4. Affirmative Action
The idea of equal opportunity is an important concept underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many of us proudly share the belief that, at the very least, every Canadian should have reasonably equal access to education, health care, employment, decent housing, and security.
Unfortunately, our beliefs are not always supported by reality. It is a matter of historical record that not all Canadians have been treated fairly when it comes to opportunities in education, employment and income. For decades discriminatory employment practices have prevented certain groups of Canadians from improving their lives, forcing many to live in poverty and despair.
In the 1980s when the federal government investigated this problem, statistical evidence revealed that four categories of Canadians seemed to have experienced prolonged and widespread discrimination in employment. Specifically identified as having suffered long-term discrimination in hiring and income were women, visible minorities, aboriginal and disabled people.
To address the dual problems of income disparity and discrimination in employment, the federal government decided to take affirmative action by passing the Employment Equity Act of 1986. This Act requires that government departments and firms seeking government business hire women, visible minorities, aboriginal and disabled persons on the basis of quota guidelines.
The Canadian government decided that all of us should share the burden of correcting for the unfair hiring practices of the past. Had such discrimination against the designated groups been practiced only by a handful of employers, then only they would have been held responsible for the problem. But such discrimination had been common across Canada for decades. Therefore, the resulting problems were interpreted as being a shared or collective responsibility.
Many Canadians do not agree with this reasoning. In their view the Employment Equity Act actually legalizes discrimination by requiring preferential treatment on the basis of group membership. This, they argue, is no better than the discrimination which created the problem in the first place. In their view the government should only require that all job applicants be assessed solely on the basis of individual ability, skills and performance.
Opponents of the Act also claim that employers are being forced to lower their hiring standards simply to satisfy government quotas. This, they argue, is not only unfair to better qualified applicants, it is also costly because incompetence affects product quality, efficiency and business profits.
Employers as well as many job seekers who do not fit into any of the designated categories also complain that it is unfair that they be forced to pay for historical wrongs. Many question the fairness of being denied employment for something that someone else did decades before they were born.
Canadians from non-designated minority groups have argued that employment equity is unfair to them because their own ethnic groups were also historic targets of discrimination. So why should they now be required to step aside for members of the designated groups?
Still others point out that they, too, are members of minority groups which have struggled and continue to struggle to get ahead in this country. Yet their groups get no help from the government, while others do. They are also unhappy that recent immigrants who happen to fit in a protected category gain an unfair advantage over Canadians whose families have worked hard for generations to improve their circumstances.
Among those opposed to the Act, some point out that the categories do not even properly group individuals who may truly deserve a boost. For example, visible minorities include some groups that rank near the top in education, employment and income. If they are doing that well, why does the government give them this added benefit?
Finally, some argue that our society offers plenty of opportunities for all Canadians to improve their lot without government intervention.
By contrast, supporters of employment equity argue that minority applicants are less likely to be hired even when they have exactly the same qualifications as traditionally favoured Canadians. They attribute this to a deeply rooted prejudice against women, visible minorities, aboriginal and disabled persons in business and government.
While they accept that some employers may not have anything against members of the designated groups, they also believe that many employers simply favour members of other groups because they "fit in" better with the rest of the staff. Because such attitudes influence hiring decisions, advocates of affirmative action argue that those in the protected categories really do need the advantage provided by the Act just to have a fair chance at competing for a job.
Advocates of affirmative action also believe that employers have a moral responsibility to provide job-specific training to any new employees who need it. They point out that even in high-status positions, such training is not uncommon. Employers who choose to complain instead of providing skill upgrading programs may be intentionally confining certain categories of workers to low-paying positions.
It is true, for example, that men occupy the better paying positions in almost all major occupational sectors. Supporters of affirmative action argue that inadequate in-house training and employer bias explain why large numbers of Canadian women are clustered in dead-end, low paying jobs.
Effects on equality in Canada
Each of these perspectives raises special challenges to our understanding of equality and fair play. For example, is equal opportunity to be determined by ancestry and group membership rather than individual credentials and abilities? If so, how is membership in a particular category to be confirmed? How, for example, do we determine visible minority or native status: skin colour, eye colour, eye shape, height, parentage, "grandparentage"?
