Are White males' equal? Think again

Joe Lockhart

unread,

May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96

to

The Winnipeg Sun May 29,1996 Page 5: Naomi Lakritz: Straight Talk

ALL ANIMALS are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
The totalitarianism George Orwell warned of in his classic satire Animal
Farm is alive and well in the 1990s, It's the workday philosophy of human
rights commissions.
That's what a white male named Richard Bruce Watson learned when he
complained to the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission that he'd been
passed over for a job with the Dartmouth police.

Watson, who was qualified enough to be short-listed for the police
academy, filed a reverse discrimination suit after he was bumped in favor
of two black men and six women.

The commission dismissed it, so he took it to court. That's when Watson
found that all humans are equal, but some humans are more equal than
white males,
Why, Watson was just being silly and selfish. The police force's action
hadn't discriminated against HIM, the court said. Rather, it had "benefited
disadvantaged groups."
Further, the court said the Dartmouth police have affirmative action and
anything done in the name of affirmative action isn't discrimination, The
judge all so said police should have told Watson early on that only women
and minorities were being hired. As if warning someone of impending
discrimination makes it right.
This is not an isolated incident of lunacy.
The same thing can happen in Manitoba, where our human rights
commission also justifies reverse discrimination by redefining it out of
existence.
Commission complaints supervisor Roger Young says reverse
discrimination is an issue only if a company has no defence against it. The
defence being an affirmative action plan.
"Where an employer has an approved program to hire target groups, it's
not reverse discrimination," says Young.
So if a company has the program, it can tell a qualified white male
candidate to get lost and that's OK.
But if the same company has no plan and it tells the identical candidate
to get lost, that's discrimination.
Any group that dabbles in situational ethics to this degree has no business
calling itself a human rights commission. It's playing the same ugly game
it was set up to prevent others from playing.
Young says a case like Watson's would have a "bona fide reason for the
apparent discrimination."
There's no bona fide reason for any discrimination! None! This is scary
stuff.
And he adds that while job qualifications come first, "special
consideration is given to certain factors." Just another way of telling white
males they'll continue to get the short end of the stick and they can put up
or shut up.
There should be no "special consideration." No "certain factors." And
judging by their Animal Farm mentality, maybe there should be no more
human rights commissions either.

-30-

Do you want to fight this madness?
If you do you can reach us at:

The Euro-Christian Defence League
P.O. Box 345 Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3C 2H6
24 Hr Hotline (204) 775-0878

Visit our Web Site at:
http://www.pathcom.com/~freedom/ecdl/homepage.html

Or visit the Freedom-Site at:
http://www.pathcom.com/~freedom/

Bill Stuart

unread,

May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96

to

Joe Lockhart (ec...@wpg.ramp.net) writes:
> So if a company has the program, it can tell a qualified white male
> candidate to get lost and that's OK.

Actually, what it means is that the entrants are graded based on
the number of applicants. If 50 white men and 10 black men apply for 1
position, a black is five times as likely to get the position as a white
is. You can still get in, but you have to be really exceptional.

> And he adds that while job qualifications come first, "special
> consideration is given to certain factors." Just another way of telling white
> males they'll continue to get the short end of the stick and they can put up
> or shut up.

Actually, White males can now file sexism suits if they are
trounced out of employment opportunities as cashiers, etc. It's working in
our benifit too.

> There should be no "special consideration." No "certain factors." And
> judging by their Animal Farm mentality, maybe there should be no more
> human rights commissions either.

Mr "Lets kill us some jews" is lecturing us on human rights. Please.

> The Euro-Christian Defence League
> P.O. Box 345 Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3C 2H6
> 24 Hr Hotline (204) 775-0878

I find it ironic that you are anti-immigrant with the above
address.

Europe is on a different continent. You are an immigrant.

--
Acceptable amounts: Cyanide: 0.2 mg/l Uranium: 0.1 mg/l Mercury: 0.001
mg/l Dioxin: 15 pg/l

The Bathtub Admiral

unread,

Jun 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/1/96

to

Joe Lockhart <ec...@wpg.ramp.net> in message
<1996May31.2...@wpg.ramp.net>
entertained us with yet another dog and pony show:

>The Winnipeg Sun May 29,1996 Page 5: Naomi Lakritz: Straight Talk

<snip>

Hmmmm....Those wouldn't be the words of yet another American earning
a living on the "fat" of the Canadian landscape and giving us free advice?

ROTFL

"Worry is a thin stream of fear trickling throught the mind. If encouraged, it
cuts a channel into which all other thoughts have drained. - A. Roche"

Like my idol says: "What me worry?"

Brian Graham

unread,

Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96

to

In article <1996May31.2...@wpg.ramp.net>, Joe Lockhart <ec...@wpg.ramp.net> says:
>
>The Winnipeg Sun May 29,1996 Page 5: Naomi Lakritz: Straight Talk
>
>

>ALL ANIMALS are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

> That's what a white male named Richard Bruce Watson learned when he

>complained to the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission that he'd been
>passed over for a job with the Dartmouth police.
>
> Watson, who was qualified enough to be short-listed for the police
>academy, filed a reverse discrimination suit after he was bumped in favor
>of two black men and six women.
>
> The commission dismissed it, so he took it to court. That's when Watson
>found that all humans are equal, but some humans are more equal than
>white males,

> "Where an employer has an approved program to hire target groups, it's

>not reverse discrimination," says Young.

> So if a company has the program, it can tell a qualified white male

>candidate to get lost and that's OK.

The manner in which EQUAL RIGHTS is being implemented is sickening.
The theory is to prevent discrimination. IN FACT IT LEGISLATES IT.

Two candidates write an exam for a job to indicate knowledge/skill
level. Pass mark is 50%. Let's say, for example, that a white male
scored 95%. Lets say the minority (pick any, including female) scores
a whopping 50%. Guess who gets the job. THE MINORITY!! WHY??

In no manner did this candidate prove superior. Yet...

The situation I described above is EXACTLY how it is being implemented.
THIS PROMOTES RACISM.

Brian Graham

unread,

Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96

to

In article <4onu18$c...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) says:

>
>
>Joe Lockhart (ec...@wpg.ramp.net) writes:
>> So if a company has the program, it can tell a qualified white male
>> candidate to get lost and that's OK.
>

> Actually, what it means is that the entrants are graded based on
>the number of applicants. If 50 white men and 10 black men apply for 1
>position, a black is five times as likely to get the position as a white
>is. You can still get in, but you have to be really exceptional.
>

No. It means that a minority gets the job.

Bill Stuart

unread,

Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96

to

Brian Graham (Gra...@psac.com) writes:
> The manner in which EQUAL RIGHTS is being implemented is sickening.
> The theory is to prevent discrimination. IN FACT IT LEGISLATES IT.
>
> Two candidates write an exam for a job to indicate knowledge/skill
> level. Pass mark is 50%. Let's say, for example, that a white male
> scored 95%. Lets say the minority (pick any, including female) scores
> a whopping 50%. Guess who gets the job. THE MINORITY!! WHY??

This is somewhat innacurate.

Here's how it works.

Lets say we have 100 people, 95 of them are white males and five
are black males. They can hire ten people. Because the demographics of
that area show that ten percent of the population is black, one of the
five has to get a position.

If 95 black males and 5 white males applied, all the white males
would get jobs.

The basic problem with this type of system is encouraging women
and minorities to become firefighters, etc.

--
Acceptable amounts in Canadian drinking water: Cyanide: 0.2 mg/l Uranium:

Bill Stuart

unread,

Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96

to

Brian Graham (Gra...@psac.com) writes:
>
> No. It means that a minority gets the job.

It means the chance of a minority getting a job depends on how
many minorities you can get applying for that position. If it's over the
percentage of that minority group in a given area, then the chances are
equal.

Bob Levitt

unread,

Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96

to

Bill Stuart (ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:

: Brian Graham (Gra...@psac.com) writes:
: > The manner in which EQUAL RIGHTS is being implemented is sickening.
: > The theory is to prevent discrimination. IN FACT IT LEGISLATES IT.
: >
: > Two candidates write an exam for a job to indicate knowledge/skill
: > level. Pass mark is 50%. Let's say, for example, that a white male
: > scored 95%. Lets say the minority (pick any, including female) scores
: > a whopping 50%. Guess who gets the job. THE MINORITY!! WHY??

: This is somewhat innacurate.

: Here's how it works.

: Lets say we have 100 people, 95 of them are white males and five
: are black males. They can hire ten people. Because the demographics of
: that area show that ten percent of the population is black, one of the
: five has to get a position.

: If 95 black males and 5 white males applied, all the white males
: would get jobs.

: The basic problem with this type of system is encouraging women
: and minorities to become firefighters, etc.

: --

: Acceptable amounts in Canadian drinking water: Cyanide: 0.2 mg/l Uranium:
: 0.1 mg/l Mercury: 0.001 mg/l Dioxin: 15 pg/l

You are absolutely wrong about how the system works. There are the CRTC
regulations governing radio, television and telephone companies, and there
is also the new federal Employment Equity Act.

Read the Act itself, and if you want a copy of my critical analysis of
the Act I can post that too.

Beta v0.99
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA

BILL C-64

An Act respecting employment equity

-----------------------------------
First reading, December 12, 1994
-----------------------------------

The Minister of Human Resources Development

***********************************************************************

TABLE OF PROVISIONS

AN ACT RESPECTING EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

SHORT TITLE
1. Short title

PURPOSE OF THE ACT
2. Purpose of the Act

INTERPRETATION
3. Definitions

APPLICATION
4. Application

PART I

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Employer Obligations

5. Employer's duty
6. Employer not required to take certain measures
7. Employment of aboriginal peoples
8. Certain rights not employment barriers
9. Analysis and review
10. Employment equity plan
11. Reasonable progress
12. Implementation and monitoring of plan
13. Periodic review and revision of plan
14. Consultation with employee representatives
15. New employees

Records and Reports

16. Employment equity records
17. Reports of private sector employees
18. Availability of reports of private sector employers
19. Consolidation to be tabled
20. Report of Treasury Board

PART II

COMPLIANCE

Compliance Audits

21. Compliance audits
22. Powers of compliance officers

Undertakings and Directions

23. Employer undertaking

Requests for Review or Order

24. Employer's request for review

Employment Equity Review Tribunals

25. Establishment of Tribunals
26. Powers of Tribunal
27. Decision of Tribunal
28. Enforcement of orders
29. Report of activities of Human Rights Commission

Limitiations respecting Directions
and orders

30. Limitation

Privileged Information

31. Privileged information

PART III

ASSESSMENT OF MONETARY PENALTIES

Violations

32. Violation
33. Assessment of monetary penalty
34. Notice of assessment of monetary penalty

Options

35. Employer's options
36. Review by Tribunal

Enforcement of Monetary Penalties

37. Registration of certificate

PART IV

GENERAL

38. Regulations
39. Powers, duties and functions of Minister
40. Delegation
41. Review of operation of Act

TRANSITIONAL PROVISION

42. Compliance with certain provisions

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

43-46. Canada Human Rights Act
47. Financial Administration Act
48-49. Public Service Employment Act

REPEAL

50. Employment Equity Act

COMING INTO FORCE

51. Coming into force

***********************************************************************

1st Session, 35th Parliament,
42-43 Elizabeth II, 1994

The House of Commons of Canada

BILL C-64

An Act respecting Employment Equity

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as
follows:

Short Title

Short title 1. This Act may be cited as the Employment Equity
Act.

Purpose of Act

Purpose of Act 2. The purpose of this Act 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,
person with disabilities and members of visible
minorities by giving effect to the principle that
employment equity means more than treating persons
in the same way but also requires special measures
and the accommodation of differences.

Interpretation

Definitions 3. In this Act,

"aboriginal "aboriginal peoples" means persons who are Indians,
peoples" Inuit or Metis;

"Canadian "Canadian workforce" means all persons in Canada of
workforce" working age who are willing and able to work;

-------------------------------------------------------------
{At this point in the text there are two additional items inserted as
follows:}

Recommendation

His Excellency the Govenor General recommends to the House of Commons
the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstance, in the
manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled "An Act
respecting employment equity".

Summary

The purpose of this enactment is to achieve equality in the workplace
and to correct conditions of disadvantage experienced by certain
groups.

The enactment applies to the public service of Canada and to federally
regulated employers who, and such portions of the public sector as are
specified by order in council that, employ one hundred or more
employees.

Part I sets out the obligations of an employer and outlines reporting
requirements. Employers must identify employment barriers against, and
determine the degree of underrepresentation of certain groups and
prepare, implement, review and revis plans to promote employment
equity.

Part II sets out mechanisms for enforcing employer obligations.

Part III provides for the assessment of monetary penalties.

Part IV establishes reglulation-making authority and provides for other
general matters.

The enactment also makes consequential amendments to the Canadian Human
Rights Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Public Service
Employment Act.
-------------------------------------------------------------

"Commission" "Commission" means the Canadian Human Rights
Commission established under section 26 of the
Canadian Human Rights Act;

"compliance "compliance officer" means a person designated as an
officer" employment equity compliance review officer pursuant
to subsection 21(3);

"designated "designated groups" means women, aboriginal peoples,
groups" persons with disabilities and members of visible
minorities;

"members of "members of visible minorities" means person, other
visible than aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in
minorities" race or non-white in colour;

"Minister" "Minister" means the Minister of Employment and
Immigration;

"Panel" "Panel" means the Human Rights Tribunal Panel
established under section 48.1 of the Canadian Human
Rights Act;

"persons with "persons with disabilitiies" means persons who have
disabilities a long-term or recurring physical, mental, sensory,
psychiatric or learning impairment and who

(a) consider themselves to be disadvantaged in
employment by reason of that impairment, or

(b) believe that a employer or potential employer is
likely to consider them to be disadvantaged in
employment by reason of that impairment,

and includes persons whose functional limitations
owing to their impairment have been accommodated in
their current job or workplace;

"prescribed" "prescribed" means prescribed by the regulations;

"private sector "private sector employer" means any person who
employer" employs one hundred or more employees on or in
connection with a federal work, undertaking or
business as defined in section 2 of the Canada
Labour Code and includes any corporation established
to perform any function or duty on behalf of the
Government of Canada that employs one hundred or
more employees, but does not include

(a) a person who employs employees on or in
connection with a work, undertaking or business
of a local or private nature in the Yukon
Territory or the Northwest Territories, or

(b) a departmental corporation as defined in section
2 of the Financial Adminstration Act;

"representatives" "representatives" means

(a) those persons who have been designated by
employees to act as their representatives, or

(b) bargaining agents, where bargaining agents
represent the employees;

"Tribunal" "Tribunal" means an Employment Equity Review
Tribunal established by subsection 25(1).

Application

Application 4. (1) This Act applies to

(a) private sector employers;

(b) the portions of the public service of Canada set
out in Part I of Schedule I to the Public
Service Staff Relations Act; and

(c) such other portion of the public sector
employing one hundred or more employees,
including the Canadian Forces, the
Communications Security Establishment of
the Department of National Defence, the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service, as may be
specified by order of the Governor in Council on
the recommendation of the Treasury Board, in
consultation with the Minister responsible for
the specified portion.

Royal Canadian (2) For the purposes of this Act,
Mounted Police
(a) the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is deemed to
consist only of its members within the meaning
of subsection 2(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Act;

(b) the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is deemed not
to be included in Part I of Schedule I to the
Public Service Staff Relations Act; and

(c) civilian employees appointed or employed in
accordance with section 10 of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police Act are deemed to be included in
Part I of Schedule I to the Public Service Staff
Relations Act.

Canadian Forces (3) Members of the Canadian Forces and the Royal
and Royal Canadian Mounted Police are deemed to be
Canadian Mounted employees for the purposes of this Act.
Police

Responsibilities (4) The Treasury Board and the Public Service
of Treasury Board Commission, each acting within the scope of its
and Public powers, duties and functions under the Financial
Service Commission Administration Act and the Public Service
Employment Act, are responsible for carrying out
the obligations of an employer under this Act in
relation to employees employed in those
portions of the public service referred to in
paragraph (1)(b).

Deemed (5) Every portion of the public sector referred to
employers in paragraph (1)(c) is deemed to be an employer
for the purposes of this Act in relation to
employees employed in that portion except that,
with respect to any of those portions for which
the Public Service Commission exercises any
power or performs any duty or functions under
the Public Service Employment Act, the Public
Service Commission and that portion are
responsible for carrying out the obligatons of
any employer under this Act.

References to (6) In this Act, a reference to an employer is
employer deemed, in relation to those portions of the
public sector referred to in

(a) paragraph (1)(b), to be a reference to the
Treasury Board and the Public Service
Commission, each acting within the scope of its
powers, duties and functions under the Financial
Administration Act and the Public Service
Employment Act; and

(b) paragraph (1)(c) for which the Public Service
Commission exercises any power or performs any
duty or function under the Public Service
Employment Act, to be a reference to the
employer and the Public Service Commission.

