attention from where the problems are greatest34."

It can be argued that consideration of such subgroups in the definition of visible minorities may result in the creation of unwarranted ethnic or racial hierarchies. Others counter that globalisation is making some visible minorities "invisible". Even though the Act still deals with all visible minorities as an inseparable whole, Statistics Canada and some others make a few distinctions among members of visible minorities, primarily on the basis of their origins. For this reason, it is possible to obtain statistics on such visible minorities as Chinese, Blacks, Japanese, Southeast Asians, and Filipinos.

7.  Consultations

Return to Table of Contents

This chapter is entirely based on participants’ statements made during the consultations.

Twenty consultation sessions were held across Canada as part of the 2001 statutory review of the Employment Equity Act. Almost 300 people representing various groups with interest in the Act were invited to express their opinions and concerns. Participants included employers, unions, designated group members and representatives, and consultants. They represented all parts of Canada. HRDC/ Labour developed a discussion paper to generate dialogue, which is included as Appendix A. Appendix B provides a complete list of participants and consultation dates.

Several themes were explored during these consultations including issues related to the four designated groups, self-identification, employer obligations and the unions, enforcement and education, the business case, the public sector, separate employers, and provincial jurisdiction and FCP. In summary, there was overwhelming support for the continued need for the Act from all participants. The exception was voiced by members of designated groups who criticised the program for not doing enough for them. In terms of interest and the amount devoted to the various themes, issues related to persons with disabilities, visible minorities and Aboriginal Peoples had the major share, followed by self-identification and employer obligations and union involvement. Other themes received less time and attention from participants.

While details of the feedback received through the consultations meetings are included in sections 7.1 through 7.14 below, the following bullets provide summarised highlights of comments made by participants:

• Continued Need For The Act

Just as the 1991 Review confirmed consensus on the need for the Act, the latest review re-iterated the need for continuation of the Employment Equity Act. No one suggested that the need for employment equity had diminished. There were calls for stronger enforcement and for a higher profile educational and leadership role for HRDC/Labour.

• The Business Case

Many made the case that Canada needs to invest in human capital to maximise the use of available skills and talent. To do otherwise negatively affects the "bottom-line".

• Education and Training

A common opinion was that enhanced education and training need to be directed at all workforce positions: managers and employers alike. Often senior management buy into employment equity, but staffing officers and line management remain reluctant. Misinformation about employment equity could be addressed by vigorous public education initiatives. There were many calls for a leadership role for HRDC/Labour to generate co-operation with community organisations representing the designated groups, bargaining agents and employers.

• Employer Obligations

Two major issues cited were employer accountability and the enforcement of obligations pursuant to the Act. Some felt that line-managers may not be fully aware of employment equity commitments from the top and that accountability may be enhanced through performance reviews for hiring, retention and promotion. Some employers felt time spent on reporting and compliance audits impinged on the time available to practice employment equity. Others expressed satisfaction with HRDC/Labour support and software.

• Unions and Employee Involvement

Unions want to be involved in the employment equity planning process. The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) stated it is important to be involved at the outset. For example, participation in designing self-identification surveys will enable unions to promote the importance of questionnaire completion. Designated groups’ representatives stressed the importance of transparency and written policies on issues such as accommodation.

• Women

Overall representation approximates availability, but concentration in lower level positions persists. Accommodations to balance work & family life remain an issue.

• Aboriginal Peoples

Participants expressed concern with respect to a lack of mentoring to help First Nations people and other employees adjust to cultural differences as well as to a lack of a welcoming environment in the workplace. Concerns were also expressed about the perpetuation of outmoded stereotypes.

• Persons With Disabilities

Issues discussed included the need for employers to have mandatory written accommodation policies and to address barriers to employment through meaningful accommodation rather than token gestures. Other issues included the fear of self-identification for some persons with disabilities and the expected increase in the number of people with a disability as the population ages.

• Visible Minorities

In the federally regulated private sector, representation approximates availability but, as for women, concentration remains in lower level positions. Several felt that lack of recognition of foreign credentials is a contributing factor. The question of definitions regarding subgroups came up. In response, many argued that segregating the visible minority community into groups which are more economically disadvantaged than others would impose a hierarchy of disadvantage which would be divisive in nature.

• Other Designated Groups

Suggestions were heard at some meetings to include other designated groups such as gays and lesbians, youth, and older workers.

• Federal Public Service

While the HRDC/Labour consultations process focused on the federally regulated private sector, several public sector unions and designated group representatives expressed concerns related to the public service. A TBS representative was invited to observe at all HRDC/Labour meetings with stakeholders.

