The Employment Equity Act: A Short Paper Evaluating The Success Of The Act. Essay, Research Paper

The Employment Equity Act: A Short Paper Evaluating The Success of the Act.

Canada has a population of approximately twenty six million people.

With the introduction of the federal government’s multicultualism program, the

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

from many different nations to join those already living here. Taking the

population as a whole into account, it is no secret that historically, certain

members of this social order have been denied fair access to employment system.

The federal and provincial governments had undertaken steps to address the issue

through a wide range of programs such as equal employment and other affirmative

action programs to “promote equal opportunity in the public service for segments

of the population that have historically been underrepresented there.” Today

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

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

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

Silberman Abella submitted a Royal Commission Report on equality in employment

(the Abella Report) to the federal government. “The Commission was established

in recognition of the fact that women, visible minorities, the handicapped and

native peoples were being denied the full benefits of employment.” Based on

the findings of the Abella Commission, the federal government implemented “The

Employment Equity Act” in 1986. This short paper will evaluate the success of

the “Act” and will argue that although some progress has been made, the Canadian

Labour force still does not reflect the demographic composition of Canada as the

Act had targeted.

For the purposes of implementing Employment Equity, certain individuals

or groups who are at an employment disadvantage are designated to benefit from

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

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

to their employer, or agree to be so identified by an employer, for the purposes

of the Employment Equity Act. Persons with disabilities; are people who,

because of any persistent physical, mental, psychiatric, sensory or learning

impairment, believe that they are potentially disadvantaged in employment, and

who so identify themselves to an employer, or agree to be so identified by an

employer, for the purposes of the Act. Members of visible minorities are

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

white in colour, and who so identify themselves to an employer, or agree to be

so identified by an employer, for the purpose of the Act.”

The designated groups, in particular women, have essentially been

discriminated against for a substantial period of time. A 1977 study of women

in federal Crown Corporations conducted by the Advisory Council on the Status of

Women, reported that the federal government is the largest employer in Canada,

with almost 40% of it’s employee’s (excluding the Army) employed by federal

Crown Corporations. At that time, employees of Crown Corporations were not

subject to the Public Service Employee Act, which prohibited discrimination in

all aspects of employment including personnel hiring and promotion. The study

showed that women made up 37% of the Canadian labour force population and 33% of

federal public service employee population. However, only 15.4% of the total

employee population of federal Crown Corporations were female. The

underrepresentation of women in federal Crown Corporations are clearly evident

in the two charts indicated below. According to the 1981 census, women were at

a disadvantage in a number of ways. In comparison to men, women have higher

unemployment rates, lower participation rates and are concentrated in lower

paying jobs, regardless of their level of education.

Company Men Women % of Women

CN 71,369 4,434 5.9

Air Canada 14,867 6,073 29.6

CBC 8,015 3,094 27

Atomic Energy Canada 5,000 778 13.5

Cape Breton Development 3,822 78 2.0

Number of men and women working for Crown Corporations in 1977

Company Men Women % of Women

CN 1,014 2 0.2

Air Canada 158 1 0.6

CBC 116 2 1.7

Atomic Energy Canada 78 0 0

Cape Breton Development N/A N/A N/A

Number of men and women in senior management

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

disadvantage to fair access to employment. Studies have shown that aboriginal

peoples, have significantly lower participation rates and higher unemployment

rates than those generally experienced in the Canadian labour force. They also

have significantly lower levels of education and are paid lower average salaries.

The 1981 census indicate that “of the total aboriginal population, 50.4% worked

in the Canadian labour force in 1981.”

Persons with disabilities have also been at a disadvantage in the

Canadian labour force. Like the aboriginal people, they too have higher

unemployment rates, lower participation rates and lower levels of education.

1981 census statistics for disabled person in the labour force were not readily

available, however it has been suggested that whatever the figure was, between

“1984 and 1986 their participation in the labour force had increase by 11%.”

Although members of visible minority groups have relatively high levels

of education and relatively high participation rates, they are generally

concentrated in particular occupational groups

The Abella Commission found that the essence of the problem with respect

to why women and the other designated groups were not reaping the full potential

benefits from their participation in the labour force was “systemic” in nature.

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

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

often unintentionally discriminated against these groups.” The Abella

Commission harboured the opinion that the discriminating systemic barriers could

only be eliminated through systemic remedies, thus, “comprehensive programs had

to be adopted and put in place to enable target groups to overcome the systemic

barriers of employment. . . . . . . . .and that a new term ‘employment equity’

be adopted to describe programs of positive remedy for discrimination in the

workplace.”

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

Act required that all “federally regulated employers with 100 or more employees

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

employers to file bare census information on their work force with the Canada

Employment and Immigration Commission and to develop their own defined

employment equity program to remedy systemic discrimination.”

On September 1, during the same year, the federal government implemented

the Federal Contractors Employment Equity Program, requiring that all

contractors with 100 employees or more, tendering for goods and services with

the federal government to implement employment equity within their organization.