Delegation by (7) The Treasury Board and the Public Service
Treasury Board Commission may, for the purpose of carrying out
and Public Service their obligations under this Act in relation to
Commission a portion of the public service or other portion
of the public sector referred to in subsection
(1), authorize the chief executive officer or
deputy head conderned to exercise, in relation
to that portion, any of the powers and perform
any of the duties and functions of the Treasury
Board or the Public Serive Commission, as the
case may be, referred to in this section.

Delegation by (8) Any chief executive officer or deputy head
chief executive authorized under subsection (7) to exercise any
officer or of the powers and perform any of the duties and
deputy head functions of the Treasury Board or Publc Service
Commission may, subject to and in accordance
with the authorization given to that officer or
deputy head, authorize one or more persons to
exercise any of those powers and perform any of
those duties and functions.

PART I

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Employer Obligations

Employer's duty 5. Every employer shall implement employment equity
by

(a) identifying and eliminating employment barriers
against persons in designated groups that result
from the employer's employment systems, policies
and practices that are not authorized by law;
and

(b) instituting such positive policies and practices
and making such reasonable accommodations as
will ensure that persons in designated groups
achieve a degree of representation in each
occupational groups in the employer's workforce
that reflects their representation in

(i) the Canadian workforce, or

(ii) those segments of the Canadian workforce
that are identifiable by qualification,
eligibility or geography and from which the
employer may reasonably be expected to draw
employees.

Employer not 6. The obligation to implement employment equity
required to does not require an employer
take certain
measures (a) to take a particular measure to implement
employment equity where the taking of that
measure would cause undue hardship to the
employer;

(b) to hire or promote unqualified persons;

(c) with respect to the public sector, to hire or
promote persons without basing the hiring or
promotion on selection according to merit in
cases where the Public Service Employment Act
requires that hiring or promotion be based on
selection according to merit; or

(d) to create new positions in its workforce.

Employment of 7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
aboriginal where a private sector employer is engaged primarily
peoples in promoting or serving the interests of aboriginal
peoples, the employer may give preference in
employment to aboriginal peoples or employ only
aboriginal peoples, unless that preference or
employment would constitute a discriminatory
practice under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Certain rights 8. (1) Employee seniority rights with respect to
not employment a layoff or recall under a collective agreement or
barriers pursuant to the established practices of an
employer are deemed not to be employment barriers
within the meaning of this Act.

Other seniority (2) Unless they are found to constitute a
rights discriminatory practice under the Canadian
Human Rights Act, employee seniority rights
other than those referred to in subsection (1),
including rights acquired under workforce
adjustment policies implemented when an employer
is downsizing or restructing, under a collective
agreement or pursuant to an established
practice, are deemed not to be employment
barriers within the meaning of this Act.

Public sector (3) The following are not, in relation to the
public sector, employment barriers within the
meaning of the Act, namely,

(a) priorities for appointemtn under the Public
Service Employment act or regulations made by
the Public Service Commission; and

(b) workforce adjustment measures established by
the Treasury Board, including measures set out
in the Workforce Adjustment Directive, or by the
Public Service Commission or any other portion
of the public sector referred to in paragraph
4(1)(c).

Analysis and 9. (1) For the purpose of implementing employment
review equity, every employer shall

(a) collect information and conduct an analysis of
the employer's workforce, in accordance with
the regulations, inorder to determine the degree
of the underrepresentation of persons in
designated groups in each occupational group
in that workforce; and

(b) conduct a review of the employer's employment
systems, policies and practices, in accordance
with the regulations, in order to identify
employment barriers against persons in
designated groups that result from those
systems, policies and practices.

Self- (2) Only those employees who identify themselves to
identification an employer, or agree to be identified by an
employer, as aboriginal peoples, members of
visible minorities or persons with disabilities
are to be counted as members of those designated
groups for the purposes of implemenitng
employment equity.

Employment 10. (1) The employer shall prepare an employment
equity plan equity plan that

(a) specifies the positive policies and practices
that are to be instituted by the employer in
the short term for the hiring, training,
promotion and retention of persons in designated
groups and for the making of reasonable
accomodations for those persons to correct the
underrepresentation of those persons by the
analysis under paragraph 9(1)(a);

(b) specifies the measures to be taken by the
employer in the short term for the elimination
of any employment barriers identified by the
review under paragraph 9(1)(b);

(c) establishes a timetable for the implementation
of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a)
and (b);

(d) where underrepresentation has been identified
by the analysis, establishes short term
numerical goals for the hiring and promotion
of persons in designated groups in order to
increase their representation in each
occupational group in the workforce in which
underrepresentation has been identified and
sets out measures to be taken in each year to
meet those goals;

(e) sets out the employer's longer term goals for
increasing the representation of persons in
designated groups in the employer's workforce
and the employer's strategy for achieving those
goals; and

(f) provides for any other matter that may be
prescribed.

Establishment of (2) In establishing the short term numerical goals
numerical goals referred to in paragraph (1)(d), every employer shall
consider

(a) the degree of underrepresentation of persons in each
designated group in each occupational group within the
employers's workforce

(b) the availablility of qualified persons in designated
groups within the employer's workforce and in the
Canadian workforce;

(c) the anticipated growth or reduction of the employer's
workforce during the period in respect of which the
numerical goals apply;

(d) the anticipated turnove of employees within the
employer's workforce during the period in respect of
which the numerical goals apply; and

(e) any other factor that may be prescribed.

Definition (3) In this section, "short term" means a period of not
less than one year and not more than three years, and
"longer term" means a period of more than three years.

Reasonable 11. Every employer shall ensure that its employment equity
progress plan would, if implemented, constitute reasonable progress
toward implementing employment equity as required by this
Act.

Implementation and 12. Every employer shall
and monitoring of
plan (a) make reasonable efforts to implement its employment
equity plan; and

(b) monitor implementation of its plan on a regular basis
to assess whether reasonable progress toward
implementing emplyment equity is being made.

Periodic review 13. Every employer shall, at least once during the period
and revision of in respect of which the short therm numerical goals
plan referred to in paragraph 10(1)(d) are established, review
its employment equity plan and revise it by

(a) updating the numerical goals, taking into account the
factors referred to in subsection 10(2); and

(b) making any othe changes that are necessary as a result
of an assessment made pursuant to paragraph 12(b) or
as a result of changing circumstances.

Consultation with 14. (1) Every employer shall consult with its employees'
employee representatives to provide their vies concerning
representatives
(a) the assistance that the representatives could provide
to the employer to facilitate the implementation of
employer equity in its workplace and the communcations
to its employees of matter relating to employment
equity; and

(b) the preparaton, implementation and revision of the
employer's employment equity plan.

Where employees (2) Where employees are represent by a bargaining agent,
represented by the bargaining agent shall participate in a
bargaining agent consultation under subsection (1)

Rule of (3) A consultation under subsection (1) is not a form of
interpretation co-management.

New employers 15. (1) A person who becomes an employer after the day on
which this section comes into force shall, within
eighteen months after becoming an employer, comply with
sections 9 and 10.

Compliance audit (2) The Commission may not conduct a compliance audit of
the discharge of the obligations of a person referred
to in subsection (1) within two years after the day on
which that person becomes and employer.

Records and Reports

Employment 16. Every employer shall, in accordance with the
equity records regulations, establish and maintain employment equity
records in respect of the employer's workforce, the
employer's employment equity plan and the implementation
of employment equity by the employer.

Reports of 17. (1) Every private sector employer shall, on or before
private sector June 1 in each year, file with the Minister a report in
employers respect of the immediately preceding calendar year
containing information in accordance with prescribed
instructions, indicating, in the prescribed manner
and form,

(a) the industrial sector in which its employees are
employed, the location of the employer and its
employees, the number of its employees and the number
of those employees who are members of designated
groups;

(b) the occupational groups in which its employees are
employed and the degree of representation of persons
who are members of designated groups in each
occupational group;

(c) the salary ranges of its employees and the degree of
representation of persons who are members of
designated groups in each range and in each
prescribed subdivision of the range: and

(d) the number of its employees hired, promoted and
terminated and the degree of representation in those
numbers of persons who are members of designated
groups.

Interpretation (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), and employer is
person who or organization that was the employer on
December 21 in he immediately preceding year.

Self- (3) Only those employees who identify themselves to their
identification employer, or agree to be identified by their employer,
as aboriginal peoples, members of visible minorities
and persons with disabilities are to be counted as
members of those designated groups for the purposes
of the report.

Certificate (4) A report shall be certified, in the prescribed manner,
required as to the accuracy of the information contained in it
and shall be signed by the employer or, where the
employer is a corporation, by a prescribed person on
behalf of the corporation.

Additional (5) An employer may include in a report a description of
information
(a) the measures taken by the employer during the
reporting period to implement employment equity
and the results achieved, and

(b) the consultations between the employer and its
employees' representatives during the reporting
period concerning the implementation of
employment equity,

Consolidated (6) Where, in the opinion of the Minister, associated or
reports related federal works, undertakings or businesses are
operated by two or more employers having common
control or direction, the Minister may, on the
application of the employers, authorize them to file
a consolidated report with respect to employees
employed by them on or in connection with those works,
undertakings or businesses.

Exemption for (7) The Minister may, on the application of an employer,
private sector exempt the employer from any or all the requirements
employers of this section for a period not exceeding one year
if, in the opinion of the Minister, special
circumstances warrant the exemption.

Copy to (8) The Minister shall, on receipt of a report, send a
Commission of it to the Commission

Availability of 18. (1) Subject to subsection (2), every report filed
reports of under subsection 17(1) shall be available for public
private sector inspection at such places as may be designated, and in
employers such form as may be determined, by the Minister, and any
person may, on payment of a prescribed fee, not to
exceed the costs of furnishing a copy, obtain from the
Minister a copy of any of the reports.

Withholding (2) The Minister may, on the application of an employer,
of report withhold the employer's report from pubic
inspection for a period not exceeding one year if,
in the opinion of the Minister, special circumstances
warrant the withholding.

Consolidation 19. The Minister shall in each year prepare a report
to be tabled consisting of a consolidation of the reports filed under
subsection 17(1) together with an analysis of those
reports and shall cause the report to be laid before
Parliament on any of the first fifteen days that either
Hosue of Parliament is sitting after the report is
completed.

Report of 20. (1) The President of the Treasury Board shall, in each
Treasury Board fiscal year, cause to be laid before each House of
Parliamet a report in respect of the state of employment
equity in the portions of the public service referred to
in paragraph 4(1)(b) during the immediately preceding
fiscal year.

Contents (2) The report shall consist of a consolidation and
of report analysis of

(a) the number of employees employed in each portion of
the public service referred to in paragraph 4(1)(b)
and the number of persons who are members of
designated groups so employed;

(b) the total number of employees employed in all portions
of the public service referred to in paragraph 4(1)(b)
in each province and in the National Capital Region
and the number of persons who are mumbers of
designated groups so employed;

(c) the occupational groups of employees and the degree
of representation of persons who are members of
designated groups in each occupational groups;

(d) the salary ranges of employees and the degree of
representation of persons whoare members of
designated groups in each range and in each prescribed
subdivision of the range;

(e) the numbers of employees hired, promoted and
terminated and the degree of representation, in those
numbers, or persons who are members of designated
groups; and

(f) any other information that the President of the
Treasury Board considers to be relevant.

Requirement to (3) Each portion of the public sector that has been
provide specified by order of the Governor in Council pursuant
information to paragraph 4(1)(c) shall, within six months after
the end of each fiscal year, provide to the President
of the Treasury Board a report containing the
information referred to in subsecction (2) in relation
to that portion during that fiscal year and the
President shall cause the reports, together with the
report referred to in subsection (1), to be laid
befoe each House of Parliament.

PART II

COMPLIANCE

Compliance Audits

Compliance 21. (1) The Commission is responisble for the enforcement
audits of the obligations imposed on employers by sections 5, 9
to 14 and 16.

Guiding policy (2) The Commission shall, in discharging its
responsibility under subsectin (1), be guided by
the policy that, wherever possible, cases of
non-compliance be resolved through persuasion and
the negotiation of written undertakings pursuant to
subsection 23(1) and that directions be issued under
subsetion 23(2) or (3) and applications for orders
be made under subsection 24(2) only as a last resort.

Compliance (3) The Commission my designate any person or category of
officers persons as employment equity compliance review
designated officers for the purposes of conducting compliance
audits of employers.

Where compliance (4) No person who has been designated as an investigator
officer may not under section 43 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to
act investigate a complaint under that Act in respect of
an employer may, during the investigation, conduct a
compliance audit of that employer.

Powers of 22. (1) For the purposes of ensuring compliance with the
compliance provisions refered to in subsectin 21(1), a compliance
officers officer may conduct a compliance audit of an employer
and, for that purpose, may

(a) at any reasonable time, enter any place in which the
officer believes on reasonalbe grounds there is any
thing relevant to the enforcement of any of these
provisions; and

(b) require any person to produce for examination or
copying any record, book of account or other
document that the officer believes on reasonable
grounds contains information that is relevant to the
enforcement of any of those provisions.

Data processing (2) In conducting a compliance audit, a compliance officer
systems and may
copying equipment
(a) reproduce or cause to be reproduced any record from a
data processing system in the form of a print-out or
other intelligible output and remove the print-out or
other output for examination and copying; and

(b) use or cause tobe used any copying equipment at the
place to make copies of any record, book or account or
other document

Certificate to (3) Compliance officers shall be furnished with
be produced certificates in a form established by the Commission
certifying their designation as compliance officers
and, on entering a place under paragraph (1)(a), a
compliance officer shall show the certificate to the
person in charge of the place if the person requests
proof of the officer's designation.

Assistance to (4) The person in charge of a place entered pursuant to
compliance paragraph (1)(a) and every person found in the place
officers shall

(a) give the compliance officer all reasonable assistance
to enable the officer to exercise the powers
conferred on compliance officers by this section; and

(b) provide the officer with any information relevant to
the enforcement of this Act that the officer may
reasonably require.

Undertakings and Directions

Employer 23. (1) Where a compliance officer is of the opinion that
undertaking an employer

(a) has not collected information or conducted an analysis
referred to in paragraph 9(1)(a) or conducted a review
referred to in paragraph 9(1)(b),

(b) has not prepared an employment equity plan referred to
in section 10,

(c) has prepared an employment equity plan that does not
meet the requirements of sections 10 and 11,

(d) has not made reasonable efforts to implement its
employment equity plan in accordance with section 12,

(e) has failed to review and revise its employment equity
plan in accordance with section 13,

(f) has failed to consult with its employees'
representatives in accordance with section 14,

(g) has failed to establish and maintain employment equity
records as required by section 16, or

(h) has failed to give reasonable assistance or to produce
information as required by subsection 22(4),

the compliance officer shall inform the employer of the
non-compliance and shall attempt to negotiate a written
undertaking from the employer to take specified measures
to remedy the non-compliance.

Direction of (2) Where a compliance officer fails to obtain a written
compliance undertaking that, in the opinion of the compliance
officer officer, would be sufficient to remedy the
non-compliance, the compliance officer may issue and
send, by registered mail, a direction to the employer

(a) setting outthe facts on which the officer's finding
of non-compliance is based; and

(b) requiring the employer to take such actions as are
specified in the direction to remedy the
non-compliance.

Breach of (3) Where a compliance officer obtains a written
undertaking undertaking and the compliance officer is of the
opinion that the employer has breached the undertaking
the compliance officer may issue and send, by
registered mail, a direction to the employer requiring
the employer to take such actions as are specified in
the direction to remedy the non-compliance.

(4) A compliance officer may rescind or amend a direction
issued by that officer pursuant to subsection (2) or
(3) on the presentation of new facts or on being
satisfied that the direction was issued without
knowledge of, or was based on a mistake as to, a
material fact.

Requests for Review or Order

Employer's 24. (1) An employer to whom a direction is issued pursuant
request for to subsection 23(2) or (3) may, within sixty days after
review the day on which it is issued, make a request to the
President of the Panel for a review of the direction.

Commission (2) Where the Commission is of the opinion that an
may apply employer has failed to comply with direction issued
by a compliance officer, the Commission may apply to
the President of the Panel for an order confirming the
direction.

Limitation (3) No application may be made pursuant to subsection (2)
where the employer has requested a review in
accordance with subsection (1).

Employment Equity Review Tribunals

Establishment 25. (1) Where an employer makes a request under
of Tribunals subsection 24(1) or the Commission makes an application
under subsection 24(2), the President of the Panel shall
establish an Employment Equity Review Tribunal to
consider the request or application.