• Separate Employers*

Separate employers and their bargaining agents are frustrated at the lack of support. HRDC/Labour provides support to the federally regulated private sector and the TBS does the same for federal public service departments. No organisation is charged with providing support for the 15 separate employers employing approximately 60,000 employees in federal special operating agencies.

• Self-Identification

Self-identification was a major theme in most meetings. Some designated group members, particularly persons with disabilities and Aboriginal peoples for whom group membership may not be obvious are still reluctant to self-identify. Some employers expressed concern about spending money to accommodate persons who, once accommodated, no longer feel disadvantaged and so do not self-identify as such.

• Enforcement

Employers raised concerns about the consistency of CHRC enforcement procedures. Designated group members felt that complaints should be allowed under the Act. Union representatives felt compliance should be strengthened and saw an enhanced role for the CHRC.

• Data Issues

Concern was expressed about the relevance of comparison data since labour market availability for women, Aboriginal peoples and visible minorities is based on 1996 census data, while the availability data for persons with disabilities is based on the 1991 HALS. Some stressed the importance of numerical benchmarks while others wanted to focus less on numbers and more on employer accountability and qualitative issues.

• Provincial Jurisdiction

The view was expressed that the federal government should encourage provincial/territorial jurisdictions to enact employment equity legislation. Participants in Montreal felt that given their unique immigration policies, groups are not discriminated against in the same way and that for visible minorities, a definition should be derived through subgroup consultations.

• Federal Contractors

Some want to see the same employment equity rules and regulations in the federally regulated private sector applied to employers and employees that come under the Federal Contractors program. Others argued that provinces and municipalities receiving federal transfer payments should comply, as should employers who get grants and contributions from HRDC.

NOTE: The following sections contain an expanded version of the brief notes above. As well, Appendix D contains quotes, by permission, of several of the participants at the consultation meetings.

7.1  Continued Need for the Act

Return to Table of Contents

Most participants provided feedback on the usefulness and relevance of the Act and supported its continuation.

A submission from the Canadian Banker's Association summed up the overwhelming support the Act received as a positive instrument of the government of Canada's social policy:

"The CBA continues to believe that, as a policy instrument designed to promote fundamental long-term change, the Employment Equity Act (EEA) in its present form remains an effective, appropriately focused and balanced law and is an important component, although not the only one, of the efforts that will help Canada achieve an inclusive society, a goal established by the government in the February 2001 Throne Speech."

Although the Act applies to only to the workforce in federally-regulated jurisdictions and the federal public service it was noted that the Act is also having a wider positive impact.

Some employers with no legal obligation to comply with Act, practice employment equity nonetheless because they believe it is good for business, according to one consultant. "I think this speaks volumes on the need for the Act and its usefulness," said the consultant.

Despite the overwhelming support for the Act, the consultations also revealed a desire for improvements to its scope and the way it is being implemented.

Designated groups and labour were concerned that government downsizing has hurt employment equity and led to a lack of co-ordination. Efforts by the CHRC and HRDC fell short of the mark, they said, with the result that many of the issues that existed prior to the Act in 1986 have persisted, including concentration and discrimination in pay; and little impact on the 1.4 million people who have immigrated to Canada in the last six or seven years.

Others wanted more enforcement in the Act with some arguing for a quota system similar to U.S. employment equity legislation.

Still others noted that some employers have not bought in yet and are still fighting the Act. "They view it as an infringement on their management rights to hire and fire. They think it is an unnecessary burden," said one participant.

Concern was also expressed about the need for better public relations and public education," to drive home the EE message.

"Workplace education is essential in breaking down misperceptions and prejudice," said Johann Tann of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

"Attitudes do not change by chance. Getting people to understand the full implications of EE and the diversity in the Canadian population will take a sound public education program."

7.2  The Business Case

Return to Table of Contents

A major theme in the discussions was that employment equity is good for business and the bottom line. The federal government was urged to send a strong message to employers about the benefits of adopting fair and equitable workplace practices.

Participants cautioned about the negative effects of discrimination on the Canadian economy and the psychological costs suffered by individuals who are prevented from gaining opportunities. Rising retirements in an ageing population will mean employers can't afford to ignore qualified employees in the designated groups.

It was also noted that without employment equity social costs would be much higher.

"Health care costs, for example, would be greater if members of designated groups were not supported this way," said Robyn Mackie of the Calgary Association of the Deaf.

"People who aren’t employed usually suffer more depression and illness, require social assistance and claim unemployment insurance. These things would cost society even more than whatever EE programs cost."

Some employers believe employment equity imposes a cost burden and said they were unable to see the benefits, at least in the short term. One participant strongly disagreed:

"This is not affirmative action; it is about hiring the best person for the job minus the discrimination associated with personal characteristics. This does not cost employers a dime."