Does such protection mean that those who happen to fit into several of the designated categories have a greater entitlement to employment than those who may only have excellent skills? Will these rules encourage Canadians to become even more "group bound"? Do rules such as these help create sharper group divisions among Canadians? These rules were intended to put all Canadians on a level playing field. But are they not emphasizing our differences instead of erasing them?
Yet there are equally important questions to ask about the legacy of unequal treatment that mars our society. Do we really believe that discrimination would ease off without pressure from the government? Would employers voluntarily go to the expense of arranging the workplace to accommodate wheelchairs?
Despite improved educational credentials, the vast majority of women are still paid less and tend to hold positions of much lower status than men with comparable credentials. If government didn't provide the push, would employers be motivated to change this situation simply out of a sense of fair play?
Aboriginal peoples have long suffered discrimination in Canada. The impoverished circumstances of their lives reveal what happens to those who are continually denied equal access to the kinds of opportunities that make for a good life. Even today mainstream Canadians often dismiss the plight of aboriginal peoples by arguing that these people have somehow brought it on themselves. With such attitudes among us, do we really believe that employers would be motivated to implement fairer hiring policies without pressure from the government?
There are no easy answers to this debate. There is no right or wrong position. Some believe each viewpoint is helpful in different historical contexts. Others believe that we, as a society, should choose a position and stay with it forever. Our basic responsibility, as citizens, is to understand the reasoning on both sides of this debate.
Concepts for exploration
1. equality, equity, equal opportunity, equality of outcomes, designated groups
2. minority group, majority group, visible minorities, ethnic minorities
3. prejudice, bias, discrimination, reverse discrimination, affirmative action
4. historical wrongs, shared responsibility, quota guidelines
5. income disparity, quality of life, socio-economic status
6. competence, in-house training, minority group labour segregation
I.Discuss, Evaluate and Write
Consider the effects on quality of life that unfair employment practices might have or have had on women, certain racial minorities or the handicapped.
Select one minority for your analysis. Review some of the problems created by long-term employment discrimination against this group. Present your thoughts and the information you have gathered in an essay.
II.Newspaper Research and Analysis
Define discrimination, majority, minority, ethnic groups, visible minorities.
Locate a report or a series of articles in a newspaper or magazine about controversial hiring practices or about "chilly climate" in a Canadian company, organization or institution. Summarize the main points. Write a paper stating your understanding and position on this controversy.
III. Analytical Thinking
Suitable for individual or team work.
1. Read everything that follows.
2. Analyze or discuss the meaning of each section below.
Refer to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a good dictionary.
3. Using your notes from step two, write a brief paper explaining what "equal opportunity in the world of work " means according to the Charter.
- The Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties proclaims that every citizen has a fundamental right to security.
- The Charter also protects every citizen's right to equality without discrimination in Section 15 :
(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.
- The Charter also recognizes our cultural diversity in Section 27:
This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
IV.Review, Evaluate, Debate
This is a challenging project.
Suggested sources of information:
- Abella, Judge Rosalie Silberman, Commissioner. Equality in Employment: A Royal Commission Report. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1984.
- Curtis, James et al. (eds.). Social Inequality in Canada: Patterns, Problems, Policies. Toronto: Prentice-Hall, 1993.
- Dreidger, Leo. The Ethnic Factor: Identity in Diversity. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1989 (p. 311).
- Human Resources Development Canada. Annual Report: Employment Equity Act, 1995. Cat. No: LT-020-12-95. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1995.
- On-line data access to Census Canada could also be helpful.
1. Average annual income of women, visible minorities and aboriginal peoples in 1981 and in 1991
2. The category "visible minorities" includes many separate groups.
Compare the household earnings of selected visible minorities in the most recent census data. Are average household earnings for any visible minorities significantly greater than for most other groups?
Judging by these statistics, does it look as if all visible minorities need the assistance of affirmative action?
3. According to recent census data, which ethnic/racial groups in Canada have the lowest average annual household income?
4. On the basis of your research, decide whether the Employment Equity Act has been somewhat effective, not effective, or very effective in helping improve the employment participation and economic status of designated minorities.
Use the information you have gathered to support your position in debating the following question:
"Should the provisions of the Employment Equity Act remain in force indefinitely?"