Composition (2) The President of the Panel shall appoint a Tribunal
consisting of one member of the Panel, but the
President of the Panel may appoint a Tribuanl of three
members if the President considers that the complexity
or precedential significance of the request or
application requires a Tribunal of three members.

Presiding (3) Where a Tribunal consists of more than one member, the
President of the Panel shall designate one of the
members to preside over the hearings of the Tribunal.

Renumeration (4) The members of a Tribunal shall be paid such
renumeration as may be fixed by the Governor in
Council.

Travel Expenses (5) Members are entitled to be paid travel and living
expenses incurred in carrying out duties as members of
the Tribunal while absent from their places of
residence, but the expenses must not exceed the
maximum limits authorized by Treasury Board directive
for exployees of the Government of Canada.

Technical experts (6) The President of the Panel may engage and, subjecct to
the approval of the Treasury Board, fix the
renumeration of persons having technical or special
knowledge to assist or advise a Tribunal in any matter.

Government (7) In performing its duties and functions, a Tribunal
services and shall, where available, make use of the services and
facilities facilities of departments, boards and agencies of the
Government of Canada.

Rules (8) The President of the Panel may make rules governing
the practice and procedure of Tribunals.

Powers of 26. (1) A Tribunal may
Tribunal
(a) in the same manner and to the same extent as a
superior court of record, summon and enforce the
attendance of witnesses and compel them to give oral
and written evidence on oath and to produce such
documents and things as the Tribunal considers
necessary for a full review;

(b) administer oaths; and

(c) receive and accept such evidence and other information
whether on oath or by affidavit or otherwise, as the
Tribunal sees fit, whether or not that evidence or
information would be admissible in a court of law.

How matters to (2) A Tribunal shall conduct any matter that comes before
be dealt with it as informally and expeditiously as the
circumstances and consideration of fairness and
natural justice permit.

Hearings may (3) A hearing before a Tribunal may, on the request of an
be in camera employer, be held in camera if the employer
establishes to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that
the circumstances of the case so require.

Reasons for (4) A Tribunal shall provide the parties to a proceeding
decision before the Tribunal with written reasons for its
decision.

Decision of 27. (1) A Tribunal may, after hearing a request made
Tribunal under subsection 24(1) or an application made under
subsection 24(2),

(a) by order, confirm, vary or rescind the compliance
officer's direction; and

(b) make any other order it considers appropriate and
reasonable in the circumstances to remedy the
non-compliance.

Board may vary (2) A Tribunal may vary or rescind any order made by it.
or rescind

Orders are final (3) An order of a Tribunal is final and except for
judicial review under the Federal Court Act, is not
subject to appeal or review by any court.

Enforcement 28. (1) Any order of a Tribunal made under section 27 may,
of orders for the purposes of its enforcement, be made an order of
the Federal Court and is enforceable in
the same manner as and order of that Court.

Procedure (2) To make an order of a Tribunal an order of the Federal
Court, the usual practice and procedure of the Court
may be followed or a certified copy of the order may
be filed with the registrar of the Court, and from
the time of filing the order becomes an order of the
Court.

Report of 29. The Commission shall include it its annual report
activities of referred to in section 61 of the Canadian Human Rights
Human Rights Act a report of its activities, including an assessment of
Commission their effectiveness, under this Act during the year.

Limitations repecting Directions and Orders

Limitation 30. (1) No compliance officer may give a direction under
section 23 and no Tribunal may make an order under section
27 whre that direction or order would

(a) cause undue hardship on an employer;

(b) require an employer to hire or promote unqualified
persons;

(c) with respect to the public sector, require an employer
to hire or promote persons without basing the hiring or
promotion on selection according to merit in cases
where the Public Service Employment act requires that
hiring or promotion be based on selection according to
merit; or to impose on the Public Service Commission an
obligation to exercise its discretion regarding
exclusionary orders or regulations;

(d) require an employer to create new positions in its
workforce;

(e) impose a quota on an employer; or

(f) in the case of a direction or order respection the
establishment of short term numberical goals, fail to
take into account the factors set out in subsection
10(2).

Meaning of (2) In paragraph (1)(3), "quota" means a requirement to
"quota" to hire or promote a fixed and arbitrary number of
persons during a given period.

Public sector (3) In making a direction or order that applies to the
public sector, a compliance officer, in the case of a
direction, and a Tribunal, in the case of an order,
shall take into account the respective roles and
responsibilities or

(a) the Public Service Commission and the Treasury Board
under the Public Service Employment Act and the
Financial Administration Act; or

(b) a portion of the public sector specified by order
under paragraph 4(1)(c) under any other Act of
Parliament.

Privileged Information

Privileged 31. (1) Information obtained by the Commission under this Act
information is privileged and shall not knowingly be, or be permitted to
be, communicated, disclosed or made available without the
written conser of the person from whom it was obtained.

Evidence and (2) No member of the Commission or person employed by it who
production of obtains information that is privileged under subsection
documents (1) shall be required, in connectio with any legal
proceedings, other than proceedings relating to the
administration or enforcement of this Act, to give
evidence relating to that information or to produce any
statement or other writing containing that information.

Communication (3) Information that is privileged under subsection (1) may,
or disclosure on any terms and conditions that the Commission considers
of information appropriate, be communicated or disclosed to a minister of
the Crown in right of Canada or to any officer or employee
of Her Majesty in right of Canada for any purpose relating
to the administration or enforcement of this Act.

Exception (4) Nothing in this section prohibits the communication or
* disclosure of information for the purposes of legal
proceedings relating to the administration or enforcement
of this Act.

Employer's (5) No information obtained by the Commission or a Tribunal
consent under this Act may be used in any proceedings under any
required other Act without the consent of the employer concerned.

PART III

ASSESSMENT OF MONETARY
PENALTIES

Violations

Violations 32. (1) Every private sector employr sommits a violation
of this Act who

(a) without reasonable excuse, fails to file and
employment equity report as required by section 17;

(b) without reasonable excuse, fails to imclude in the
employment equity report any information that is
required, by section 17 and the regulations, to be
included; or

(c) provides any information in the employment equity
report that the employer knows to be false or
misleading.

Continuing (2) A violation that is committed or continued on more
violations than one day constitutes a separate violation for each
day on which it is committed or continued.

Violations not (3) A violation is not an offence and accordingly the
offences Criminal Code does not apply in respect of a
violation.

Assessment of 33. (1) The Minister may, within two years after the day
monetary penalty on wich the Minister becomes aware of a violation, issue a
notice of assessment of a monetary penalty in respect of
the violation and send it by registered mail to the
private sector employer.

Limit (2) The amount of a monetary penalty shall not exceed

(a) $10,000 for a single violation; and

(b) $50,000 for repeated or continued violations.

Factors to be (3) In assessing the amount of a mometary penalty, the
considered Minister shall take into account

(a) the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
violation; and

(b) the wilfulness or intent of the private sector
employer and the employer's history of prior
violations.

Notice of 34. A notice of the assessment of a monetary penalty shall
assessment of
monetary penalty (a) identify the alleged violations;

(b) specify the amount of the monetary penalty; and

(c) specify the place where the employer may pay the
monetary penalty.

Options

Employer's 35. (1) An employer may, not later than thirty days after
options receiving a notice of assessment of a monetary penalty

(a) comply with the notice; or

(b) contest the assessment of the monetary penalty by
making a written application ot the Minister for a
review, by a Tribunal, of that assessment.

Copy of (2) Where the Minister receives a written application, the
application Minister shall send a copy of the application to the
President of the Panel.

Copy of notice (3) Where an employer who is issued a notice of
of assessment assessment of a monetary penalty fails to exercise one
of the options set out in subsection (1) within the
period referred to in that subsection, the Minister
shall send a copy of the notice of assessment to the
President of the Panel.

Review by 36. (1) On receipt of a copy of a written application or a
Tribunal copy of a notice of assessment, the President of the Panel
shall establish a Tribunal consisting of one member
selected from the Panel to review the assessment and shall

(a) send, by registerd mail, a request that the employer
appear befoe the Tribunal at the time and place set
out in the request to hear the allegations against the
employer in respect of the alleged violation; and

(b) in writing, advise the Minister who issued the notice
of assessment of the time and place set out in the
request.

Failure to appear (2) Where an employer to whom a request is sent fails to
before Tribunal appear befoe a Tribunal at the time and place set out
in the request, the Tribunal shall consider all the
information that is presented to it by the Minister in
relation to the alleged violation.

Opportunity to (3) In conducting its review, a Tribunal shall provide the
make Minister and the employer with a full opportunity
representation consistent with procedural fairness and natural
justice to present evidence and make representations
to it with respect to the alleged violation.

Determination (4) Where at the conclusion of its proceedings a Tribunal
of Tribunal determines that the employer

(a) has not committed the alleged violation, the Tribunal
shall immediately inform the employer and the Minister
of its determination and no further proceedings shall
be taken against the employer in respect of the
alleged violations; or

(b) has committed the alleged violation, the Tribunal
shall immediately

(i) issue to the Minister a certificate, in the
prescribed form, of its determination that sets
out an amount, not exceeding the applicable
amount set out in subsection 32(2), determined by
the Tribunal to be payable by the employer in
respect of the violation, and

(ii) send a copy of the certificate to the employer
by registered mail.

Factors to be (5) In determining an amount under subparagraph (4)(b)(i),
considered a Tribunal shall take into account the factors set out
in subsection 33(3).

Burden of proof (6) In proceedings under this section, the Minister has
the burden of proving, ona balance of probabilities,
that an employer hs committed the alleged violation.

Certificate (7) A certificate that purports to have been issued by a
Tribunal under subparagraph (4)(b)(i) is evidence of
the facts stated in the certificate, without proof of
the signature or official character of the person
appearing to have signed the certificate.

Determinations (8) A determination of a Tribunal under this section is
are final final, and except for judicial review under the
Federal Court Act, is not subject to appeal or review
by any court.

Enforcement of Monetary Penalties

Registration of 37. (1) A certificate issued under subparagraph 36(4)(b)(i)
certificate may be registered in the Federal Court and when registered
has the same force and effect, ans all proceedings may be
taken on the certificate, as if the certificatewere a
judgement in that Court obtained by Her Majesty in right
of Canada against the employer named in the certificate
for a debt in the amount set out in the certificate.

Recovery of cost (2) All reasonable costs and charges associated with
and charges registration of the certificate are recoverable in
like manner as if they were part of the amount
determined by the Tribunal under subparagraph
36(4)(b)(i).

PART IV

GENERAL

Regulations 38. (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations

(a) defining, for the purposes of the Act, the
expressions "employee", "hired", "occupational group",
"promoted", "salary" and "terminated";

(b) prescribing the manner of calculating the number of
employees employed by an employer for the purpose of
determining when an employer is considered to employ
one hundred or more employees;

(c) governing the collection of information and the
conduct of analyses referred to in paragraph 9(1)(a)
and the conduct of reviews referred to in paragraph
9(1)(b);

(d) governing the establishment and maintenance of
employment equity records referred to in section 16;

(e) prescribing anything taht is to be prescribed by this
Act; and

(f) generally, for carrying out ths purposes and
provisions of this Acct.

Application (2) A regulation made pursuant to subsection (1) may be of
general application or may apply to a particular
employer or group of employers.

Where regulations (3) No regulation may be made under subsection (1) that
apply to public applies to the public sector without the authorization
sector of the Treasury Board.

Inconsistent (4) No expression defined pursuant to paragraph (1)(a)
meanings that applies to the public sector shall be given a
meaning that is inconsistent with the meaning that
that expression or any similar expression is given
under the Public Service Employment Act.

Adaptation of Act (5) Where an order is made under paragraph 4(1)(c) in
in certain relation to the Canadian Forces, the Communications
portions Security Establishment of the Department of National
Defence, the Royal Canaian Mounted Police or the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Governor
in Council may, taking into account the requirements
for operational effectiveness of those portions of the
public sector, make any regulation that the Governor
in Council considers necessary to adapt this Act or
the regulations, or any provision of this Act or the
regulations, to accommodate that portion, on the
recommendation of the Treasury Board after
consultation with

(a) in the case of a regulation respecting the Canadian
Forces or the Communications Security Establishment of
the Departmentof National Defense, the Minister of
National Defense; and

(b) in the case of a regulation respecting the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service, the Solicitor General.

Requirements (6) The effect of a regulation made under subsection (5)
may differ with respect to any matter may differ from the effect
of the Act or the regulations or of any provision of
the Act or the regulations with respect to that
matter.

Powers, duties 39. (1) The Minister is responsible for
and functions
of Minister (a) developing and conducting information programs to
foster public understanding of this Act and to foster
public recognition of the purpose of this Act;

(b) undertaking research related to the purpose of this
Act;

(c) promoting, by any means that the Minister considers
appropriate, the purpose of this Act;

(d) Publishing and disseminating information, issuing
guidelines and providing advice to private sector
employers and employee representatives regarding the
implementation or employment equity; and

(e) developing and conducting programs to recognize
private sector employers for outstanding achievement
in implementing employment equity.

Federal (2) The Minister is responsible for the administration of
Contractors the Federal Contractors Program for Employment Equity
Program and shall, in discharging that responsibility, ensure
that the core requirements of that program are
compatible witht he principles or employment equity
reflected in this Act.

Labour market (3) The Minister shall make available to employers any
information any relevant labour market information that the
Minister has respecting designated groups in the
Canadian workforce in order to assist employers in
fulfilling their obligations under this Act.

Delegation 40. The Minister may authorize those person employed in
the public serice of Canada whom the Minister
considers to be appropriate to exercise any of the
powers and perform any of the duties and functions
that may be or are required to be exercised or
performed by the Minister under this Act or the
regulations, and any power exercised or duty or
function performed by any person so authorized shall
be deemed to have been exercised or performed by the
Minister.

Review of 41. (1) Five years after the coming into force of this
operation of Act, and at the end of evey five year period thereafter,
Act 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.

Tabling of (2) A committee shall, within six months after the
report the completion of a review referred to in
subsection (1), submit a report onits review to the
House of Commons including a statement of any changes
the committee would recommend.

Transitional Provision

Compliance with 42. The Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission and
certain any person who is an employer to whom the Employment
provisions Equity Act, R.S., c. 23 (2nd Supp.), applied shall,
within one year after the coming into force of this
section, comply with sections 9 and 10 of this Act.

Consequential Amendments
R.S.,c.H-6
Canadian Human Rights Act

43. Section 40 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is amended
by adding the following after subsection (3):

Limitation |(3.1) No complaint may be initiated under subsection (3)
|as a result of information obtained by the Commission in
|the course of the administratio of the Employment Equity
|Act.

44. The Act is amended by ading the following after
section 40:

45. Section 41 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 41(1)
and is amended by adding the following:

Commission |(2) The Commission may decline to deal with a complaint
may decline to |referrd to in paragraph 10(a) in respect of an employer
deal with |where it is of the opinion that the matter has been
complaint |adequately dealt with inthe employer's employment equity
|plan prepared pursuant to section 10 of the Employment
|Equity Act.
|
Meaning of |(3) In this section "employer" means a person who or
"employer" |organization that discharges the obligations of an
|employer under the Employment Equity Act.

46. The Act is amended by adding the following after
section 54:

47. (1) Subsection 11(2) of the Financial Administration
Act is amended by adding the following paragraph (h):

|(2) Subject to the provisions of any enacctment respecting
| the powers and functions of a separate employer but
| notwithstanding any other provision contained in any
| enactment, the Treasury Board may, in the exercise of
| its responsibilities in relation to personnel
| management including its responsibilities in reation
| to employer and employee relationsin the public
| service and with limiting the generality of sections
| 7 to 10.