Still others said employers couldn’t be blamed if they understand only business and care little about doing the right thing unless it is tied to profitability.

"Employers sometimes think doing the right thing is not good for them. Businesses are there to make money, not to do social good. They can practice discrimination and still make money"

one participant said. They should learn, however, that removing barriers to the employment will yield the best candidates which in turn is good for the bottom line.

Some participants linked employment equity to Canada's position in the global market-place, stating that investment in human capital is the key to maximising the skills and talents in the country.

7.3  Education and Training

Return to Table of Contents

One of the stronger messages to come out of the consultations was the need for more education. Specifically, the government was urged to: (1) help employers better educate their managers and workforces, (2) educate employers about the need for employment equity and how to go about achieving it, (3) inform the general public and dispel the many myths about the purpose of employment equity.

In particular, the Labour Program was called upon to take an active role in educating the public about the meaning, goals, and benefits of employment equity.

Participants called on HRDC to hold regular meetings of community organisations representing the designated groups, bargaining agents and employers to discuss issues of common interest, identify difficulties and offer solutions. The complaint was heard that the only time issues are brought up is when there is a review of the Act.

One of the challenges in getting the EE message out to the workplace is attracting employees to meetings. One contractor who volunteered to do a presentation at a workplace was very disappointed that in a firm of 450 employees, only 20 people showed-up for the event. There was a lack of commitment to organising this event by the company.

A common view was that changing corporate culture is needed to make more room for diversity. Rigid structures in many companies are counter-productive to achieving employment equity. Employment equity is not just about hiring and accommodation but also about creating a welcoming workplace environment where people are comfortable about who they are and where they are from.

7.4  Employer Obligations

Return to Table of Contents

Two major issues arising from the consultations were employer accountability and enforcement of obligations. Suggestions included adding specific provisions to hold employers accountable for their EE activities and adoption by employers of a staffing process for designated groups. This would accelerate the achievement of a representative workforce, where hiring would be transparent.

Employers called for more materials and guidance from the CHRC and the HRDC. Decreasing program support since 1995 and reduced funding have become barriers for the advancement of employment equity. Employers said they needed "actionables" rather than encouragement to think of innovative ways to implement the Act.

It was also suggested that employment equity considerations should be included in the job descriptions and performance evaluations of managers. One participant noted:

"Front-line managers are not aware of the requirements of the Act, and top managers who know better only give lip-service commitment to employment equity, but this does not translate into action the workplace."

Managers could be held accountable through performance reviews for hiring, retention and promotion. Managers should also have greater contact with their employees, and understand the value of going outside their immediate circles to find new employees.

Participants were dissatisfied with accommodation, pointing out the lack of provisions to hold managers accountable for the implementation of special measures and positive policies and practices in employment equity plans. If managers are not accountable for results, plans are too often lost or discarded. Key activities are getting senior management to approve strategic positioning in terms of employment equity and to approve training and technical support.

Some employers complained there aren’t enough candidates from the designated groups to meet their needs. Partnering with the community could help, but this is also a challenge. They said HRDC should provide more support to employers who partner. Some also noted it is frustrating to hire and train designated groups who then move on when other companies "steal" them away.

Other participants said that employers often manipulate their own employment systems so that their sons and daughters get hired and are not prepared to share the hiring power. Concerned was also raised about employers who staff mostly term and temporary jobs to meet the obligations. This practice would be curbed if obligations were changed to include only permanent jobs for reporting purposes. One employer disagreed and said that his company hires and monitors temporary employees to move the better candidates into permanent positions.

7.4.1  Employer’s Obligations: The Reporting Obligation

Return to Table of Contents

A main concern for many employers was the amount of time spent on reporting. Participants representing employer associations stated that as much as 80% of the time they spent on employment equity was devoted to completing reporting requirements. Many believed reducing these requirements would lead to greater progress in employment equity.

On the other hand, employers in banking and other sectors did not see reporting as a major issue given that HRDC/Labour provides the software allowing them to download reports from their human resource databases and generate the report. Several options were discussed on how to lessen the reporting burden for employers.

Still, the message from all employers at the consultations was that too much time and expense were spent on enforcement (audits and reports) leaving little time to develop or implement employment equity action plans. In her submission, Sharon Caddigan of the Calgary Airport Authority, elaborated on this view:

"The task to prepare the EE audit is huge and quite onerous ($50,000 is a lot of money for a small organisation), and the preparation of the annual reports is quite time consuming. Personally, I would rather focus on our employment systems to try to correct any problems. In a small organisation, it is hard to convince higher management to allocate resources to this process. The Act is such that the reporting requirements are quite clear, but the obligation to look at employment systems that flows from the equity plans that we prepare are not monitored or widely encouraged".

