Commission on Equality in Employment
264 Adelaide Street East
Toronto, Ontario M5A INI
(416) 369-4722
Judge Rosalie Silberman Abella
Commissioner

Equality in
Employment: A Royal
Commission Report

General Summary

Mandate of the Commission
By the Terms of Reference of this Commission, Judge Rosalie
Silberman Abella was appointed to inquire into the most efficient,
effective, and equitable means of promoting employment opportunities
for and eliminating systemic discrimination against four designated
groups: women, native people, disabled persons, and visible minorities.
The process was to include an examination of the employment
practices of 11 designated crown and government-owned corporations
representing a broad range of Canadian enterprise. These corporations
are Petro-Canada, Air Canada, Canadian National Railway Com­
pany, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canada Post
Corporation, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Atomic Energy of
Canada Limited, Export Development Corporation, Teleglobe of
Canada Limited, The de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, and
the Federal Business Development Bank.
It was clear at the outset that only a broad approach would serve,
and the Commission therefore treated the 1 1 designated corporations
as illustrative models of the issues under study. No corporation’s
employment practices can be assessed fairly in a cultural vacuum. It
would be difficult at best to make judgements about the adequacy of
the practices of crown and government-owned corporations without
placing these practices in the context of what other Canadians do,
believe, or expect.
Moreover, without an overall analysis of the multi-dimensional
nature of the barriers facing the four designated groups, a distorted
perspective emerges. The climate in any given corporation reflects the
social, economic, and political environment in which the corporation
functions. To study a corporation’s employment practices, therefore, it
is also necessary to study the realities of the wider community. To
recommend effective remedial measures to neutralize obstacles to
equality, it is necessary to concentrate at least as intensively on the
societal as on the corporate reflection of the problem.
The Commission concluded, based on its investigation of the
employment practices of the 11 crown and government-owned
corporations, that the rate of improvement for women, the only group
for which these corporations had data, had been minimal over the fiveyear period studied. Women remain overwhelmingly concentrated in
the lowest-paid occupations in every corporation. They hold few
managerial or supervisory positions.
Only in those corporations where measures have been imple­
mented to eliminate discriminatory barriers in employment, such as
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, have opportunities for

1

women genuinely improved. All 11 corporations agreed that without
legislation and a reporting requirement substantial change was
unlikely.

The Designated Groups
The Commission’s consultations with women, native people, disabled
persons, and visible minorities were an integral part of its decision­
making. It is clear that their involvement is necessary in the design and
delivery of programs intended for their benefit.
Most representatives with whom the Commission met considered
further government intervention necessary to ensure their equitable
participation in the workplace. These representatives considered
traditional anti-discrimination statutes, enacted to deal with individual
cases of intentional discrimination, inadequate for the magnitude of
systemic discrimination.
The Commission examined the labour force profiles for three of
the designated groups, there being no comprehensive national data
available on disabled persons. It observed that four factors are
statistical indicators of possible systemic discrimination: participation
rates, unemployment rates, income levels, and occupational segrega­
tion.
The most recent and comprehensive data on these four factors are
available from the 1981 Census of Canada, and additional data for
women are available from the monthly Labour Force Survey and its
supplements.
It is critical that Census data relating to the quality of the labour
force participation of the four designated groups be collected every five
years.
In 1982, 52 per cent of all women were labour force participants.
They constituted 41 per cent of the workforce. Between 1966 and 1982
the male labour force increased by 35 per cent and the female labour
force by 119 per cent.
From 1969 to 1981, women had higher unemployment rates than
men. Women working full-time full-year in 1982 earned on average 64
cents for every dollar earned by men working full-time full-year, while
working women generally earned on average 55 cents for every dollar
earned by men. The wage gap between women and men narrowed by
no more than 11 per cent in 70 years.
Women are substantially under-represented in high-income
occupations. In 1981, as in 1971, they were concentrated in clerical,
sales, and service occupations. Women constitute about 72 per cent of
all part-time workers, though one in four in 1981-1982 would have
preferred a full-time job.
2