1992,c.54,s. (2) Subsections 11(2.1) to (3) of the Act are replaced by
81(2), (3) by the following:

Limitation of |(2.1) The Treasury Board may designate groups of persons
powers and | that are disadvantaged, including women, aboriginal
functions of | peoples, persons with with disabilities and persons
Board in | who are, because of their race or colour, in a
relation to | visible minority in Canada, and may establish
matters | policies and programs to improve employment and and
expressly | career opportunities for designated groups in the
determined | public service and to correct the conditions of
| disadvantage experienced by such groups in their
| employment.
|
|(2.2) The Treasury Board shall, in consultations with the
| bargaining agetns representing person employed in
| the public service, implement employment equity by
|
|(a) identifying and eliminating each of the employment
| practices in the public service, not otherwise
| authorized by law, that results in employment
| barriers against persons in designated groups; and
|
|(b) instituting such positive policies and practices and
| making such reasonable accommodation as will ensure
| that persons in designated groups achieve a degree
| of representation in the various positions of
| employment within the public service that is at
| least proportionate to their representation
|
| (i) in the work force, or
|
| (ii) in those segments of the work force that are
| identifiable by qualification, eligibility or
| geography and from which the public service may
| reasonably be expected to draw or promote
| employees.
|
|(2.3) The Treasury Board shall, ofr each fiscal year in
| respect of each department and other portion of the
| public service pecified in Part I of Schedule I to
| the Public Service Staff Relations Acct, prepare a
| plan setting out
|
| (a) the goals that it intends to achieve in
| implementing employment equity in the fiscal
| year or years to which the plan relates; and
|
| (b) the timetable for the implementationof those
| goals.
|
|(2.4) In each fiscal year, the President of the Treasury
| Board shall cause to be laid before each House of
| Parliament a report in respet of the state of
| employment equity in the public service during the
| immediately preceding fiscal year, indicating
|
| (a) the number of employees employed in each
| department and other portion of the public
| service specified in Part I of Schedule I to
| the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the
| number of persons in designated groups so
| employed;
|
| (b) the occupational groups of employees and the
| degree of representation of persons in designated
| groups in each occupational group:
|
| (c) the salary ranges of employees and the degree of
| representation of persons in designated groups
| in each range and any subdivision thereof; and
|
| (d) the number of employees hired, promoted and
| terminated and the degree of representation in
| those numbers of persons in designated groups.
|
|(2.5) Subsecctions (2.1) to (2.4) do not apply in respect
| of a separate employer.
|
|(3) The powers and functions of the Treasury Board in
| relation to any of the matters specified in
| subsections (2) to (2.4) do not extend to any such
| matter taht is expressly determined, fixed, provided
| for, regulated or established by any Act otherwise
| than by the conferring of powers or functions in
| relation therreto on any authority or person
| specified in that Act, and do not include or extend
| to any power or function specifically conferred on,
| or any process of personnel selection required or
| authorized to be employed by, the Public Service
| Commission by or under the authority of the Public
| Service Employment Act.
R.S.,c.P-33
Public Service Employment Act

48. Subsection 5.1(5) of the Pubic Service Employment Act
is replaced by the following:

Definition of |(5) In this setion, "employment equity program" means a
"employment | program establish by the Treasury Board to improve
equity | employment and career opportunities in the Public
program" | Service for grups or persons that are disadvantaged,
| including women, aboriginal peoples, persons with
| disabilities and persons who are, because of their
| race or colour, is a visible minority in Canada, and
| to correct the conditions of disadvantage experienced
| by such groups in their employment.

49. The relevant portion of subsection 47(1) reads
as follows:

|47. (1) The Commission shall within five months after the
|end of each fiscal year, tramsmit to the Minister
|designated by the Governor in Council for the purposes of
|this section a report and statement of

Repeal

Repeal 50. The Employment Equity Act, R. S., C. 23 (2nd Suppl.),
is repealed.

Coming Into Force

Coming into 51. This Act or any provision of this Act comes into
force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the
Governor in Council.

Bob Levitt

unread,

Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96

to

Bill Stuart (ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:

: Brian Graham (Gra...@psac.com) writes:
: >
: > No. It means that a minority gets the job.

: It means the chance of a minority getting a job depends on how
: many minorities you can get applying for that position. If it's over the
: percentage of that minority group in a given area, then the chances are
: equal.

: --

: Acceptable amounts in Canadian drinking water: Cyanide: 0.2 mg/l Uranium:
: 0.1 mg/l Mercury: 0.001 mg/l Dioxin: 15 pg/l

Employment equity is about bringing affirmative action programs in the
hiring, training, promotion and retention of the "designated groups"
to meet quotas ("numerical targets") so that their proportions in all
levels and areas of the covered companies or government ministries,
departments, directorates, etc., of these "designated groups" at least
match their proportions in the population. If the non-designated groups
are under-represented, that is not against Employment Equity regulations.

Jeff Breukelman

unread,

Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96

to

Bob Levitt wrote:

>
> Bill Stuart (ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
> >
> Employment equity is about bringing affirmative action programs in the
> hiring, training, promotion and retention of the "designated groups"
> to meet quotas ("numerical targets") so that their proportions in all
> levels and areas of the covered companies or government ministries,
> departments, directorates, etc., of these "designated groups" at least
> match their proportions in the population. If the non-designated groups
> are under-represented, that is not against Employment Equity regulations.

Employment equity is an interesting idea, but I find the notion of "affirmative"
action to bring about that idea appalling. Since when is it right to hire
someone less qualified simply because of the colour of his or her skin? Isn't
this what so many minority groups have been speaking out against for years?

I will grant you that minorities often (perhaps even usually) do not get a fair
shot at a job when compared to whites. However the solution is NOT to
institutionalize discrimination on the basis of race, regardless of whether it
is minorities or majorities who receive the benefits of said discrimination.

The solution is obvious (in basic form anyway). People must be educated to the
point where they will not consider race in selecting employees and to the point
where no race has any actual or historical disadvantage. The problem with this
approach is the time it will take. Very few people will be willing to wait for
this approach to begin showing results, but in reality, it is the only workable
solution. Any other solution, such as "affirmative" action, will have too many
negative effects to truly be workable. I would even go so far as to say that
"affirmative" action is doing more harm than good due to the understandable
backlash among some groups (young white males particularly) because of the
difficulty they have in finding jobs.

This difficulty is probably not due entirely to "affirmative" action, but it IS
a convenient scape goat. Then too, in certain areas (such as the police force)
it IS creating difficulty for young white males.

I could go on and on and on, (I know, I already have)but I have to get back to
work.

Jeff Breukelman.

Joe Lockhart

unread,

Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96

to

Subject: Re: Are White males' equal? Think again
From: ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart)
Date: 1996/05/31
Message-Id: <4onu18$c...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
Sender: ah...@freenet3.carleton.ca (Bill Stuart)
References: <1996May31.2...@wpg.ramp.net>
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
Reply-To: ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart)
Newsgroups: can.politics

Joe Lockhart (ec...@wpg.ramp.net) writes:

Wpg Sun:

So if a company has the program, it can tell a qualified white male
candidate to get lost and that's OK.

Mr.Stuart:

"Actually, what it means is that the entrants are graded based on
the number of applicants. If 50 white men and 10 black men apply for
1 position, a black is five times as likely to get the position as a white
is. You can still get in, but you have to be really exceptional."

Wpg Sun:

"And he adds that while job qualifications come first, "special
consideration is given to certain factors." Just another way of telling
white males they'll continue to get the short end of the stick and they
can put up or shut up."

Mr.Stuart:

"Actually, White males can now file sexism suits if they are
trounced out of employment opportunities as cashiers, etc. It's working
in our benifit too."

Wpg Sun:

"There should be no "special consideration." No "certain factors." And
judging by their Animal Farm mentality, maybe there should be no
more human rights commissions either."

Mr.Stuart:

"Mr "Lets kill us some jews" is lecturing us on human rights. Please.

ECDL:
Mr. Stuart, could you please quote where I have said "Lets kill us
some jews," If you can I suggest you forward it to the police, as
making such a statement would be against the law. If you cannot,
(which is the case) I would suggest you apologize for lying about what
I stand for. Or are you typically just another liar?
The ECDL is vehemently anti-violent. As violence is the tool of the
enemy. For us, knowledge is power.

The Euro-Christian Defence League
P.O. Box 345 Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3C 2H6
24 Hr Hotline (204) 775-0878

Visit our Web Site at:
http://www.pathcom.com/~freedom/ecdl/homepage.html

Or visit the Freedom Site at:
http://www.pathcom.com/~freedom/

Mr.Stuart:

"I find it ironic that you are anti-immigrant with the above
address."
"Europe is on a different continent. You are an immigrant."

ECDL:
My address is in Winnipeg, Winnipeg is in Canada, not in Europe.
The "Euro" means people of European descent. (IE White people)
But you knew that didn't you Mr.Stuart.

Robin Krasichynski

unread,

Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96

to

Equal to what?

Brian Graham

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

In article <DsGLw4.FIK...@torfree.net>, bw...@torfree.net (Bob Levitt) says:

>Employment equity is about bringing affirmative action programs in the
>hiring, training, promotion and retention of the "designated groups"
>to meet quotas

My point exactly. Legislated discrimination. If the current numbers
don't reflect the target quota, then the white male has exactly ZERO
PERCENT chance of getting the job.

It's called REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.
It would seem that two wrongs DO make a right.

--
Brian

Brian Graham

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

In article <1996Jun4.2...@wpg.ramp.net>, Joe Lockhart <ec...@wpg.ramp.net> says:
>
>Subject: Re: Are White males' equal? Think again
>From: ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart)
>Date: 1996/05/31
>Message-Id: <4onu18$c...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
>Sender: ah...@freenet3.carleton.ca (Bill Stuart)
>References: <1996May31.2...@wpg.ramp.net>
>Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
>Reply-To: ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart)
>Newsgroups: can.politics
>
>Joe Lockhart (ec...@wpg.ramp.net) writes:
>
>Wpg Sun:
>So if a company has the program, it can tell a qualified white male
>candidate to get lost and that's OK.
>

CORRECT.

>Mr.Stuart:
>"Actually, what it means is that the entrants are graded based on
>the number of applicants. If 50 white men and 10 black men apply for
>1 position, a black is five times as likely to get the position as a white
>is. You can still get in, but you have to be really exceptional."
>

Unless all quotas are currently met, the white male has a ZERO percent
chance of getting the job!

>
>Wpg Sun:
>"And he adds that while job qualifications come first, "special
>consideration is given to certain factors." Just another way of telling
>white males they'll continue to get the short end of the stick and they
>can put up or shut up."

YES. SPECIAL MEASURES are implemented on behalf of the minority to
make them equal with the white male.

>Mr.Stuart:
>"Actually, White males can now file sexism suits if they are
>trounced out of employment opportunities as cashiers, etc. It's working
>in our benifit too."

I hope you want to be a cashier all your life, Bill. Enjoy!

>Wpg Sun:
>"There should be no "special consideration." No "certain factors." And
> judging by their Animal Farm mentality, maybe there should be no
>more human rights commissions either."

EE is nothing more than LEGISLATED DISCRIMINATION.

>Mr.Stuart:
>"Mr "Lets kill us some jews" is lecturing us on human rights. Please.

When all else fails, invoke "poutine" or whatever...

Brian Graham

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

In article <4p49nh$l...@news3.cts.com>, pkol...@cts.com (Peter Kolding) says:
>
>ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:
>
>
If 50 exceptionally qualified
>white men apply for a job and one minimumly qualified minority
>applies, and an AA program is in effect, the minority gets the job.
>

That is EXACTLY how Employment Equity is legislated. This law applies
to all companies employing over (I believe) 20 persons.

The small business still gets to hire based on QUALIFICATIONS
(OH MY!!!!)

--
Brian

Brian Graham

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

In article <4p2iki$h...@kryten.awinc.com>, rkra...@access.awinc.com (Robin Krasichynski) says:
>
>Equal to what?
>

Anyone who isn't. The answer is no.

Brian Graham

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

In article <4ovp5l$5...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) says:
>
>
>Brian Graham (Gra...@psac.com) writes:
>>
>> No. It means that a minority gets the job.
>
> It means the chance of a minority getting a job depends on how
>many minorities you can get applying for that position. If it's over the
>percentage of that minority group in a given area, then the chances are
>equal.
>

You really don't understand the magnitude of the situation, Bill.
If you have ANY minorities applying for a particular job, then
a white male WILL NOT GET THE JOB!!

This assumes only that at least 1 minority has the MINIMUN
skill level required.
--
Brian

Peter Kolding

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

bw...@torfree.net (Bob Levitt) wrote:

>Bill Stuart (ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:

>: Brian Graham (Gra...@psac.com) writes:
>: >
>: > No. It means that a minority gets the job.

>: It means the chance of a minority getting a job depends on how
>: many minorities you can get applying for that position. If it's over the
>: percentage of that minority group in a given area, then the chances are
>: equal.

>: --

>: Acceptable amounts in Canadian drinking water: Cyanide: 0.2 mg/l Uranium:
>: 0.1 mg/l Mercury: 0.001 mg/l Dioxin: 15 pg/l

>Employment equity is about bringing affirmative action programs in the

>hiring, training, promotion and retention of the "designated groups"

>to meet quotas ("numerical targets") so that their proportions in all
>levels and areas of the covered companies or government ministries,
>departments, directorates, etc., of these "designated groups" at least
>match their proportions in the population. If the non-designated groups
>are under-represented, that is not against Employment Equity regulations.

Not only that. It is against the law to have an affirmative action
program for people who are not members of a legally-designated group,
as such a program would discriminate against those who are members of
one of those groups. This is why white female dominated public
employment areas, such as teaching and nursing, have remained that way
after decades of AA, even though AA is purportedly dedicated to
"equality" and "representation based on the make-up of the
population". It also should give people an injsight as to why both
these groups have no problem with the concept of EE, and actively
support it. It's not as if it will ever apply to them.

Peter Kolding

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:

>Brian Graham (Gra...@psac.com) writes:
>>
>> No. It means that a minority gets the job.

> It means the chance of a minority getting a job depends on how
>many minorities you can get applying for that position. If it's over the
>percentage of that minority group in a given area, then the chances are
>equal.

I don't know what law you are referring to when you make these
observations, but it isn't Canadian in origin. AA in Canada has no
regard whatever for the number of minorities that apply for jobs, but
rather their proportion in the general popualtion. AA laws have no
regard for the percentage of applicants that are minorities, but
rather the proportion that are already employed, and their position
within the company doing the hiring. If 50 exceptionally qualified

Peter Kolding

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:

>Brian Graham (Gra...@psac.com) writes:
>> The manner in which EQUAL RIGHTS is being implemented is sickening.
>> The theory is to prevent discrimination. IN FACT IT LEGISLATES IT.
>>
>> Two candidates write an exam for a job to indicate knowledge/skill
>> level. Pass mark is 50%. Let's say, for example, that a white male
>> scored 95%. Lets say the minority (pick any, including female) scores
>> a whopping 50%. Guess who gets the job. THE MINORITY!! WHY??

> This is somewhat innacurate.

> Here's how it works.

> Lets say we have 100 people, 95 of them are white males and five
>are black males. They can hire ten people. Because the demographics of
>that area show that ten percent of the population is black, one of the
>five has to get a position.

> If 95 black males and 5 white males applied, all the white males
>would get jobs.

Why do you keep on spouting this blatant misinformation? AA cannot be
applied in favour of white males, nor against blacks, by law.
Non-disabled white males are not members of a designated disadvantaged
group, and thus hiring them on the basis of their race and sex is
discrimination on the basis of race and sex. Furthermore, since blacks
are members of a legally-designated disadvantaged group, no AA program
can be adopted that impairs their opportunities for employment. If 10
positions are open and there are 100 applicants---95 white men and 5
black----there is no certainly at all that any whites will be hired,
no matter what their qualifications. On the other hand, if all the
blacks meet at least the minimum standard, all of them will be hired.
The standard is not the proportion of black applicants, but the
proportion of blacks in the population and employed by the company.
The proportion of whites in the population and in the company is
IRRELEVANT. Even if the company hadn't a single white man in its
employ, blacks would be hired under AA if their group proportions
demanded it.

Brian Graham

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

In article <4p49o8$l...@news3.cts.com>, pkol...@cts.com (Peter Kolding) says:

>Non-disabled white males are not members of a designated disadvantaged
>group, and thus hiring them on the basis of their race and sex is
>discrimination on the basis of race and sex.

EXACTLY CORRECT. Yet this is the law.

Furthermore, since blacks
>are members of a legally-designated disadvantaged group, no AA program
>can be adopted that impairs their opportunities for employment.

No, special measures are taken to guarantee their employment.

--
Brian

John

unread,

Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96

to

Gra...@psac.com (Brian Graham) wrote:

>In article <4p49nh$l...@news3.cts.com>, pkol...@cts.com (Peter Kolding) says:

>>
>>ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:
>>
>>
> If 50 exceptionally qualified
>>white men apply for a job and one minimumly qualified minority
>>applies, and an AA program is in effect, the minority gets the job.
>>

Bull

>That is EXACTLY how Employment Equity is legislated. This law applies
>to all companies employing over (I believe) 20 persons.

So what you are saying is that all minorities that get hired
it is only because of AA, that they got the job.

>The small business still gets to hire based on QUALIFICATIONS
>(OH MY!!!!)

Lets see, qualifications, first you must be a white male,
secondly, can be trained..

John

an62...@anon.penet.fi

unread,

Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96

to

WHAT'S IN IT FOR WHITE MEN?

from the Winter 1995 edition of
EE PROS - A free newsletter from your Employment Equity
Professionals

by Jane Garthson a member of the Board and Executive
of the Toronto Employment Equity Practitioners'
Association (TEEPA)

Many white men believe they have never personally benefited from
discrimination practised against members of others groups. Yet
they are now hearing that they must stand back to help other groups
advance. No wonder they are angry!