Employers said that they need more help with designing the employment equity plans and changing their employment systems. One claimed annual reports were unnecessary and suggested biannual reporting. Another employer complained his company is making reasonable effort and progress but is judged only according to numbers generated by HRDC and CHRC.

Adding to the diversity of opinion, other participants said reporting is a necessary part of accountability. Union representatives believed there should be stricter requirements for reporting with more detailed reports including more information on women with disabilities or visible minority women in the workplace. It was also noted that reporting obligations are necessary to keep employers on track and should remain a fundamental aspect of the Act.

7.5  Unions and Employee Involvement

Return to Table of Contents

Unions want to be involved with employers in the employment equity planning process. The Act states that employees’ representatives shall be consulted, but unions say this does not always happen. Union representatives maintained the Act should be strengthened to make collaboration obligatory and enforceable. Moreover, the review should define what measures employers must take when consulting with a union. The Canadian Labour Congress, among others, emphasised that unions want to be made aware and have their input considered when employers make employment equity decisions. Unions also want to be involved during the implementation stage and maintain it is essential to include their participation in designing self-identification surveys.

Another suggestion called for unions to be involved in employment equity through their collective bargaining activity.

As the following submission of the Fédération des travailleurs et des travailleuses du Québec shows, unions feel strongly that employment equity can't be left solely in the hands of employers.

"It is imperative that employment equity programs be negotiated. Unions, where they are present, must be involved in every step of the process. … In practice, the participation of employees and unions is useful to employers in terms of avoiding possible resistance. It also allows a collective assessment of what may be most appropriate in a particular workplace, by those who know the situation best. … The Act and Regulations must be made clear, for experience teaches us that, where an employer wishes to avoid us, only the law will force him to involve us."

One employer welcomed greater union involvement but argued that union-management collaboration does not work in employment equity. Another participant said annual consultations between unions and employers are an opportunity for management to share the results of the reporting process.

Other participating employers said they were receptive to working with unions on employment equity, but complained that when they wanted to hire women to increase representation, the unions were opposed. Examples were provided of unions that did not include employment equity issues on their agendas, and of union representatives who were not supportive regarding job actions to benefit members of designated groups.

Representatives from designated groups expressed frustration at the lack of clarity about the role of unions and poor community involvement. Stakeholders should know that employee representatives are not the same as union representatives, they said. The Act should be flexible on collaboration since unions cannot claim they represent all employees on employment equity. They noted the difficulty in defining a role for unions that go beyond normal collective bargaining agreements. If unions are given a role in employment equity they should also share the responsibility for the outcome of the negotiations. Further, they should help people in designated groups and not just union members.

One participant, who had been screened out of a job because she was not a union member, complained that unions can act as a barrier to employment equity. Her view was countered by another participant who said that unions are in a tough spot. They should defend collective agreements, such as seniority clauses, when they are called upon to promote employment equity.

Another participant raised the issue of employees who retire with a pension and come back as contract workers and take work away from potential employees from the designated groups. Seen in this light, hiring campaigns are an opportunity for unions to compel employers to consider employment equity issues.

In response, union representatives said it has been difficult to make employment equity a top priority. They say they need better information to change policies. Moreover, when employers are contracting out and side stepping unions, job security and seniority are important issues and cannot be ignored.

7.6  Women

Return to Table of Contents

It is clear from narrative accounts given at the consultations, as well as from employer reports, that specific barriers still exist for women in the labour market under the Act, inhibiting them from achieving their full potential.

Although the overall representation of women in the workforce under the Act almost matches their availability, participants were concerned that women continue to face systemic discrimination in the workplace. Many are mired in low-paying jobs or traditional occupations. Accommodations to balance work and family life are often inadequate.

Another issue which received attention is the difficulty of attracting women to the trades. One employer in British Columbia reported there were 31 women in long-shoring jobs in 1991, but only 19 in 2001. The employer is modifying requirements to attract women candidates and is having some success, but women are hard to recruit and retain in this setting.

Double jeopardy is also a problem, particularly for visible minority women. "It is one thing to be a woman and face discrimination, but it is more difficult if you are a visible minority woman. "The Employment Equity Act needs to address the need to compare relative advancements that women have made to those of minority women," said Nina Karachi-Khaled of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women. "Women of colour and immigrant women continue to lag behind other women in the workforce."

7.7  Aboriginal Peoples

Return to Table of Contents

Aboriginal peoples have had mixed experience with employment equity. While their numbers are adequate in the federal public service, they suffer from high departure rates. They are also below market availability in the private sector. In both sectors, there is a lack of managerial positions available for Aboriginal peoples. Many Aboriginal persons have academic qualifications but no experience relegating them to entry-level jobs.