The Acts essentially aimed at making the demographic characteristics of

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

“In it’s full sense, employment equity is a comprehensive planning process

designed to bring about not only equality of opportunity but equality in results.

Its primary objective is to ensure that the Canadian work force is an accurate

reflection of the composition of the Canadian population given the availability

of required skills. This objective is essentially an ethical goal based on the

value of ensuring equity.”

Although some progress has been made since the enactment of the

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

the labour force, in addition there are other difficulties facing these groups

in relation to the Act.

Provisions were made in the Act requiring mandatory reporting of

progress in the companies affected by the Act (all federally regulated companies

with more than 100 employees). From the information provided by these companies,

which approximates 350, the Minister of Employment and Immigration Canada is

required to compile an annual report, to analyse and monitor the progress of the

Act and to ensure compliance.

Although annual reports exist from 1987 to 1992, while researching this

paper, only the reports for 1989, 1990 and 1992 were readily available for

examination. As such is the case, only the data contained in these reports

wsill be used in this paper.

The 1989 report indicated their had been an increase over the previous

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

their representation from 40.90% to 42.12%. Aboriginal peoples increased their

representation from 0.66% to 0.73%. Persons with disabilities increased their

representation from 1.59% to 1.71% and members of visible minorities increased

their representation from 4.99% to 5.69%. Of the women employees that had to

be reported by employees under the Act, they constituted 42.12% of the work

force. This constituted a 1.22% increase over the previous year. Their

representation under the act remained lower than their representation in the

Canadian labour force which is 44%.

Aboriginal peoples in the work force under the Act increased very

slightly in the same period and remained underrepresented. They represented

0.73% of the work force under the Act compared with 2.1% representation in the

Canadian labour force.

10,289 persons with disabilities were reported by employers and

constituted 1.71% of all employees reported under the Act. Like the women and

the aboriginal peoples, they too remained underrepresented in each province for

which employees provided a report.

A slight increase in representation was reported for the visible

minority group, however, the report indicated that despite the increase, they

remained underrepresented in the work force under the Employment Equity Act.

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

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

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

this mark, however the aboriginal peoples and persons of disability remained

underrepresented in the work force under the Act. Women increased their

representation to 44.11% which is about the same now as it was for the Canadian

labour force (44%) at the time of the 1986 Census. Aboriginal peoples increased

to 0.96%. The representation of persons with disabilities increased from 2.39%

in the previous year to 2.50%. And Visible minorities increased to 7.55%,

slightly higher than it was for the Canadian labour force (6.3%) at the time of

the 1986 census.

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

partial success of the program, in reflecting on the achievements of the women

and visible minority target groups, there is a concern that factors other than

the Act may have influence the rise in the participation rate of these two

groups.

In occupations that were traditionally male dominated, i.e.: lawyers and

notary publics etc., women have been slowly but gradually playing catch up.

This is in part due to the fact that more and more women are graduating from

university. In 1987, Canadian universities granted more than 103,000 degrees at

the bachelor level. This number represented growth of more than 21 % from 1981.

Female graduates out numbered male graduates for the seventh year in a row and

by 1987 accounted for 53% of those receiving bachelor’s degrees. The question

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

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

attending university. Unless there is some equity program in place for

university attendance, it would be unreasonable to summize that the Employment

Equity program was the sole vehicle for allowing women fair access into the

workplace.

But even still, there is no real success to speak of. Although gaps are

being closer to being closed, women are still underrepresented in some

occupations such as upper level managerial positions and overrepresented in

traditionally female occupations. For example, under the Act women comprise

0.21% of upper level managers compared to 1.53% of men. And they comprise

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

are similar for that of the visible minority groups.

As indicated previously, there are other problems associated with the

Act. Complaints have be raised from “public servants and from their unions that

the equal opportunity programs violate the merit principle and discriminate

against candidates outside the target groups for appointment and promotion.”

White males in particular feel that they have become victims of reverse

discrimination. As such problems occur when they retaliate against the system

by employing candidates in the target group who are sometimes not competent for

the position hired, in an attempt at hindering that persons oppotunities for

advancement within the company.

Another problem that becomes present is that when a qualified candidate

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

target group, that the candidate did not excel because of his or her merit but

rather, because of the affiliation to one of the target groups.

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

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

facing barriers to employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability.

These people were underemployed because they are women, aboriginal peoples,

members of visible minorities, or persons with disabilities. Despite the

governments efforts to address the issue, and although some gains have been made,

there is still a significant number in the target groups that still face the

systemic barriers. Perhaps the government has not done enough to change the

status quo. Perhaps allowing the employers to set their own goals and time

tables was an error and should be reviewed. But given the data presented thus

far in their own annual reports and the continuous controversy surrounding the

issue, the Employment Equity act as far as I am concern has only partially

attained its goal.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kernagan,K et al, Public Administration in Canada

Scarborough, Ontario, Nelson Canada 1991

Kelly, John G.Human Resource Management and the Human Rights Process

Canada, CHH Canadian Limited 1991

Annual Report: The Employment Equity Act. 1989, 1990,

1992

Ottawa, Ministry of supply and Services Canada