Let's separate emotion from the facts. Employment Equity (EE)
principles boil down to two basic concepts which must be considered
together and in order:

- The first is that everyone is entitled to equal treatment,
including employment practices free of barriers. That includes
white able-bodied men, and is consistent with the Ontario Human
Rights Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

- Secondly, employers whose workforces do not match the community
must make efforts to address that imbalance, including
implementing POSITIVE measures and setting goals bases on
expected turnover and availability of qualified applicants.

Positve measures are normally temporary and are designed to help
members of designated groups compete on a level playing field.
Decisions should always be based on merit and qualifications,
anything else would violate the principles of equal treatment.

If two people seem equal after interviews and referene checks,
employers are now encouraged to choose the designated group member.
A decision must be made, and in the past the choice was usually
described as a "best fit" with the boss and the existing work force.
In many, if not most cases, this meant the white, able-bodied male
got the job. The other aspect is discriminatory barriers continue
to exist in our schools and other institutions. A designated group
member likely has to work much harder to come out equal in a
recruitment situation. The decision won't always be fair, but it
will be fair more often than in the past.

Every employer must also initiate supportive measures, defined as
benefitting the employer's workforce as a whole. Actions such as
flexible work hours, access to leaves, or part-time arrangements for
parental or education purposes benefit men as much as women.

Unfortuantely, the Ontario law did not explicitly state that
Employment equity does not mean the promotion or hiring of
unqualified individuals. Ontario's Employment Equity Commission
is taking pains to emphasize these points during speaking
engagements and training sessions. This is seldom reported by the
media, which more often raises unsubstantiated, and even false fears
of reverse discrimination. That term, or course, acknowledges that
discrimination has been endemic; about 30% of the workforce
(able-bodied white men) has been benefiting at the expense of 70%.

Another consideration of equity is that human resource decisions
are to be made on bona fide job requirements. Don't you know a
white, able-bodied male who didn't get promoted because of his
outside interests, or family background didn't fit with the
dominant group in his workplace? Should beig on the bowling team
be a qualification for management? Individualists will appreciate
an increased focus on job-related qualifications.

The anger that some white, able-bodied men feel is real and
justified, given the mistruths spread by the media and some
politicians, coupled with the mistakes some employers are making
in their application of employment equity. So, it's important
for these men to get directly involved with promoting employment
equity in their workplaces ensuring that it is implemented fairly,
so everyone benefits.

Jane Garthson specializing in employee consultations, barrier
identification and qualitative measures. Tel: 416-512-6765

Toronto Employment Equity Practitioners' Assoc. (416) 866-8922

--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to ab...@anon.penet.fi
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to he...@anon.penet.fi
If you have any problems, address them to ad...@anon.penet.fi

Bonchlord

unread,

Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96

to

>The anger that some white, able-bodied men feel is real and
>justified, given the mistruths spread by the media and some
>politicians, coupled with the mistakes some employers are making
>in their application of employment equity. So, it's important
>for these men to get directly involved with promoting employment
>equity in their workplaces ensuring that it is implemented fairly,
>so everyone benefits.
>
>
>Jane Garthson specializing in employee consultations, barrier
>identification and qualitative measures. Tel: 416-512-6765
>

Get bent. I'm white, I'm male and I'm poor. I really wish I had access to this
power that white men are supposed to have. The truth of the matter is it's not a
question of race, but economics. If the majority of the wealtiest individuals in
the world happen to be white, do you think they really stop to "feel" for their
poorer brethren? No, time immemorial has shown that regadless of who's king of
the hill, that they'll exploit anyone (economically( to stay there. The majority
of white men have and always will be working schmoe's just like the rest of the
men of the world. Wealth and poverty are the true culprits, and if government
bureacracies would dedicate themselves to wiping out the latter, there would be
no need for Employment Equity in the first place. But we all know it will never
happen, as politicians are lackey's for the exceptionally wealthy in the first
place (recall what Brian Mulroney did with "Family Trusts"? allowed people like
the Bronfmans to ship billions of taxable dollars out of the country with out
paying one penny, like joe average guy has to). Only when we have people in
office who really care about people and make a concerted effort to eliminate
poverty (which would invariably wipe out every other social ill we have), will
we be free of our problems. White men for the greater part live on the low to
lower middle income scale and have problems like everyone else and hiring people
simply because they're not white is the most insane thing I've ever heard of.
Without the political doubletalk it come's down to reverse discrimination, plain
and simple, if someone get's a job before me because they arne't white (assuming
we're equally qualified), the employer has just become a racist and should be
subject to full prosecution under the charter set out by the HUMAN rights
commission. I certainly don't get any breaks from the government or any
business's I buy products or services from because I'm white, why than should
other people get priviledges I don't simply because they're non-white?
Furthermore,it infers that the white man is in fact superior to men of other
races and that they need the government to give them a helping hand, if I was a
minority, I'd be outraged by that, because again it follows, if minorities are
indeed inferior an do need such help in order to obtain a job, why would I as an
employer ever want to hire an inferior worker over a superior one, it's not
economically viable. When people have a decent neighborhood to live in and
enough to eat, thing's like racism will become a thing of the past to be
pondered at by future generations who will view this stage of our evolution as
mind boggling and wonder how we ever managed to survive as a species at all with
such pathetic attempts at rectifying "inequality" with asinine government
programs like Employment Equity.

Bob Levitt

unread,

Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96

to

My Criticisms of Bill C-64
Canada's Employment Equity Act

By Bob Levitt

General Comments:

The principles of this Bill are flawed based upon a look at
statistical distributions, sociology, morality and philosopy.

This Act assumes that there should be an even distribution of
people by gender, race, colour and disability in all workplaces,
proportional to their distribution in the community, and not
to have such a distribution is a sign of systemic discrimination.
This homogeniality would never occur naturally. If one were to
take a very large bag full of different coloured marbles, and
spread them on a surface randomly, you would not get a totally
perfect mixture of the different coloured marbles, you would
get some areas that would have more of one type than another.
When marbles are replaced by people, many other factors come
into play that have nothing to do with barriers aimed against
certain groups, such as: years with the company of the existing
workforce, the history of employee turnover, the number of
years the company has existed, those that keep applications on
file and then review these files on a first-come-first-served
basis when an opening become available, which media they use
to advertise available jobs in, the social makeup of the
community (not at the present time for which they are being
judged,) but at the time they hired these employees, etc..

<Note: this Bill does not apply to the Yukon nor N.W.T..>

Secondly, it assumes that their should be a proportional
representation by gender, race, colour and disability, for
all occupations in all parts of this country. The Act does
not take into account sociological factors. Who says that
all the designated groups are all interested proportionally
in all jobs? As an example, is there going to be proportional
interest in wanting to be an oil-rig workers, working on a
drilling derrick in some isolated area, by gender, race,
colour, and disability? How about being a train engineer, or
a telephone operator?

If find the idea of a law that is based upon categories
that include race and colour to be abhorrent. We want to
stop discrimination, but should we be legislating rights on
the basis of belonging to a broad "designated group" rather
than on the basis of need or a specific instance of
discrimination? As someone in a posting pointed out, what
about homosexuals? Shouldn't this law be inclusive and also
include Lesbians and Gays? And then there are the proverbial
"able-bodied white males". If somebody sets up a computer
company that makes tenders of $200,000 or more on federal
contracts this law applies to them, but if they purposely
decided not to hire any "able-bodied white males" that is not
a violation under this law, it only cares if it were members of
the four designated groups who were not in sufficient numbers.
And then there are those who are discriminated against
because of obesity, or because they are too thin, or they
are unattractive or even because they are too attractive.
Why doesn't this law apply to all people in society?
If it is going to say you have to meet a minimum target
proportional for the ratio in the canadian workforce for
Women, Visible Minorities, Women and the Disabled, then
why is it alright to have below the proportions of other
groups in Canadian society?

If special treatment is necessary, it should be based on
need and not upon membership in some broad category. With
this Act, a "designated group" member from a wealthy
background, would get advantage over a person who was not
a member of any of the "designated groups" even if they
came from a severely disadvantaged background. How is
this fair?

And what about the philosophy behind Employment Equity?
By categorizing people into groups some of whom are treated
differently under federal law, do you end discrimination,
or do you encourage it? Will people say you were hired,
you got the training course, you got the promotion, or you
weren't laid off because you belong to a designated group?
I want to be hired, promoted, trained and not fired,
because of my abilities, not my disability. And what about
people within a group such as "Visible Minorities," will
some members of a subgroup of this group say they are
underrepresented and another group overrepresented? (I
still remember the posting by Gopie about wanting admission
quotas in universities because there were too few of "her
group" and too many of three other groups being admitted.)
Do laws such as this one rather than ending discrimination
perpetuate and even encourage it, not just by people
outside of the "designated groups" but between different
designated groups and within the "Visible Minorities" group?

The question is: is this Act really needed to end
discrimination? It appears that this law is designed to
compensate for yesterday's sins and to try to quickly
mirror the average community mix, but wouldn't it be
more fair to try to avoid discrimination from now on?
Discrimination is already illegal under all the provincial, as
well as the Canada Human Rights acts. Aren't existing laws
being enforced sufficienctly to fight employment discrimination?
If that is truly the case, then shouldn't the enforcement of
the existing regulations be stepped up, rather than enacting
this law that will create a large bureaucracy of clerks,
auditors and Tribunals. With the added time, paperwork and
cost of this complex system, won't employers feel the need
to lay off existing workers presently providing tangible
services and producing products to pay for the Employment
Equity personnel? And won't this mean that companies
thinking of setting up shop here in Canada, may decide
not to, and Canadian companies may move their offices to
another country to avoid this bureacracy? And the
government will have to pay for this bureaucracy at a
time when they are cutting back services; what additional
services will have to go to pay for this?

Many people dismiss this law as affecting few people;
it doesn't. This law will directly affect lots of people.
There are over 220,000 federal civil servants, 22,632
people in the R.C.M.P, over 100,200 people in the Canadian
Armed forces, in about 350 federally regulated companies
and Crown corporations (Human Resources Development
Canada news release #94-137, December 12, 1994,) there
are about 750,000 employees, plus it applies to any company
in the Federal Contractors Program which covers (subsection 39(2))
companies that submit bids or tender for federal contracts
of $200,000 or more as a condition of being able to submit
these bids and tenders for services and goods for the
federal government. This $200,000 figure can be changed on
a moments notice by an "Order in Council". This last group
could account for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands
of jobs and Human Resources Development Canada could not or
would not provide me with either a figure or with a contact
in another federal department who could or would provide this.
Just with the known quantities, the total amount of jobs
affected by Bill C-64 in its present form is over 1,000,000.
*********

This Bill seems to have been timed for before the planned
layoffs of some 45,000 federal civil servants. If you
notice the repeated references to "retention" in the act,
it appears aimed at providing some level of lay-off
protection for the designated groups only.

One very disturbing feature of the federal Employment
Equity Act, (EEA,) is how many times it states that criterion
within it may be changed by "Orders in Council" (section 38).
An Order in Council means that the Cabinet of the
government-of-the-day, has issued the order and there
is no vote on this change by our elected representatives
in the House of Commons.

In addition to the usual questions, another has been added
for the 1996 Census of Canada to aid the federal government
in its Employment Equity program as well as to assist the
provinces in their's. Question #19 on the next Census will
read, "Is this person: White, Chinese, South Asian (example:
East Indian, Pakistani, Punjabi, Sri Lankan,) Black
(example: African, Hatian, Jamaican, Somali,) Arab/West Asian,
Philipino, South East Asian, Latin American, Japanese,
Korean, or Other" (and you must specify what other means).
There are already questions on all Census questionnaires that
determine your gender, if you are Aboriginal, or if you are
disabled. Why is this question formulated as it is?

Remember that the Ontario moves first started with their
"Positive Measures Policy" that meant that hiring and
promotion in the Ontario Civil Service would be aimed at
"designated groups". This culminated with the now infamous
provincial government job ad in "Options" that said only
designated group members need apply, and then their draconian
Bill 40 that applied to the private sector. In addition to the
federal law, there is a bill that is being introduced in B.C.
for employment equity, encouraged by the introduction of the
Ontario Law and federal Bill C-64. Though the Ontario Act is
being repealed by the new Ontario government, it could quickly
reappear the next time there is a change in the ruling party
in Ontario, as both the Ontario N.D.P. and Liberal Party
supported the Ontario Act and Lynn McLeod, the Ontario Liberal
leader stated on numerous public occasions that she supported
employment equity laws. If the history is any indication, then
this law will likely expand its powers with time and could
encourage more provinces to table their own Employment Equity
Acts. And the most telling sign of political agendas, is
that under the Mulroney federal government, the Liberal
Party of Canada when it talked about Employment Equity
wanted it for companies with 15 or more employees.

Let's look at some of the clauses and my criticisms of them.

"Purpose of Act

Purpose of Act 2. The purpose of this Act 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,
person with disabilities and members of visible
minorities by giving effect to the principle that
employment equity means more than treating persons
in the same way but also requires special measures
and the accommodation of differences."

The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality of outcome,
and not equality of treatment. Or as one poster put it, it
reminds him of the scenario in the book "Animal Farm" where
"All are equal, but some are more equal than others."

If this law was really about equality it would make opportunities
available to everybody, and fight against discrimination against
all people. The Human Rights Act already outlaws discrimination.

""members of "members of visible minorities" means person, other
visible than aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in
minorities" race or non-white in colour;"

Can anybody tell me if they know of another federal law
that in recent history (say the last 15 years,) that
has used "colour" as a criterion? I think this sets a
very dangerous precendent.

And what how can you gauge race in a multicultural
society with many mixed-race people? What is Caucasian
and what is non-Caucasian? What happens if based upon
lineage if someone is one-half Caucasian or three-eighths,
or one-quarter or one-eighth?

And I must assume that by "white" they are talking about
skin colour and not the shade of one's teeth. Then what shade
is considered white and what is not? If I get a good tan this
summer should I also consider myself a member of another
"designated group" based upon the colour of my skin?

"Panel" "Panel" means the Human Rights Tribunal Panel
established under section 48.1 of the Canadian Human
Rights Act;

This panel like all "Panels" and "Tribunals" is a group
of political appointees by the government-of-the-day.
Historically, appointees have been political hacks who
have connections with and done work for the party in
power, plus experts almost always composed of people who
have a vested interest in the area of concern, usually
having been a lobbyist, consultant or lawyer working
in that field. I wouldn't expect them to be unbiased in
their opinions and decisions.

""persons with "persons with disabilitiies" means persons who have
disabilities a long-term or recurring physical, mental, sensory,
psychiatric or learning impairment and who

(a) consider themselves to be disadvantaged in
employment by reason of that impairment, or

(b) believe that a employer or potential employer is
likely to consider them to be disadvantaged in
employment by reason of that impairment,

and includes persons whose functional limitations
owing to their impairment have been accommodated in
their current job or workplace;"

This is an area very open to abuse. If one wanted to
think of a persistent sore back due to tension that has
nagged them for years as a disability, you are now a
"person with a disability", and could demand the accomodations
a company affords to other "persons with disabilities".

And what if a psychiatrist diagnoses someone as having
"Kleptomania". Should this be a reason for someone to
claim "disability" to help them get a job with a bank?

Remember it is based not upon what a consensus thinks,
or a medical diagnosis, but what the individual thinks,
or claims to think. And if the person is lying, how can
you prove what the person really is thinking?

Buildings should be accessible to all. It is good for
governments to make an investment in the disabled either
through subsidizing necessary equipment and supplies
directly or through tax breaks; not only does it give back
a person their dignity and sense of self-worth but it can
pay off financally, through the person being self-supporting.
It can be good for business too.

Like I said earlier, I want to be hired, promoted and
retained, for my abilities not my disabilities. I will
not check off "disabled" on any form".

"Employer Obligations

Employer's duty 5. Every employer shall implement employment equity
by

(a) identifying and eliminating employment barriers
against persons in designated groups that result
from the employer's employment systems, policies
and practices that are not authorized by law;
and"

Shouldn't employers be doing this, where there is
not prohibitive costs involved, for all groups not
just the four designated ones, anyways?

"(b) instituting such positive policies and practices
and making such reasonable accommodations as
will ensure that persons in designated groups
achieve a degree of representation in each
occupational groups in the employer's workforce
that reflects their representation in

(i) the Canadian workforce, or

(ii) those segments of the Canadian workforce
that are identifiable by qualification,
eligibility or geography and from which the
employer may reasonably be expected to draw
employees."