Two areas of concern were identified for Aboriginal Peoples: (1) lack of mentoring in the workplace to help Aboriginal employees adjust to corporate cultures; and (2) lack of a welcoming environment in the workplace. Stereotypes and unfriendly work environments have led to low retention and promotion rates of Aboriginal Peoples in the workforce. Suggestions for addressing this problem included cultural awareness programs aimed at the non-Aboriginal members of the workforce and a cultural audit which would require the development of objective criteria to measure employers’ EE efforts.

Some employers supported hiring Aboriginal Peoples but said they had to compete with others for the same individuals. "Some candidates play one employer against the other to get higher salaries and want to be paid more than the company can afford," said one employer.

"The bidding wars have often resulted in a candidate refusing the job after negotiating the salary and the managers get frustrated because they are told to take this candidate for the company to reach its employment equity goals."

Other employers said they encountered cultural difficulties when they hired Aboriginal persons. "Aboriginal employees needed to take Friday afternoons and Monday mornings off for cultural reasons", said some employers adding that, "Aboriginal employees do not stay in jobs and have absenteeism problems due to cultural differences or drug and alcohol problems." Another employer said, "Aboriginal employees fail to show up for work and they can go down to the band office and get welfare for the week instead of coming to work."

Other participants countered that such statements show ignorance of Aboriginal culture and social background and perpetuate stereotypes. If an Aboriginal employee has a problem and wants to go on a rehabilitation program, or has a cultural need that requires his attention, he might get fired because the employer does not recognise the program or the culture. One participant pointed out that banks make an effort to attract and promote Aboriginal peoples, but fail to accommodate the needs of Aboriginal employees. An Aboriginal woman disagreed, pointing out how the Act had been instrumental in her getting a job at a bank and how both her cultural and career needs had been met in a positive work environment.

Some Aboriginal Peoples fear losing employment if they self-identify. "On the reserve, parents say to their children: do not tell them you’re Indian, you’ll lose your job," said one participant. Other people abuse the employment equity program by identifying as Aboriginal persons when they only have distant ancestors. White spouses of registered Indians, or white persons with a remote grandparent choose to self identify to gain perceived advantages. One Aboriginal public servant said that she had a boss who discriminated against her for five years but was able to resolve the situation after learning about employment equity through her union.

7.8  Persons with Disabilities

Return to Table of Contents

Persons with disabilities have experienced the least progress under the Act with very small advances in representation, recruitment, and promotion between 1995 and 2000. Major issues which surfaced during the consultations included the definition and accommodation of persons with disabilities.

Participants suggested that written accommodation policies be mandatory under the Act, and that employers be held accountable for their written commitments. Accommodation of workers with needs should be seen as the norm and not as a favour from the employer.

Some, including the CLC, stressed the importance of accommodating persons with disabilities by meeting their individualised needs. The Employment Equity Act only requires employers to make reasonable accommodation to the point of undue hardship, not simply to do what appears to be "reasonable" or "practicable". The 1998 amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act specified that accommodation must be to the point of undue hardship "considering health, safety and cost" (Section 15(2)). The Supreme Court of Canada has adopted a similar standard in two recent decisions, Meiorin and Grismer"³⁵.

Employers were seen as unaware of the financial support available for various accommodation programs, such as for communications and hearing aids. Nor have employers kept up with the pace of change in terms of accommodation, said others, citing workplace web sites not accessible to some persons with disabilities.

Suggestions for improving accommodation included training, accountability, and development of guidelines. Assigning people to psychologists through the CAP program to assess the needed accommodation was seen as condescending and fundamentally wrong. Another participant said systemic barriers face persons with disabilities as employers screen them out at the beginning of a recruitment process.

Second, some have argued that the Act should require all employers to have an accommodation policy, and should specify the key elements which must be contained within that policy. A policy is an essential first step for ensuring that managers understand the needs of their employees and will assist their integration into the workplace. A written policy would also communicate to employees their employer’s willingness to provide them with assistance and support.

Banks have made significant efforts in accommodation, but have difficulty reaching the benchmark numbers for persons with disabilities. Many factors contribute to this situation such as socio-economic and cultural issues, and transportation problems. People do not know, for example, that getting to and from home and work is an issue for persons with disabilities.

Discussions also revolved around the definition of a person with a disability. Under the current Act people are seen as disabled if they consider themselves to be disadvantaged in employment or believe that an employer is likely to consider them to be disadvantaged. Some people argued this should be changed to be more in line with the definition of the World Health Organisation (WHO) which states that people with medically certified or perceived impairments are disabled by society’s failure to accommodate their needs. Others disagreed, saying the Act's definition is more suitable for Canada’s needs, as the WHO definition appeals more to countries where the support for disabled persons is much worse.