Native people generally have low participation rates, high
unemployment rates, and low income levels. The most recent data
available on native people was collected by the 1981 Census. It showed
that the participation rate for native men in 1981 was 60.7 per cent,
compared to 78.2 per cent for the total male labour force. The
participation rate for native women was 36.7 per cent, compared to
51.8 per cent for the total female labour force. The unemployment rate
for native men in 1981 was 16.5 per cent, compared to 6.5 per cent for
the total male labour force. For native women it was 17.3 per cent,
compared to 8.7 per cent for the total female labour force.
The average earnings of native males were 63 per cent of the
average earnings of non-native males. Native women averaged 72 per
cent of the earnings of non-native females.
For disabled persons and visible minorities, the data are
incomplete. It has been estimated, however, that the unemployment
rate of disabled adults may be 50 per cent or more. The available data
on visible minority groups show differences in their employment
characteristics, but it is clear that many groups face systemic
discrimination.
A number of employment barriers were articulated by all groups:
insufficient or inappropriate education and training facilities;
inadequate information systems about training and employment
opportunities; no voice in the decision-making process in programs
affecting them; employers’ restrictive recruitment, hiring, and
promotion practices; and discriminatory assumptions.
Every government study relevant to these groups in the past five
years has urged the implementation of some form of interventionist
measures in order to assist them to compete fairly for employment
opportunities. In response, only minor adjustments have been made to
the system. The progress for these groups has ranged from negligible
to slow, yet there is an unexplained apparent reluctance to address
comprehensively the conclusions of the research.
Notwithstanding the range of differences within and among the
four designated groups, the consensus at practically every meeting the
Commission held across Canada with women, native people, disabled
persons, and visible minorities was that there was a need for govern­
ment intervention to ensure their equitable participation in the
workforce. Their hope was that, as quickly as possible, they would be
transformed from being objects in the political laboratory to being
subjects of political action.

3

Mandatory Measures: Employment Equity
The Commission has concluded that voluntary measures are an
unsatisfactory response to the pervasiveness of systemic discrimination
in Canadian workplaces and has therefore recommended that all
federally regulated employers be required by legislation to implement
employment equity.
The Commission was told repeatedly that the phrase “affirmative
action’’ was ambiguous and confusing. People generally have a sense
that “affirmative action” refers to interventionist government policies,
and that is enough to prompt a negative reaction from many. For
others, however, much depends on the degree and quality of the
intervention. In other words, there may be a willingness to discuss
eliminating discriminatory employment barriers but not to debate
“affirmative action” as it is currently misunderstood.
The Commission notes this in order to propose that a new term,
“employment equity”, be adopted to describe programs of positive
remedy for discrimination in the Canadian workplace. No great
principle is sacrificed in exchanging phrases of disputed definition for
newer ones that may be more accurate and less destructive of reasoned
debate.
The statutory requirement to implement employment equity in
Canada would oblige employers to develop and maintain practices
designed to eliminate discriminatory barriers in the workplace.
Imposed quotas are not being recommended.
The Commission views employment equity as a function of an
employer’s human resource and strategic planning operations and has
recommended that employers be given flexibility in the redesign of
their employment practices. Relevant statistical information and
employment equity guidelines formulated by the agency enforcing
employment equity legislation would be available to assist employers
in their planning processes. These guidelines would be developed
through ongoing regional and national consultations with representa­
tives of business, labour, and the four designated groups.
Although it is unnecessary to list in employment equity legislation
all the areas in which employers and unions would be expected, where
necessary, to adjust their practices, the main ones should be itemized.
These areas include recruitment and hiring practices; promotion
practices; equal pay for work of equal value; pension and benefit plans;
reasonable accommodation and workplace accessibility; occupational
testing and evaluation; occupational qualifications and requirements;
parental leave provisions; and opportunities for education and training
leaves.