And who says what is identifiable and what is not.
Since certain organizations covered under this act
only hire Canadian citizens, then separate statistics
are going to be needed by the R.C.M.P., C.S.E, C.S.I.S.,
and the Canadian Armed Forces on demographics of just
that portion of the Canadian workforce that are citizens.
I have for quite some time just tried to get the figures
out of Ottawa, both from Statistics Canada, and from
Citizenship and Immigration as to what percentage of our
deemed "workforce" are non-citizens and they are not
providing me with any data on the subject. (I didn't ask
for any breakdown, just what percentage by the statistics
are citizens and non-citizens and it looks like the only
way I might be get access to that information is to file
a "Freedom of Information Request" with (or is it against)
the department of Citizenship and Immigration.

And what will be the cost to government and business to
obtain the information as per subsection 5(b)(ii) or will
there be a tendancy to go almost wholey with the readily
available figures as per subsection 5(b)(i). This goes
back (in the simplest example) of whether they will bother
to get the demographics reports of only Canadian citizens
when setting targets for the R.C.M.P. or use the already
available figures that also include non-citizens though
it will likely skew the proportions?

I wonder what the cost of the survey to prove the
demographics of Moose Jaw might cost to some (hypothetical)
military aerospace supplier who is bidding on a $250,000
contract; will the cost of the study for Employment Equity
purposes be worth it, or will they just give up bidding on
the contract, or will they set their employment equity
designated group numerical targets based on the national
averages and feel forced to bring in "designated group"
workers from other regions of Canada (though the targets
are inappropriate for that area,) just to get the contract?

And then there is the question of who defines what is
a suitable geographic area to be using, and who decides what
"may be reasonably expected"?

"Employer not 6. The obligation to implement employment equity
required to does not require an employer
take certain
measures (a) to take a particular measure to implement
employment equity where the taking of that
measure would cause undue hardship to the
employer;

(b) to hire or promote unqualified persons;

(c) with respect to the public sector, to hire or
promote persons without basing the hiring or
promotion on selection according to merit in
cases where the Public Service Employment Act
requires that hiring or promotion be based on
selection according to merit; or

(d) to create new positions in its workforce."

All this sounds great in theory, but whom is the onus
on to prove this? The employer of course. And how much
will it cost to prove it, in studies, audits and time
spent with the Commission? It may be less expensive to
do just what this section is saying is not required,
just to meet one's targets.

"Certain rights 8. (1) Employee seniority rights with respect to
not employment a layoff or recall under a collective agreement or
barriers pursuant to the established practices of an
employer are deemed not to be employment barriers
within the meaning of this Act.

Other seniority (2) Unless they are found to constitute a
rights discriminatory practice under the Canadian
Human Rights Act, employee seniority rights
other than those referred to in subsection (1),
including rights acquired under workforce
adjustment policies implemented when an employer
is downsizing or restructing, under a collective
agreement or pursuant to an established
practice, are deemed not to be employment
barriers within the meaning of this Act.

Who can disagree with this. Otherwise this Act would
be overriding contracts, some of which have been around
for a very long time.

"Analysis and 9. (1) For the purpose of implementing employment
review equity, every employer shall

(a) collect information and conduct an analysis of
the employer's workforce, in accordance with

the regulations, in order to determine the degree

of the underrepresentation of persons in
designated groups in each occupational group
in that workforce; and

(b) conduct a review of the employer's employment
systems, policies and practices, in accordance
with the regulations, in order to identify
employment barriers against persons in
designated groups that result from those
systems, policies and practices.

And whom is responsible for the financial costs of
this work which in many cases will include special
demographic surveys by region and occupation (for
many occupations) at quite a high cost? The employer,
whom will likely decrease his workforce to pay for it,
decide if he is federally regulated not to expand to
100 employees to avoid the additional cost not to submit
tenders for federal contracts (a restriction I doubt is
on any American competitors,) or to do expansions or move
his workforce outside of Canada. All of which means less
jobs for Canadians regardless of the distribution of the
jobs.

"Self- (2) Only those employees who identify themselves to
identification an employer, or agree to be identified by an
employer, as aboriginal peoples, members of
visible minorities or persons with disabilities
are to be counted as members of those designated

groups for the purposes of implementing
employment equity."

This is the most unworkable part of this legislation.
Not to have had this, and to try to enforce identifiation
would have been totalitarian. But due to ignorance or
personal conviction, it has been repeatedly shown that
a large percentage of the workforce will misidentify
themselves or refuse to identify themselves (20% at Bell
Canada refused to return their forms), making the numbers
of members of each "designated group" unusable.

If members of the four designated groups either refuse
to identify themselves, as is their right, or identify
themselves as not being a member of one of the groups,
(because for example they don't want to be labelled as
"disabled",) then the numbers will likely be lower than
they really are and the employer will have a longer way to
go to meet their targets, though it is due to error in
reporting that is no fault of the employer.

Should those people who are not members of any of the
four "designated groups" claim they are members of one of
those groups, then the employers numbers will be inflated
and they will not have to do as much or any work to meet
the targets even if their real figures are woefully
inadequate.

Either situation makes the Act unworkable at that company or
government department, but they will have to comply anyways.

"Employment 10. (1) The employer shall prepare an employment
equity plan equity plan that

(a) specifies the positive policies and practices
that are to be instituted by the employer in
the short term for the hiring, training,
promotion and retention of persons in designated
groups and for the making of reasonable
accomodations for those persons to correct the
underrepresentation of those persons by the
analysis under paragraph 9(1)(a);"

Positive measures and practices seems to mean:
preferential hiring, special training, affirmative
action in promotion, and designated group lay-off
protection provisions.

Again, if the statistics which set the foundation for
the target levels are not accurate or suitable due to
the unavailability of such specific data, plus your
employee surveys which says where you presently stand
are also inaccurate, then your plans are nothing more
than a guess with documentation (accurate or not) to
appease the bureaucracy.

"(b) specifies the measures to be taken by the
employer in the short term for the elimination
of any employment barriers identified by the
review under paragraph 9(1)(b);"

"(c) establishes a timetable for the implementation
of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a)
and (b);"

"(d) where underrepresentation has been identified
by the analysis, establishes short term
numerical goals for the hiring and promotion
of persons in designated groups in order to
increase their representation in each
occupational group in the workforce in which
underrepresentation has been identified and
sets out measures to be taken in each year to
meet those goals;"

In spite of the rhetoric by the government that
there are no "quotas," the "numerical goals" outlined
above, sometimes also referred to as "targets" are
quotas by definition, (DEF.- quota: a due proportion,
a proportional share,) and are enforced with fines as
outlined later.

The "timetable" mentioned might better be defined as a
deadline, if one is inclined not to use the delicate
terms the government has chosen to portray this
legislation in the best possible light.

"(e) sets out the employer's longer term goals for
increasing the representation of persons in
designated groups in the employer's workforce
and the employer's strategy for achieving those
goals; and"

"(f) provides for any other matter that may be
prescribed."

Longer term is defined in this Act only as a period
longer than 3 years, so if this act covers you or
might cover you in the future, you better be ready
to live with it in the long haul.

Prescribed was defined earlier in the Act as meaning
"prescribed by the regulations". So be prepared for
all the regulations once they become defined and be
prepared for whenever they are changed in the future.

"Establishment of (2) In establishing the short term numerical goals
numerical goals referred to in paragraph (1)(d), every employer
shall consider"

"(a) the degree of underrepresentation of persons in
each designated group in each occupational group
within the employers's workforce"

We have already outlined the likelihood of the unreliability
of these figures.

The regulations that go along with this Act, have not been
made public if they have been written at all yet, according
to both Human Resources Development Canada, and the
Legislated Employment Equity Program (under Employment and
Immigration Canada,) both in Hull. When I asked about
whether any employer equity plan is acceptable, I was told
"it will of course have to have the official approval of
the Commission". In the case of the Ontario Bill 40, it is
the employer who estabishes the numerial goals in "their"
Employment Equity Plan, but it is the Commission that must
approve of this plan. If it is a plan that must meet the
acceptability and be officially approved by a Commission
then is it really the companies plan, or just a plan devised
by the demand of the Commission and enforced by the
Commission with fines? How can this be called an employer's
plan? This is how the Ontario EE Act got around the "quota"
question, they said quotas are fixed arbitrary numbers set
by government, but "numerical goals" are voluntary targets
set by the employers themselves. If it was really voluntary
there wouldn't be fines!

"(b) the availablility of qualified persons in
designated groups within the employer's workforce
and in the Canadian workforce;"

Again the question of the availability and cost of
obtaining such statistics comes up? And why did
this part of the act only specify (availability)
in the Canadian workforce and not that part of
the Canadian workforce in the immediate geographic
area from which the employer could reasonably be
expected to hire from?

"(c) the anticipated growth or reduction of the
employer's workforce during the period in respect
of which the numerical goals apply;"

Since growth or reductions in a company is dependant
on outside factors including future government policy,
and even foreign economics, how can an employer be
expected to anticipate and be responsible for this?

"(d) the anticipated turnover of employees within the

employer's workforce during the period in respect
of which the numerical goals apply; and"

"(e) any other factor that may be prescribed."

Again the focus on layoffs in (d). And (e) opens the
door for regulations that have yet to be written by
the Ministry responsible or Human Rights Commission.

"Reasonable 11. Every employer shall ensure that its employment

progress equity progress plan would, if implemented,

constitute reasonable progress toward implementing
employment equity as required by this Act."

Of course reasonable progress is in the eyes of the
compliance officer and if he does not think you are
meeting this obligation, final decision of what consitutes
"reasonable progress" is in the hands of the Tribunal.

"New employers 15. (1) A person who becomes an employer after the
day on which this section comes into force shall,
within eighteen months after becoming an employer,
comply with sections 9 and 10."

This Bill does not mention the situation where an
employer formerly not covered under the Act becomes
subject to it. Should an employer for instance, who
was not subject to the act, want to compete for federal
tenders (presently valued at $200,000 or more,) they
will now have to meet the criterion of this Act. What if
they have fairly stagnant employment, mostly having
long-term employees who don't fit the profiled goals?
If they are not likely over the 18 month grace period,
and the further 3 year period for their initial short-term
employment equity plan, to have much turnover of staff,
how can they possibly meet their employment equity
obligations except to hire unnecessary staff from the
"designated groups" or terminate employees who are not
members of the "designated groups," inspite of the
denials within this act that you are not obliged to do that?

"Employment 16. Every employer shall, in accordance with the
equity records regulations, establish and maintain employment equity
records in respect of the employer's workforce, the
employer's employment equity plan and the
implementation of employment equity by the employer.

Reports of 17. (1) Every private sector employer shall, on or

private sector before June 1 in each year, file with the Minister a employers report in respect of the immediately preceding

calendar year containing information in accordance
with prescribed instructions, indicating, in the
prescribed manner and form,

(a) the industrial sector in which its employees are
employed, the location of the employer and its
employees, the number of its employees and the
number of those employees who are members of
designated groups;

(b) the occupational groups in which its employees
are employed and the degree of representation of
persons who are members of designated groups in
each occupational group;

And with all the detailed surveys, statistical analysis
of both the workplace and the "Canadian workforce", plans
and how the company is doing in trying to meet these
objectives, who is footing the bill for all this time,
money and paperwork? (I am no great fan of any portion
of the political spectrum, I am suspicious of both
management and labour,) but why should businesses be
paying this appreciable costs to meet the governments
social objectives? This goes back to my arguement that
business is likely to try to avoid coming under the
jurisdiction of this legislation even if it means not
moving to Canada, or it will try to recoup its costs by
laying off productive workers to pay for this.

(c) the salary ranges of its employees and the degree
of representation of persons who are members of
designated groups in each range and in each
prescribed subdivision of the range: and

When salary ranges are not listed as part of the objectives
of "positive measures and practices" that are an employers
obligations, why do they want statistics kept? Could it be
that salary range is to be added as one of the criterion for
which "positive measures and practices" will have to be
implemented by the employer, at some time in the future?
If they aren't considering adding it to the Act at some time
in the future, then why do they want this information kept
by "designated group"?

(d) the number of its employees hired, promoted and
terminated and the degree of representation in
those numbers of persons who are members of
designated groups.

More figures to be kept at the cost of the employer to
confirm they are meeting their obligations in regards
to hiring, promotion, and retention of the
"designated groups".

"Self- (3) Only those employees who identify themselves to

identification their employer, or agree to be identified by

their employer, as aboriginal peoples, members of
visible minorities and persons with disabilities
are to be counted as members of those designated
groups for the purposes of the report.

Although this subsection guarantees the privacy of the
employee, it also seems to ensure that the "designated
group" members employed will be undercounted (since
those refusing to identify themselves are not counted
as being part of any "designated group,") leading to
higher numbers of them having to be hired and promoted
to meet the numerical goals. This is blatantly unfair
to the non-designated groups.

"Copy to (8) The Minister shall, on receipt of a report, send

Commission a copy of it to the Commission."

"Availability of 18. (1) Subject to subsection (2), every report filed
reports of under subsection 17(1) shall be available for public
private sector inspection at such places as may be designated, and

employers in such form as may be determined, by the Minister,

and any person may, on payment of a prescribed fee,
not to exceed the costs of furnishing a copy, obtain
from the Minister a copy of any of the reports."

This is a major breach of privacy for the company.
Now information that formerly was not publicly available
will be. Those who will be most interested in this data
with be those corporations or other entities who want to
evaluate the finacial status of the company because: they
are a competitor, or they want to evaluate it for investment
purposes (this could be an Investment dealer who wants to do
so to recommend or not recommend the company to its clients,
or could be involved in a "hostile takeover" of the company.)
The industrial sector and occupational statistics, can be
indicators of the plans of the company to concentrate in one
sector or another in the future. The salary ranges can be
used to guage the health of the company, or can be used by
employment agencies to guage going salaries rates.
Termination rates in conjunction with other factors can also
be used to guage the financial health of the company. This
is all information that previously was not publicly available,
the companies probably would not want divulged, and could
be materially detrimental to the company.

"Employer 23. (1) Where a compliance officer is of the opinion undertaking that an employer

(a) has not collected information or conducted an
analysis referred to in paragraph 9(1)(a) or
conducted a review referred to in paragraph
9(1)(b),

(b) has not prepared an employment equity plan
referred to in section 10,

(c) has prepared an employment equity plan that does
not meet the requirements of sections 10 and 11,

(d) has not made reasonable efforts to implement its
employment equity plan in accordance with section
12,

(e) has failed to review and revise its employment
equity plan in accordance with section 13,

(f) has failed to consult with its employees'
representatives in accordance with section 14,

(g) has failed to establish and maintain employment
equity records as required by section 16, or

(h) has failed to give reasonable assistance or to
produce information as required by subsection
22(4),

the compliance officer shall inform the employer of
the non-compliance and shall attempt to negotiate a
written undertaking from the employer to take
specified measures to remedy the non-compliance."

This written undertaking from the employer sounds like
a forced written confession of misdeeds and a detailed
promise of how they will make ammends. If that is what
it is, then that is what some countries do to prisoners
of war. If there is a clear violation, then why doesn't
the Compliance Officer just issue the "Direction" as
outlined next in subsection 23(2)? It just feels like
there is something wrong in getting the employer to write
something like this to admit their "wrongness" and how
they will correct it.

/ "Direction of (2) Where a compliance officer fails to obtain a / compliance written undertaking that, in the opinion of the
/ officer compliance officer, would be sufficient to remedy
/ the non-compliance, the compliance officer may
/ issue and send, by registered mail, a direction
/ to the employer
/
/ (a) setting out the facts on which the officer's
/ finding of non-compliance is based; and
/
/ (b) requiring the employer to take such actions as
/ are specified in the direction to remedy the
/ non-compliance."
/
/ "Breach of (3) Where a compliance officer obtains a written
/ undertaking undertaking and the compliance officer is of the
/ opinion that the employer has breached the
/ undertaking the compliance officer may issue and
/ send, by registered mail, a direction to the
/ employer requiring the employer to take such
/ actions as are specified in
/ the direction to remedy the non-compliance.
/
/ (4) A compliance officer may rescind or amend a
/ direction issued by that officer pursuant to
/ subsection (2) or (3) on the presentation of new
/ facts or on being satisfied that the direction
/ was issued without knowledge of, or was based on
/ a mistake as to, a material fact."
/
/ "Requests for Review or Order"
/
/ "Employer's 24. (1) An employer to whom a direction is issued
/ request for pursuant to subsection 23(2) or (3) may, within sixty
/ review days after the day on which it is issued, make a
/ request to the President of the Panel for a review of
/ the direction."
/
/ "Commission (2) Where the Commission is of the opinion that an
/ may apply employer has failed to comply with direction
/ issued by a compliance officer, the Commission
/ may apply to the President of the Panel for an
/ order confirming the direction."
/
/ "Limitation (3) No application may be made pursuant to subsection
/ (2) where the employer has requested a review in
/ accordance with subsection (1)."