Many participants rejected expanding the definition of people with disabilities while others wanted more attention paid to types of disabilities, the ageing workforce and repetitive stress injuries.

The issue of self-identity also received a great deal of attention during the consultations. Evidence persists that some persons with disabilities do not self-identify in the employer's surveys. "If you self-identify as a person with disabilities, you seriously limit your opportunities for advancement, or worse, you could be out on the street," said one participant. This view was echoed by another person with a disability who said, "I am lucky to be here because I am a number. But I am expected to work ten times harder than any ordinary employee because I am not productive due to my disability." Yet another talked about the "Glass Staircase" facing employees with disabilities. "I can look in, but I can’t even get in the door. But if I get in, I cannot climb."

Some suggested that self-identification should occur at the time of hiring to establish whether a person was disabled at the time of hiring, or sometime after they were on the job. Injured workers or persons whose limitations are accommodated do not know that they should, or could self identify.

Representatives of persons with disabilities said some employers consider persons with disabilities unfit for the workplace, ignore training for this group, and direct them to certain jobs, which are often low paying. Other participants said many employers hire persons with disabilities on short-term contracts just before the end of the reporting period.

It was suggested that the concept of Undue Hardship in the Act should be redefined and discussed. The government should require service providers to make service such as transportation accessible to people with disabilities.

Other recommendations included more links between social organisations and employers to ensure persons with disabilities have the opportunity to stay in their jobs and have their needs met more effectively. Persons with disabilities want to feel useful in the workplace and be able to find work without having to worry about employers getting government grants to hire them.

7.9  Visible Minorities

Return to Table of Contents

Visible minority groups expressed concern about hiring and promotion statistics in both the public and private sectors. In the private sector where overall figures are positive, visible minorities are subject to discriminatory hiring practices and once hired, they face a glass ceiling where they become stuck in the same position with little or no chance for promotion. As a result, visible minorities are poorly represented in the management category.

In the federal public service visible minorities have seen the least progress among the four designated groups. In the consultations representatives from these groups called for an increase in these low representation figures to match market availability and a similar boost in representation at the executive level. One participant said change will occur when designated group members are employed not as mailroom clerks but as CEO’s or Deputy Ministers.

Exclusion of many qualified immigrants (visible minorities and/or women) from the federal public service employment because they lack Canadian citizenship was also discussed in consultations. Despite a high education level and relevant experience, newcomers from Africa, for instance, have considerable difficulty finding suitable employment. It was also noted immigrants in the private sector are concentrated in low paying jobs, such as cleaners because their credentials are not recognised.

Participants claimed acceptance of credentials increases or declines according to skin colour and called on the federal government to take leadership on this issue.

"We need a program to evaluate credentials and assist immigrants as they enter the country," said one participant. Another claimed professional associations control access to the professions in sometimes-questionable ways and are often an obstacle to the integration of persons from the designated groups.

It was noted most immigrants, even the most highly qualified, must return to school or university for several years to be considered for jobs they are already qualified to do. One suggestion called for foreign equivalency tests in engineering, medicine, and other professions.

Consultations also revealed a desire to revise the definition of "visible minorities" because rapidly changing demographics of major cities such as Toronto will soon lead to "visible majorities. " Some believed the definition should focus on the most disadvantaged visible minorities who, because of their colour and or place of residence, face the greatest barriers. " The closer to white you are, the better chance for advancement you have," said one participant. Members of the black community in Halifax maintained that the federal government should hire more qualified blacks to set an example.

"Even within the unions there is racism against blacks," said one participant. "What organisation will defend black people? Blacks have experienced more barriers in the workforce than other visible minority groups, and therefore their situation should be made a priority. Black Canadians have seen their people get jobs, only to be blocked from any advancement."

But others disagreed with altering the definition of visible minorities by removing specific groups. "We cannot segregate among the visible minorities by refining the definition, which would work to the disadvantage of many of the most visible of the minority groups. It must be done in a way that will not result in a divide and conquer situation."

Participants discussed "the misleading impression that visible minorities are OK," and raised five issues about the current data on visible minorities:

• The 10.3% labour availability rate for visible minorities is based on the 1996 census. The 2001 census could show an availability rate of 15%. Representation has therefore not been achieved in 2001 since it is still at 10.5%.
• The 10.5% figure covers only the federally regulated private sector which represents a small number of people. It does not include the federal public service where visible minority employees make up only 5% of the workforce.
• Statistics do not take into account variations in wages, jobs and social status within subgroups of visible minorities.
• When the figures are looked at in more detail, visible minorities are not adequately represented in the 14 occupational groups.
• There is a lack of data with respect to visible minorities employed by separate employers or federal contractors.