4

The success of an employment equity program is measured by
results: expansion of the employment opportunities of qualified
individuals in designated groups. Measurement of results requires
data. The Commission recommends that employers be required to
request and collect from their employees information on the participa­
tion in their workforces of women, native people (Status Indian, non­
Status Indian, Métis, and Inuit), disabled persons, and specified ethnic
and racial groups by occupational categories, and by salary range and
quartile. An employee’s self-identification of gender, race, ethnicity, or
disability would be voluntary and confidential. The Commission also
recommends that data be collected on the representation of individuals
from these groups in hirings, promotions, terminations, lay-offs, parttime work, contract work, internal task forces or committees, and
training and educational leave opportunities.
This data would be filed annually with the enforcement agency
and assessed by the agency after analysis by Statistics Canada. If the
results are found to be unreasonably low, taking into account the
employer’s job openings, prior record, and the realities of the local
labour market, the enforcement agency would determine whether or
not the results reflect discriminatory practices.
The enforcement agency would make available publicly the
employers’ data, the analysis by Statistics Canada, and the enforce­
ment agency’s assessment by tabling annually a report in Parliament.
Although the Commission recommends that the requirement to
implement employment equity take effect immediately, the obligation
to file data with the enforcement agency would not come into force for
three years in order to permit the development and coordination of
standardized data requirements, the reorganization of employers’
information systems, and the necessary restructuring of human
resource and strategic planning systems.
The Commission’s review of the American experience with
mandatory affirmative action confirmed that legislated, enforceable
requirements are essential to the success of affirmative action
programs. The Commission concluded that the enforcement of
employment equity requires an agency that is independent; has a
qualified staff familiar with labour relations, employment systems, and
human rights issues; has sufficient resources to discharge its mandate;
and has an ongoing consultative relationship in the development of
employment equity guidelines with national and regional representa­
tives of business, labour, and the designated groups.
5

Enforcement Models
The Commission proposes several alternative enforcement models for
the government’s consideration. The first model expands the jurisdic­
tion of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to make it respon­
sible for employment equity — including issuing guidelines, collecting,
reviewing, and assessing data, and enforcing employment equity —and for contract compliance. There would, in addition, be a new,
independent agency whose function would primarily be facilitative,
providing expertise on a confidential basis to employers on how to
implement employment equity. It would also provide to the Canadian
Human Rights Commission assistance in the development of
employment equity guidelines and in the conciliation of complaints.
The second model proposes that a new, independent agency be
entirely responsible for employment equity and for contract compli­
ance.
The third model follows the first model, providing, however, that
the existing Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre, rather
than a new facilitative agency, assist the Canadian Human Rights
Commission in the development of employment equity guidelines with
the benefit of input from the designated groups and from business and
labour.
The last model also gives jurisdiction to the Canadian Human
Rights Commission over employment equity and contract compliance
and provides for amendment to the Canada Labour Code to require
labour inspectors to supplement investigations by the Canadian
Human Rights Commission by monitoring and referring possible
violations of employment equity to the Canadian Human Rights
Commission for enforcement.

Contract Compliance
Because of the pervasiveness of systemic discrimination and in the
belief that fairness demands a general application of the law, the
Commission has recommended that all federally regulated employers
be subject to employment equity legislation. For these same reasons,
this Commission urges provincial and territorial governments to pass
employment equity legislation, with requirements being, insofar as is
possible, consistent with federal legislation.
In the absence of legislation requiring all employers to implement
employment equity, the federal government should encourage
employment equity in the private sector by the use of contract
compliance.
6

Contract compliance means government will agree to purchase
goods and services only from businesses that agree to implement
employment equity and to abide by other provisions negotiated to
reflect local needs, such as the provision of training, transportation, or
accommodation in northern or remote areas.
To avoid duplication, enforcement of contract compliance should
be by the same agency that enforces employment equity.

Equal Pay
Equal pay for work of equal value is an essential element of both
employment equity and contract compliance.
At present, the Canadian Human Rights Act specifically requires
equal pay for work of equal value. But this legislation applies only to
11 per cent of the Canadian workforce. Although Canada has ratified
international agreements supporting equal pay for work of equal value,
provincial laws do not reflect these commitments. Most provincial laws
are limited to equal pay for equal work and are therefore applicable
only to men and women in the same or similar jobs in the same firm.