With the powers of the compliance officers, the
encouragement by this act for the compliance officers
to use moralsuasion to negotiate "undertakings" with
employers, the cost and complexity of the system and
the cost of redoing your surveys, analysis or plan, and
the cost and irreversability should your case go to the
Tribunal, this system may encourage graft and corruption.
After all if a compliance officer decides you have to
redo much of the work you have done, it can cost
a fortune, and if your case goes to the Tribunal, it
can cost you a fortune in consultant and legal fees,
so it would appear that it would be much cheaper for
the company and the officer (if both are corrupt, no
matter whichever brings up the subject,) to make a
private illicit deal.

/ Employment Equity Review Tribunals
/
/ "Establishment 25. (1) Where an employer makes a request under
/ of Tribunals subsection 24(1) or the Commission makes an / application under subsection 24(2), the President of
/ the Panel shall establish an Employment Equity Review
/ Tribunal to consider the request or application.
/
/ Composition (2) The President of the Panel shall appoint a / Tribunal consisting of one member of the Panel,
/ but the President of the Panel may appoint a
/ Tribuanl of three members if the President
/ considers that the complexity or precedential
/ significance of the request or
/ application requires a Tribunal of three members.
/
/ Presiding (3) Where a Tribunal consists of more than one
/ member, the President of the Panel shall
/ designate one of the members to preside over the
/ hearings of the Tribunal.
/
/ <4-7 misc. items . . .>
/
/ Rules (8) The President of the Panel may make rules / governing the practice and procedure of
/ Tribunals.
/
/ Powers of 26. (1) A Tribunal may
/ Tribunal
/ (a) in the same manner and to the same extent as a
/ superior court of record, summon and enforce the
/ attendance of witnesses and compel them to give
/ oral and written evidence on oath and to produce
/ such documents and things as the Tribunal
/ considers necessary for a full review;
/
/ (b) administer oaths; and
/
/ (c) receive and accept such evidence and other
/ information whether on oath or by affidavit or
/ otherwise, as the Tribunal sees fit, whether or
/ not that evidence or information would be
/ admissible in a court of law.
/
/ How matters to (2) A Tribunal shall conduct any matter that comes
/ be dealt with before it as informally and expeditiously as the
/ circumstances and consideration of fairness and
/ natural justice permit.
/
/ Hearings may (3) A hearing before a Tribunal may, on the request
/ be in camera of an employer, be held in camera if the employer
/ establishes to the satisfaction of the Tribunal
/ that the circumstances of the case so require.
/
/ Reasons for (4) A Tribunal shall provide the parties to a
/ decision proceeding before the Tribunal with written
/ reasons for its decision.
/
/ Decision of 27. (1) A Tribunal may, after hearing a request made
/ Tribunal under subsection 24(1) or an application made
/ under subsection 24(2),
/
/ (a) by order, confirm, vary or rescind the compliance
/ officer's direction; and
/
/ (b) make any other order it considers appropriate and
/ reasonable in the circumstances to remedy the
/ non-compliance.
/
/ Board may vary (2) A Tribunal may vary or rescind any order made by
/ or rescind it.
/
/ Orders are final (3) An order of a Tribunal is final and except for
/ judicial review under the Federal Court Act, is
/ not subject to appeal or review by any court.
/
/ Enforcement 28. (1) Any order of a Tribunal made under section 27
/ of Orders may, for the purposes of its enforcement, be made an
/ order of the Federal Court and is enforceable in
/ the same manner as and order of that Court.
/
/ Procedure (2) To make an order of a Tribunal an order of the
/ Federal Court, the usual practice and procedure
/ of the Court may be followed or a certified copy
/ of the order may be filed with the registrar of
/ the Court, and from the time of filing the order
/ becomes an order of the Court.

The President of the (Canada) Human Rights Tribunal
Panel (The "Panel" is a group of appointees placed in
their positions by the government-of-the-day,) shall
appoint a minimum of one member of the Panel, or up to
three people to establish an Employment Equity Review
Tribunal (subsections 25(1) and 25(2)). The rules
governing the Tribunal are made up by the President
of the Panel (subsection 25(8)).

The Tribunal shall act in the same manner as a federal
court, and can even call into evidence that which would
not be admissible in a court of law (subsection 26(1)).

An order of the Tribunal is final and cannot be appealed
(subsection 27(3),) with the exception that if you can
afford to take it to the supreme court not to specifically
appeal your case but to question the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal or the manner of the procedings that led to
the decision it is possible to have their procedures
reviewed.

And any Order of the Tribunal can be made an order of
the Federal Court and is enforcable as such (subsection 28(1)).

Remember this is one group of appointees who may or may
not have any judicial experience appointing another
group of appointees to decide over a company as if it were
a real court. I find this a frightening thought that such
"kangaroo courts" are permissible under Canadian Law.
The fines as will be outlined shortly are comparable to
most other "equity laws" but those costs can be overshadowed
by the costs of the programs themselves and the cost of a
Tribunal should it go for more than a few days.

There is also the question of exactly what they can order
a company to do under subsection 17(1)(b), "make any other

order it considers appropriate and reasonable in the

circumstances to remedy the non-compliance." That seems
a very open ended clause, at who knows what possible
maximum expense to the company, and with no practical
avenues of appeal.

/ Limitation 30. (1) No compliance officer may give a direction
/ under section 23 and no Tribunal may make an order
/ under section 27 where that direction or order would
/
/ (a) cause undue hardship on an employer;
/
/ (b) require an employer to hire or promote
/ unqualified persons;
/
/ (c) with respect to the public sector, require an
/ employer to hire or promote persons without
/ basing the hiring or promotion on selection
/ according to merit in cases where the Public
/ Service Employment act requires that hiring or
/ promotion be based on selection according to
/ merit; or to impose on the Public Service
/ Commission an obligation to exercise its
/ discretion regarding
/ exclusionary orders or regulations;
/
/ (d) require an employer to create new positions in
/ its workforce;
/
/ (e) impose a quota on an employer; or
/
/ (f) in the case of a direction or order respection
/ the establishment of short term numerical goals,
/ fail to take into account the factors set out in
/ subsection 10(2).

Subsection 36(6) does state "In proceedings under this
section <ie. Tribunal hearings,> the Minister has the
burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that
an employer has ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
committed the alleged violation.

That said, this above section is no more than denial,
as the provisions of the Act itself is likely to make
the employer feel he has to do one or more of the above
things considering all the problems discussed with this
Act, so as not to appear in breach of it and have a
compliance officer forward the case to a Tribunal.

This denial is like that of an addict who can't admit
they have a problem.

Whereas there cannot be a direction imposing a "quota,"
a direction can demand that the employer revise their
Employment Equity plan, which would then presumably
have to be approved of by the Commission.

"Meaning of (2) In paragraph (1)(3), "quota" means a requirement

quota to hire or promote a fixed and arbitrary number
of persons during a given period."

The Act gets around the term "quota" by using the term
"numerical goals" which the employer sets himself to
appease the Commission. The Regulations that go with this
Act have either not yet been written (or just not make
available to anyone outside of the Cabinet,) but base upon
my converation with bureacrats will be similar to the
Regulations of the Ontario Act with the employer who must
set their own "numerical goals" but the Commission is the
one who must approve of them, and if it doesn't approve them,
the employer has to keep on coming up with another plan until
one deemed acceptable is approved by the Commission, and
if the employer keeps on coming up with "unacceptable"
Employment Equity Plans, the Commission will forward the
case to the Tribunal to levy a fine for "non-compliance".
The substitution of the term "quota" with "numerial goal"
and the denial by the government that there is a "quota"
is nothing more than Orwellian "newspeak". If it is
enforcable with a fine and means you have to strive to
reach a "goal" under threat of fine, it is a quota.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must
be a duck!

Privileged Information

"Privileged 31. (1) Information obtained by the Commission under this

information Act is privileged and shall not knowingly be, or be

permitted to be, communicated, disclosed or made

available without the written consent of the person from
whom it was obtained."

The exception to this of course is subsection 18(1)
where on June 1, the corporate report that has such
pertinent information as the number of employees,
their salary range, (designated group,) and occupational
group breakdowns, section 17, are made available for
public inspection. This is not very privileged.

/ Continuing 32. (2) A violation that is committed or continued
/ violations on more that one day constitutes a separate
/ violation for each day on which it is committed or
/ continued.
/
/ Assessment of 33. (1) The Minister may, within two years after the / monetary day on wich the Minister becomes aware of a
/ penalty violation, issue a notice of assessment of a monetary
/ penalty in respect of the violation and send it by
/ registered mail to the private sector employer.
/
/ Limit (2) The amount of a monetary penalty shall not exceed
/
/ (a) $10,000 for a single violation; and
/
/ (b) $50,000 for repeated or continued violations.
/
/ Factors to be (3) In assessing the amount of a mometary penalty,
/ considered the Minister shall take into account
/
/ (a) the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of
/ the violation; and
/
/ (b) the wilfulness or intent of the private sector
/ employer and the employer's history of prior
/ violations.
/
/ Notice of 34. A notice of the assessment of a monetary penalty
/ assessment of shall
/ monetary penalty
/ (a) identify the alleged violations;
/
/ (b) specify the amount of the monetary penalty; and
/
/ (c) specify the place where the employer may pay the
/ monetary penalty.

Like I said in my criticisms covering sections
25 through 28, the monetary penalties are not that
high in comparison to the possible cost of implementing
the "positive policies and practices" (such as the
training programs,) and the costs of employment equity
personnel, consultants and/or lawyers. The fines can
easily be overshadowed the costs of the work done by
these people in preparing for a Tribunal if it is to
last more that a few days.

I am basing this assessment on my assumption that the
total maximum fine is $50,000. I have heard two others
who claim otherwise: that this is not an absolute total
but a daily total. If anyone can clarify this, provide
references or suggest a reliable source for an reliable
answer, it would be greatly appreciated. <Thanks>

"Regulations 38. (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations

(a) defining, for the purposes of the Act, the
expressions "employee", "hired", "occupational
group", "promoted", "salary" and "terminated";

(b) prescribing the manner of calculating the number
of employees employed by an employer for the
purpose of determining when an employer is
considered to employ one hundred or more
employees;

(c) governing the collection of information and the
conduct of analyses referred to in paragraph
9(1)(a) and the conduct of reviews referred to in
paragraph 9(1)(b);

(d) governing the establishment and maintenance of
employment equity records referred to in section
16;

(e) prescribing anything that is to be prescribed by
this Act; and

(f) generally, for carrying out the purposes and
provisions of this Act.

Of all the sections in this act, this section is
the most powerful. It mean that by an Order of the
Cabinet (of the government-of-the-day,) can make
any order it wants in the way of regulations pertaining
to or affecting this Act. And none of these changes
will be voted upon by our Members of Parliament.
The most all encompassing of these Order In Council
provisions are of course 38(1)(e) and 38(1)(f).

"Review of 41. (1) Five years after the coming into force of

this Act, and at the end of evey 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.

This is one of the few good clauses in the Act.
A review of the Act, to fix any problems within it,
or whatever is necessary. More laws should have such
a clause. Unfortunately, I believe this Bill is so
flawed that we should not give it the opportunity to
see how much damage it can do in the next five years.
They should have thought out the details before they
tabled it.

Sincerely,

Peter Kolding

unread,

Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96

to

an62...@anon.penet.fi wrote:

> WHAT'S IN IT FOR WHITE MEN?
>
> from the Winter 1995 edition of
> EE PROS - A free newsletter from your Employment Equity
> Professionals
>
> by Jane Garthson a member of the Board and Executive
> of the Toronto Employment Equity Practitioners'
> Association (TEEPA)
>

This is like reading a pamphlet on the advantages Nazism offer Jews,
as written by Goebbels. Jane Garthson is nothing but a criminal thug.

Peter Kolding

unread,

Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96

to

wil...@atcon.com (John) wrote:

>pkol...@cts.com (Peter Kolding) wrote:

>>ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Stuart) wrote:

>>>Brian Graham (Gra...@psac.com) writes:
>>>>
>>>> No. It means that a minority gets the job.

>>> It means the chance of a minority getting a job depends on how
>>>many minorities you can get applying for that position. If it's over the
>>>percentage of that minority group in a given area, then the chances are
>>>equal.

>>I don't know what law you are referring to when you make these
>>observations, but it isn't Canadian in origin. AA in Canada has no
>>regard whatever for the number of minorities that apply for jobs, but
>>rather their proportion in the general popualtion. AA laws have no
>>regard for the percentage of applicants that are minorities, but
>>rather the proportion that are already employed, and their position

>>within the company doing the hiring. If 50 exceptionally qualified

>>white men apply for a job and one minimumly qualified minority
>>applies, and an AA program is in effect, the minority gets the job.

>Bullpoop, unsubstantuated statements are very easy to make.

As you've just proven. I've been dealing with these issues since 1982,
and for four years it was part of my full-time professional employment
to do so. The AA laws and their application are not a matter of
dispute anywhere where the people involved have actually read the
laws.

Peter Kolding

unread,

Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96

to

Gra...@psac.com (Brian Graham) wrote:

I'm afraid that it is deeper than that. The Charter concerns itself
with the improvement of the "conditions" of people in the designated
groups. This means that no change to employment policies or other
social programs, AA included, can be allowed if it means a change for
the worse in the conditions, even if those conditions are those of
privilege and advantage, of anyone in a designated group. It means, in
effect, that AA is permanent and can never be repealed.

Stacey Cherwonak

unread,

Jun 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/7/96

to

Jane, if you're going to go through the trouble of setting up an anonymous
address, why not change your sig. at the same time?

cat...@execulink.com

unread,

Jun 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/7/96

to

sea...@iceonline.com (Bonchlord) wrote:

>>The anger that some white, able-bodied men feel is real and
>>justified, given the mistruths spread by the media and some
>>politicians, coupled with the mistakes some employers are making
>>in their application of employment equity. So, it's important
>>for these men to get directly involved with promoting employment
>>equity in their workplaces ensuring that it is implemented fairly,
>>so everyone benefits.
>>
>>
>>Jane Garthson specializing in employee consultations, barrier
>>identification and qualitative measures. Tel: 416-512-6765
>>

(Look at the cross-posting on this thing!)

Anyway... File, Save As, ee.txt, OK. I'm definitely keeping this
excellent response for future reference. One of the best non-sexist
arguments against EE I've every read. While describing a personal
situation, it was coherent and mostly true, at that.

The comments that follow will make reference to Ontariariario since
the last time I checked that is where I live. (Some strange notions
of time and space after spending a lot of time surfing the Internet.)

During the NDP heyday, I contracted for a company that was coming up
on the 50-employee threshold. You know the one, where the existing EE
law said companies of 50+ employees had to create an EE plan. The
make-up of the company at that time was 90% male (being a high tech
company, this was only slightly out of synch with the average for that
industry). A senior rep in the company told me that if they were to
be dictated to like this they'd up and move the company out of the
country, no questions. Is that what our beloved government
affirmative action intervention is gaining us?

Every private sector employer, or any organization that does not feed
off the public trough of the government and our taxes, should be able
to do whatever they like in terms of hiring. They'd be stupid not to
hire the best person, of course. But if it comes down to two
candidates being absolutely equal, I think employers still have every
right to hire persons based on their bowling club memberships, or by
picking straws, if that's what they want to do.

Who am I to dictate otherwise? And, by the way, who is the Toronto
Employment Equity Practitioners' Association (TEEPA) to do so? They
feebly blame the media for misrepresentation of the EE argument, but
from my observation of the media it seems to present the extremes of
both sides.

Speaking of fright-mongers, what about the EE and Human Rights
Societies, which I call them since they're just get-togethers of
power-hungry appointees who wouldn't have the courage (or hope in
hell) to get a mandate directly from the public to do what they're
trying to do.

And they are powerful. Look at the fear instilled in employers and
employees alike when somebody says they're going to launch a Human
Rights case. For example, the upcoming battle with the Toronto fire
department re: last year's hiring is certainly going to be
interesting.

I'm trying to figure TEEPA's objective in posting their newsletter.
To take a kick at the media? The media whipping boys just want to
sell newspapers or radio/TV ad time; nobody should take them too
seriously. To offer support and strength to minorities and women?
Fine with me as long as my tax dollars aren't paying for it. To take
a kick at white males by saying 'look, we're still here despite what
Mike Harris is doing'? How about: To help everyone stop worrying and
learn to love EE? I'm a white boy and I sure don't feel more upbeat
about EE after reading the article.

No, none of the above of course. The reason is simple free-enterprise
self-promotion. Things are a little tougher for EE consultants now.
Whew, I feel better. I was worried for a minute there.