7.10  Possible New Designated Groups

Return to Table of Contents

The four designated groups were established in 1984 following the review of evidence of historic and chronic under-representation in the workplace and a dearth of opportunities encountered by women, Aboriginal Peoples, visible minorities, and persons with disabilities. At some of the consultation meetings it was suggested the original four designated groups could be expanded to include others such as gays, lesbians, youth, and older workers.

7.11  The Federal Public Service

Return to Table of Contents

A wide variety of views were expressed about employment equity and the federal public service. Many felt gains for some designated groups under the Act were achieved in the private sector but not in the public service. "So employment equity is not working in the very house of the custodian of the legislation," said one participant. Some said public service managers do not want to implement employment equity and they should be held accountable in their performance appraisals. Others said government as an employer is not good at promoting people from within. It tends to peg people in a classification and then forget about them. One union member said many visible minority candidates are automatically screened out from the hiring process.

The Employment Equity Positive Measures Program (Treasury Board) was seen as having little impact since it funds small pockets of programs in individual departments which don't develop into national programs. Participants also claimed federal advisory committees in the Treasury Board propose improvements and make recommendations and then fail to follow up.

Suggestions to improve employment equity in the public service included allocating more resources to support the Act, career development opportunities such as secondments and acting appointments to assist visible minority employees in obtaining promotions, linking training and mentoring initiatives across government departments to employment equity and anticipatory staffing with people from designated groups to help fill vacancies created by the large numbers of retirements in the near future.

7.12  Separate Employers

Return to Table of Contents

Separate employers are special operating agencies or corporations listed at Schedule I Part II of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. They are public sector employers outside the traditional public service and are subject to the Act if they employ 100 employees or more. The number of the employers has increased from just over six in 1996 to about 30 today, including 15 with 100 or more employees. These employers engage approximately 60,000 individuals and include the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Office of the Auditor-General, and the National Film Board.

Separate employers and their bargaining agents voiced frustrations with the lack of support and advice available to them, saying that neither the TBS nor the Minister of Labour seemed to be responsible for assisting them.

As part of its responsibility under the Employment Equity Act, the Labour Program of HRDC provides support to federally regulated employers in the private sector. The Treasury Board Secretariat provides similar support to federal public service departments. But no organisation is charged with providing support to separate employers. Faced with audits by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, separate employers have recently turned to from HRDC/Labour for help. Labour had the desire and expertise to provide assistance but lacked resources. As an interim solution the TBS committed $200,000 for one year to develop a program to provide support for separate employers.

The final report of the Advisory Committee on Labour Management Relations in the Federal Public Service, released June 2001, reviewed the situation of separate employers in relation to the federal public service. Recognising this group would continue to grow the Committee recommended separate employers should enjoy independence from Treasury Board to allow for flexible labour practices while retaining some consistency with core public service values.

7.13  Self Identification

Return to Table of Contents

Self-identification was a major theme in most consultations. Employers are required to report on the designated groups in their workforces through a voluntary employee survey. Employers can obtain gender information from personnel or pay files but voluntary self-identification is necessary to collect representation data.

Many Aboriginal peoples do not self-identify because they do not feel comfortable with the corporate culture. They also complain that some people self-identify as Aboriginal persons despite a slight ancestral connection and Aboriginal cultural values in order to seek a fast track for promotions. In the case of persons with disabilities, some individuals do not want to self-identify once the employer has accommodated them, believing it will hurt their career opportunities.

The Act forbids identification by employers. Several employers, however, advocated compulsory self-identification or even identification-by-employer. They said some employees belonging to designated groups choose not to identify, thereby skewing representation data and under-cutting their efforts. They pointed to the fact that individuals are more comfortable in identifying themselves as members of the designated groups in anonymous surveys, but not in employer forms that request the name of the person. Sometimes employees who have been accommodated by an employer will still not identify.

It was noted that questions on self-identification surveys are complicated and convoluted, because they must reflect the terminology used in the Regulations. One employer cited the example of employees who were not prepared to self-identify even though the form emphasised four times that the data was confidential and available to just two people.

Suggestions to increase the number of individuals in designated groups self-identifying included changing the definition of persons with disabilities and improving employers' employment equity plans. Some employees, however, fear discrimination by an employer or stereotyping by peers if they self-identify.

7.14  Enforcement

Return to Table of Contents

Participants said complaints should be allowed under the Act. Many felt the threat of litigation would encourage employer compliance but others warned it would only encourage lengthy and costly litigation the Act was designed to avoid.

Another suggestion was to remove distinctions between the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act while broadening the CHRC powers. A counter view, however, maintained employers would balk at such changes.

