Canada’s employment equity legislation and policy, 1987‐2000

Abstract

Over the past 16 years, a legislative and policy framework has evolved in Canada to address systemic discrimination in employment in the federal jurisdiction, and in organizations that sell goods or services to the federal government. Data collected pursuant to the Employment Equity Act, as well as published literature and government documents, are reviewed in order to provide a critical analysis of the federal policy framework as set out in 1987 and revised in 1996. This review is the basis for assessing both progress and lack of improvement in the employment status of racial minority, aboriginal, and disabled women and men, as well as white women, within the federal sector. Reasons for limited results are proposed, and issues posed by contemporary labour market trends are identified. It is argued that the results of employment equity policy are disappointing because the policy is not being implemented by employers and effectively enforced so that there are consequences for employers' failures to comply. In other words, there is a persisting gap between employment equity policy and practice. This gap presents difficulties in evaluating the content of employment equity policy, since it is not possible to evaluate a policy that is not implemented.

Disabilities, gender and employment: social exclusion, employment equity and Canadian banking1

“…is far from shining'. Other assessments of the Act also suggest that while so far tangible results are limited, they are more marked among women (as a group) and visible minorities than among Aboriginals and persons with disabilities (Bakan and Kobayashi 2000;Agocs 2002;England and Gad 2003). This unevenness was a persistent theme among those presenting evidence before the 2001 review committee of the Act, and in the final report was flagged as a critical area to be addressed (see Longfield 2002).…”

“…Is that right? (Agocs 2002). Indeed, Agocs (2002) argues that a critical weakness of the Act is the lack of provision to address systemic discrimination in the workplace.…”

“…(Agocs 2002). Indeed, Agocs (2002) argues that a critical weakness of the Act is the lack of provision to address systemic discrimination in the workplace. The Abella Report (1984) did recommend measuring the numerical progress of the designated groups, and this became the cornerstone of the Act.…”

“…Instead, the primary policy lever and ultimately the primary measure of success for the Act is the numbers gathered through the 'workforce survey' (Agocs 2002;Kobayashi 2002). Of course it is common for social policies to focus on quantifiable and measurable performance targets.…”

“…Reaching workplace equity involves the creation of a workplace climate where the four designated groups experience supportive and responsive supervision, along with a sense of being respected and valued. An accommodating workplace is one that does not perpetuate patterns of systemic discrimination, includes supportive supervisors, skills improvement training and professional development; and where workers receive encouraging performance appraisals, and opportunities for some involvement in decision-making power (Bakan and Kobayashi 2000;Agocs 2002).…”