Education and Training
Recognizing that a strategy designed to increase the employment
opportunities of particular individuals cannot work unless those
individuals have the skills to do the job, the Commission reviewed the
educational and training opportunities available to members of the
designated groups. This review included an examination of the role of
counsellors in educational institutions, the impact of role models and
sexual stereotyping in the schools, the availability of part-time and
adult education, literacy and language training, and access by
members of the four designated groups to National Training Act
programs.
The Commission concluded that the educational and training
problems of each of the designated groups vary so significantly that no
one strategy is suitable for all the groups. The Commission, therefore,
has made recommendations based on the needs of each group.
The Commission has also made recommendations of general
application. These include the recommendation that training
programs, in order to be relevant, effective, and accessible, be
developed in consultation with local advisory panels consisting of
labour force analysts and representatives of the designated groups,
business, labour, educational institutions, and federal,, provincial, and
territorial governments.
7

The Commission believes that employers must ensure that
qualified members of the designated groups at all occupational levels
receive a fair proportion of education and skill training leaves. Access
to these leaves is an important part of any employment equity
program.

Childcare
The Commission concluded that a major barrier to equality in the
workplace for women who are mothers is the absence of affordable
childcare of adequate quality.
In 1981, more than 950,000 pre-school age children in Canada
had working mothers. Yet in 1982, there were only 124,000 licensed
childcare spaces. Last year, more than half of all mothers of pre-school
age children worked. Although by Canadian law both parents have a
duty to care for their children, by custom this responsibility has
generally fallen to the mother. Women are both inhibited from
working and the quality of their participation is impaired by the
absence of adequate childcare.
The term “childcare” is preferable to “daycare” because it
describes a more comprehensive system intended to provide care for
children whenever the absence of a parent requires this alternative.
Ideally, a childcare system should be publicly funded, of acceptable
quality, universally accessible though not compulsory, and available to
children from birth at least until the age at which they are legally
permitted to remain home unattended by an adult.
The Commission recommends that a National Childcare Act be
passed, based on consultation with the provinces, territories, and
interest groups, in order to ensure consistent standards and to take into
account urban and rural needs and the special needs of children who
are native, members of minority groups, or disabled. Until a universal
system is available, childcare should be available at least for children
whose parents are unable to care for them on a full-time basis and for
children with special needs arising from a disability.
To ensure quality childcare, specialized training should be more
generally available for childcare providers, and they should be better
paid.

Conclusion
Employment equity is a strategy designed to obliterate the effects of
discrimination and to open equitably the competition for employment
opportunities to those arbitrarily excluded. It requires a “special blend
of what is necessary, what is fair and what is workable”.
8

To ensure freedom from discrimination requires government
intervention through law. It is not a question of whether we need
regulation in this area, but of where and how to apply it.
We need equal opportunity to achieve fairness in the process, and
we need employment equity to achieve justice in the outcome.
Law in a democracy is the collective expression of the public will.
We are a society ruled by law — it is our most positive mechanism for
protecting and maintaining what we value. Few matters deserve the
attention of law more than the right of every individual to have access
to the opportunity of demonstrating full potential.
What is needed to achieve equality in employment is a massive
policy response to systemic discrimination. This requires taking steps
to bring each group to a point of fair competition. It means making the
workplace respond by eliminating barriers that interfere unreasonably
with employment options.
It is not that individuals in the designated groups are inherently
unable to achieve equality on their own, it is that the obstacles in their
way are so formidable and self-perpetuating that they cannot be
overcome without intervention. It is both intolerable and insensitive if
we simply wait and hope that the barriers will disappear with time.
Equality in employment will not happen unless we make it happen.
*

*

*

Volume II of the Commission’s Report, a selection of research studies
prepared for the Commission, will be published early in 1985.

9