Many employers admitted to having a "hard time with the role of the CHRC" and the lengthy audit process. Some believed CHRC officers did not know what they wanted and would change criteria halfway through the process. Other questioned the effectiveness of the audits in promoting employment equity. Consistency of enforcement by the CHRC was also a seen as a problem and there were suggestions CHRC and HRDC should move away from the idea that employment equity is an exact science.

Others defended the role of the CHRC, however, and the need for more efective enforcement. "We have not witnessed any teeth used in employment equity for 20 years, and if you should nail a few employers with complaints to make better headway, so be it!" Many employers felt enforcement by the CHRC useful because it helps keep employers honest and backed the audit as a way to show employers how to implement employment equity properly.

Union participants also called for a strong Act and strict compliance. They believed the CHRC is not doing enough, and lacks the necessary tools and resources, especially when it comes to enforcing accountability.

7.15  Data Issues

Return to Table of Contents

Concern was expressed about availability numbers and demographic changes as well as the coming exodus of baby boomers from the workforce. Dramatic demographic changes have occurred in Canada and statistics on availability are out of date. There is a great need to change the Act to focus less on numbers and more on employer accountability for progress. Some participants said workforce analysis was inaccurate partly because some employers get employees to lie about their status to boost their numbers just prior to when a report is due. Current statistics also fail to accurately reflect the situation of visible minority women with disabilities or the issue of double and triple jeopardy.

Other participants, however, said that HRDC availability data is very reliable and is derived from highly-regarded Statistics Canada Census information.

7.16  Provincial Jurisdiction

Return to Table of Contents

Some participants suggested expanding the Act to employers under provincial jurisdiction and making it mandatory while others urged the federal government to encourage the provinces to subscribe to employment equity. At the Vancouver meetings one participant asked if there was a way for the federal government to force the hand of the provinces, municipalities and school boards on issues regarding employment equity.

In other meetings the federal Act was held up as a good model in getting the City of Winnipeg to consider employment equity.

Quebec participants said that national statistics do not reflect the reality in Quebec. Half a million people in Quebec belong to visible minorities. The history of immigration is not the same in Quebec as in other parts of Canada making some problems specific to that province.

7.17  Federal Contractors Program

Return to Table of Contents

Some participants mentioned the Federal Contractors Program. They want to see the employment equity rules and regulations in the federally-regulated sectors applied equally to employers and employees working under the Federal Contractors Program. They would like to see reporting done to get specific information for collective bargaining purposes. The view was also expressed that the FCP program should be extended to organisations under provincial jurisdiction currently receiving grants and contributions from the federal government. Employers receiving grants and contributions from HRDC should also comply. Similar to the FCP, any province or municipality receiving transfer payments from the federal government should comply with the Act.

The FCP has promoted progress outside the federal jurisdiction. The FCP imposes the obligation for companies to put in place employment equity plans.

NOTE: Both the Federal Contractors Program and the Legislated Employment Equity Program were subject to an independent evaluation. Once these evaluation reports are available, they will be provided to the Committee.

8.  Postscript

Return to Table of Contents

This report was prepared to assist the Committee of the House of Commons charged with reviewing the Employment Equity Act. The Minister is looking forward to receiving the advice of the Committee.

Employment equity has been presented within an historical context and the steps, which led to the 1996 Act, were traced. It was noted that the first Employment Equity Act in 1986 was based on the concept of fairness - the right thing to do. Education, rather than compliance, was the over-riding operative. The 1996 Act was expanded to include the federal public service and to provide a compliance role for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Following the identification of the key players under the Act, employment equity is examined in an economic and social context. Studies referred to show a dramatic cost to Canadian GDP in terms of lost productivity due to the under-utilisation of designated group members. This bottom line cost demonstrates employment equity is not only the right thing to do but is also the "bright" thing to do from a dollars and cents perspective.

Data are provided showing the progress of designated groups since the first reporting year under the 1986 Act through the 1999 reporting year under the 1996 Act.

Through to the end of Chapter 6 materials presented are based on research, experience with the Act, and data collected. Chapter 7 attempts to synthesise the comments presented during cross-country consultation meetings with employers, unions, designated group members, and other parties interested in employment equity issues.

This report was prepared by HRDC/Labour. Its officials look forward to assisting the committee with any requests for information, which may be forthcoming.

9.  Appendices

Return to Table of Contents

A.  Discussion paper

B.  List of participating stakeholders

C.  Fact sheet on members of designated groups

D.  Views of some witnesses

E.  Annotated act

F.  Data highlights

G.  Employment equity in Canada: Women and minority groups in the Canadian labour market

H.  The workplace of the future

I.a)  List of separate employers

I.b)  Legislated Employment Equity Program Employers

I.c)  Public Service Staff Relations Act - Schedule 1.

Please note:  The appendices follow the endnotes.