Bob Levitt

unread,

Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96

to

cat...@execulink.com wrote:

: No, none of the above of course. The reason is simple free-enterprise

: self-promotion. Things are a little tougher for EE consultants now.
: Whew, I feel better. I was worried for a minute there.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but though EE was repealed in Ontario, last
year the federal version (Bill C-64) was rammed through parliament and
is now the law of Canada.

It does not just affect governments, but ANY company that wants to tender
for government business, federally regulated companies such as
transportation, radio, television and telecommunications
(telephone/cellular companies), etc., as well as specifically spelling out
that the Canadian Armed Forces, CSIS, RCMP and CSE are also covered.

When you include the federal contractors, you are probably talking about over
2,000,000 jobs that are potentially being affected in Canada.

The Bathtub Admiral

unread,

Jun 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/9/96

to

Subject: Re: Are White males' equal? Think again - ndp1.txt [1/1]
Date: 8 Jun 1996 04:10:06 GMT
Organization: UNIServe Online
Message-ID: <4paueu$f...@atlas.uniserve.com>
References: <063333Z...@anon.penet.fi>
. <4p9juq$3...@sandy.max-net.com>
. di...@uniserve.com (DiNet Consulting Group Inc.)
who wrote in message <4paueu$f...@atlas.uniserve.com>
and spewed with out regard to limiting line lengths:

>NDP1.txt
>What Canadians need to know about the NDP!

<snip>

Yep you convinced me. You just got back from the Reform convention
full of piss and vinegar and are out to change the world. The NDP are
the real threat to world domination! I hear you! Sign me up!

...Just as soon as pigs fly on their own wings. The only consulting you
should be doing is with a psycoanalyst after a diatribe like that!

The Bathtub Admiral
Escape to see, Eh!
<adm...@escape.ca>

cybe...@cyberperk.com

unread,

Jun 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/9/96

to

di...@uniserve.com (DiNet Consulting Group Inc.) ranted:

>Let me suggest some answers: The main staunch supporters, the ones who make
>the real back-room decisions about where the NDP will take BC & indeed Canada
>are the Feminist Lesbian Homosexual Unholy Alliance!

Next meeting of the FLHUA: Chet's Java Hut, 1776 West Broadway. Bring
your own pentagram. Alliance business 7:30-9:00 pm, Live Human
Sacrifice 9:00-9:30pm, Macrame seminar 9:30-11:00 pm.

cat...@execulink.com

unread,

Jun 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/10/96

to

bw...@torfree.net (Bob Levitt) wrote:

>cat...@execulink.com wrote:

>: No, none of the above of course. The reason is simple free-enterprise

>: self-promotion. Things are a little tougher for EE consultants now.
>: Whew, I feel better. I was worried for a minute there.

>Sorry to burst your bubble, but though EE was repealed in Ontario, last
>year the federal version (Bill C-64) was rammed through parliament and
>is now the law of Canada.

>It does not just affect governments, but ANY company that wants to tender
>for government business, federally regulated companies such as
>transportation, radio, television and telecommunications
>(telephone/cellular companies), etc., as well as specifically spelling out
>that the Canadian Armed Forces, CSIS, RCMP and CSE are also covered.

>When you include the federal contractors, you are probably talking about over
>2,000,000 jobs that are potentially being affected in Canada.

I was aware of this, but life is still tough(er) for EE consultants
now than it was when political correctness was all the rage in the
eighties and early nineties and the very suggestion was enough to
frighten people into obedience.

ANOTHER company I worked at had already invested tens of thousands, I
suppose, on their EE in 93 and 94. Everybody in the company had to go
to closed-door seminars and workshops and the rumour mill was hard at
work. The sense of intimidation and fear was identical to those
nefarious reorganizations we're all familiar with.

Now? You wouldn't believe how formal employment equity in that
company is dead-dead-dead and common sensical business approaches are
all that're talked about. Only enough EE to show in the job ads,
which this intelligently-led company had always done anyway. As I
said, you're stupid not to hire the best people. Legislation and
plans are not needed. It's only liberal governments that feel social
engineering is required.

I sure hope that when the feds accept a tender for a big job they're
getting the best price/service/quality for my tax dollars and that
tenderers' meeting EE requirements for submitting won't become another
gravy train for bureaucrats and special interest groups.

And we're fortunate that there are a lot more than 2,000,000 jobs in
the private sector. Now if the courts can just keep their grubby
little fingers out of the private sector hiring business we might
finally climb out of this recession before the next one begins.

Bob Levitt

unread,

Jun 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/10/96

to

cat...@execulink.com wrote:
: bw...@torfree.net (Bob Levitt) wrote:

: >cat...@execulink.com wrote:

: >: No, none of the above of course. The reason is simple free-enterprise

: >: self-promotion. Things are a little tougher for EE consultants now.
: >: Whew, I feel better. I was worried for a minute there.

: >Sorry to burst your bubble, but though EE was repealed in Ontario, last

: >year the federal version (Bill C-64) was rammed through parliament and
: >is now the law of Canada.

: >It does not just affect governments, but ANY company that wants to tender
: >for government business, federally regulated companies such as
: >transportation, radio, television and telecommunications
: >(telephone/cellular companies), etc., as well as specifically spelling out
: >that the Canadian Armed Forces, CSIS, RCMP and CSE are also covered.

: >When you include the federal contractors, you are probably talking about over
: >2,000,000 jobs that are potentially being affected in Canada.

I forgot another major group that is covered and they are Canada's banks,
since they are federally chartered/regulated.

'Nis

unread,

Jun 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/10/96

to

In article<4paueu$f...@atlas.uniserve.com>, di...@uniserve.com (DiNet
Consulting Group Inc.) wrote:

<snip>

> The answers to these questions would shock most Canadians! The
questions need to be asked and to be answered! But who will ask, who will
dig out the truth, and expose the poison roots of this tree?

<snip>

>abused! That's what they were created for! Do you think Sadam Hussein
was >building chemical & nuclear weapons purely for self defense? Wake
up! Are you >out there?
>
> I could go on...and on ... but I hope you are getting the point! Do you
think

Wha..whew! Thanks for the tip!

Now I see the light!

A gun in every home!

A doctor in every graveyard!

A rapist in every church!

An Iraqi teenager in every ashtray!

You know, I find posts like this really distracting.

It's quite difficult to react intelligently!

I hope no one you know gets raped or murdered, or born in Iraq. Rather,
killed in Iraq. Sorry about Iraq. It wasn't much of a war, was it? Not
very dramatic. The americans killed more of us than the Iraqis did, so I
can't imagine why they'd want Nuclear weapons, since there's clearly no
threat against that country from the West. It's baffling, really.
Shocking. They're soooo paranoid over there. We really should have bombed
them with lithium, to end those horrible hallucinations.

May all your kin be hetero,

Dennis

D.Hu

unread,

Jun 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/12/96

to

In article <4pibh7$h...@news.pig.net>, tr...@pig.net (Troy Williams) says:
>
>an62...@anon.penet.fi wrote:

>>- Secondly, employers whose workforces do not match the community
>> must make efforts to address that imbalance, including
>> implementing POSITIVE measures and setting goals bases on
>> expected turnover and availability of qualified applicants.
>

>What, so are you saying that if I own a business, and it's a business
>where mostly whites are interested in, and then a few african
>americans sign up for the job, and then the white man might be more
>qualified, then should I go ahead and hire the black man to take care
>of that imbalance??? I think not, I think that it should be a matter
>on who has the qualifications that I might be looking for. Then I
>think it would be wiser to choose the best one, not look and see that
>you might have 8 white people working in the office and then only 2
>africans, and then go ahead and hire an african american so then you
>can say that you're trying to work out the imbalance. But that's the
>same way with the whites too, I'm not saying anything bad about the
>african americans so you can't claim discrimination on me.
>
What these employment equity people simply refuse to see
is that if a sports team is made up of all black athletes because they
are the best around, does the community then force 80% of them
off the team to put 8 tubby white guys on to "reflect the composition
of the community?" I'm sure they would yell "bloody murder" so loud.

Or on the other hand, if a medical school has 50% black
students admitted based on merit, can the medical school then
turn around to refuse 30% of the black students a seat in order to
admit more white students to reflect the composition of the community?
Again, I can just hear the "dismissal of opportunity" and all those slogans
now.

So in the face that these "equal" employment advocates
would only advocate "balance" one way and not the other, then the
entire proposal is racial discrimination in its finest.

Until the Equal Employment advocate would advocate
refusal of opportunities of BLACKS AS WELL AS WHITES, they
are ADVOCATING PURE, UNADULTERATED RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.

And why should the person posting the EE crap go through an
anonymity service? Too gutless to stand up for him-/herself?

Diana Hu
A Canadian

Daniel A. Szpiro

unread,

Jun 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/13/96

to

haw...@ibm.net wrote:

>>an62...@anon.penet.fi wrote:
>>Let's separate emotion from the facts. Employment Equity (EE)
>>principles boil down to two basic concepts which must be considered
>>together and in order:
>>
>>- The first is that everyone is entitled to equal treatment,
>> including employment practices free of barriers. That includes
>> white able-bodied men, and is consistent with the Ontario Human
>> Rights Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
>>
>>- Secondly, employers whose workforces do not match the community
>> must make efforts to address that imbalance
>

>Unfortunately, as has been pointed out many times, the second
>part is inherently incompatible with the first part. If everyone
>has equal treatment, then the workforce distribution will match
>the distribution of the _best qualified individuals_ in the
>community. This has no direct bearing on the distribution of
>_individuals_ in the community, however.
>
>There is no reason to suppose that any given arbitrary criterion
>used for selection is going to result in equivalent distributions
>of the best qualified individuals. Basing hiring practices on
>strict population distribution ignores the inhomogenous
>distribution of abilities within and between populations.
>
>Glenn Mor

Glenn raises a valid, important point that EE legislation in Canada
has not addressed.

I'd like to point out something else. The anonymous poster who offered
the two guiding principles of EE legislation talks about the need for
the workforse to match the community profile. This type of rhetoric is
commonly used by defenders of EE legislation as it sounds so
inclusive. The truth is more selective.

First, EE legislation in Canada is directed at four groups within the
community only: women, natives, visible minorities, and the disabled.
Employers' workforces need not be representative of the community
overall since it is only evaluated in terms of these four groups.

Secondly, employers' workforces need not be representative of the
community since there is no action required if one of these four
groups is over-represented in the workforce.

**********
Daniel A. Szpiro
Assistant Professor, Concordia University
Dept. of Accountancy, Fac. of Commerce & Admin.
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3G 1M8
dsz...@vax2.concordia.ca

Jay North (Dennis)

unread,

Jun 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/13/96

to

On Thu, 6 Jun 1996 06:32:28 UTC, an62...@anon.penet.fi wrote:

>
>Many white men believe they have never personally benefited from
>discrimination practised against members of others groups. Yet
>they are now hearing that they must stand back to help other groups
>advance. No wonder they are angry!

The person who said ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL

Has never watched a porno movie :)

haw...@ibm.net

unread,

Jun 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/13/96

to

>an62...@anon.penet.fi wrote:
>Let's separate emotion from the facts. Employment Equity (EE)
>principles boil down to two basic concepts which must be considered
>together and in order:
>
>- The first is that everyone is entitled to equal treatment,
> including employment practices free of barriers. That includes
> white able-bodied men, and is consistent with the Ontario Human
> Rights Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
>
>- Secondly, employers whose workforces do not match the community

J. Chapman

unread,

Jun 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/14/96

to

In message <31bf8871...@nntp.generation.net> - dsz...@vax2.concordia.ca
(Daniel A. Szpiro) writes:
>
>haw...@ibm.net wrote:

>
>>>an62...@anon.penet.fi wrote:>
>First, EE legislation in Canada is directed at four groups within the
>community only: women, natives, visible minorities, and the disabled.
>Employers' workforces need not be representative of the community
>overall since it is only evaluated in terms of these four groups.

Since there are more women than men in Canada would males be part
of a visible minority? And white males would be an even smaller
visible minority.... hmmm, now where's the tongue-in-cheek key...

Eowyn Cenek

unread,

Jun 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/16/96

to

haw...@ibm.net writes:

>>an62...@anon.penet.fi wrote:
>>Let's separate emotion from the facts. Employment Equity (EE)
>>principles boil down to two basic concepts which must be considered
>>together and in order:
>>
>>- The first is that everyone is entitled to equal treatment,
>> including employment practices free of barriers. That includes
>> white able-bodied men, and is consistent with the Ontario Human
>> Rights Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
>>
>>- Secondly, employers whose workforces do not match the community

>> must make efforts to address that imbalance

>Unfortunately, as has been pointed out many times, the second
>part is inherently incompatible with the first part. If everyone
>has equal treatment, then the workforce distribution will match
>the distribution of the _best qualified individuals_ in the
>community. This has no direct bearing on the distribution of
>_individuals_ in the community, however.

>There is no reason to suppose that any given arbitrary criterion
>used for selection is going to result in equivalent distributions
>of the best qualified individuals. Basing hiring practices on
>strict population distribution ignores the inhomogenous
>distribution of abilities within and between populations.

>Glenn Mor

Glenn raises one valid point. A second point that is frequently ignored
is that of existence: as a student at the university of Alberta I have
taken many senior computing science courses, where the average female to
male ratio varied between 1:9 and 1:3. Suggesting that half of the
compsci work environment should be staffed by females then becomes
ludicrous.

A basic stumbling block for EE is that the government is trying to
legislate a specific viewpoint (which may or may not have merit).
Forcing employers to hire based on victim status (I is woman, I is
grossly underrepresented, therefore I is victim of discrimination ...) is
hardly likely to change these employers' minds. I would much rather be
hired because I am the best person for the job, rather than the fact that
I suffer from a critical lack of Y chromosome...

Eowyn Cenek
--
Lord, we don't like to complain,
We know that the lab is no lark
But there's the long lines of code
But there's the bugs and the dark - Caliban's Code Mines

cat...@execulink.com

unread,

Jun 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/17/96

to

eo...@gsb010.cs.ualberta.ca (Eowyn Cenek) wrote:

>Glenn raises one valid point. A second point that is frequently ignored
>is that of existence: as a student at the university of Alberta I have
>taken many senior computing science courses, where the average female to
>male ratio varied between 1:9 and 1:3. Suggesting that half of the
>compsci work environment should be staffed by females then becomes
>ludicrous.

Agreed and undeniably sensible.

I've criticized EE from a hiring perspective. Instead I would look at
the early school grades where the formation of inappropriate mindsets
and preferences can result in these 1:9 and 1:3 ratios. You know the
ones: how 'girls don't like math' etc.?

E(ducation)E(quity) should be the emphasis, not E(mployment)E(quity),
where livelihoods are being artificially assigned and bottom line
decisions for public and private enterprises are being legislated
discriminatorily.

Ensure every child has the same education benefits and then if they
all grow up to be equal candidates not only are we going to have a
great workforce, we will have achieved Employment Equity naturally.

The problem is that for today's radicals, a 15-20 year evolution
toward EE is not good enough and they insist on a "R"evolution
instead.

Aaron Clausen

unread,

Jun 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/18/96

to

cat...@execulink.com writes:
> The problem is that for today's radicals, a 15-20 year evolution
> toward EE is not good enough and they insist on a "R"evolution
> instead.
>

I doubt most of these people can stay on the same bandwagon long enough to see
it through if its not implemented immediatly. They have no sense of logic or
intellect, only a sort of standard revolutionary "we're right and you're wrong"
attitude.

-----
Aaron Clausen Port Alberni, BC Canada
aar...@freenet.alberni.net

Sheldon Scott

unread,

Jun 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/20/96

to

cat...@execulink.com wrote:
<snip>
: I've criticized EE from a hiring perspective. Instead I would look at

: the early school grades where the formation of inappropriate mindsets
: and preferences can result in these 1:9 and 1:3 ratios. You know the
: ones: how 'girls don't like math' etc.?

<snip>
"inappropriate mindsets and preferences"? Oh, I don't like the sound of
that. In my experience, most girls seem to think and do in fact act
differently than boys. Who is going to decide which children have
"inappropriate" behaviour? You can't force equality of result; nor can
you force boys and girls to be the same. They _are_ different, you see.
(heavy sigh) Why does this even need to be said? What is wrong with you
EE fans?
--
(-: ssc...@vcn.bc.ca Sheldon Scott :-)
(-: Off the monitor, through the modem... nothing but net. :-)

laura chaddock

unread,

Jun 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/20/96

to

c

> I've criticized EE from a hiring perspective. Instead I would look at
> the early school grades where the formation of inappropriate mindsets
> and preferences can result in these 1:9 and 1:3 ratios. You know the
> ones: how 'girls don't like math' etc.?

One of the problems is how girls and boys learn. Boys seem to learn more effectively
in a co-ed, competative environment where as girls seem to learn more effectively in a
co-operative, female-only, environment. (Actually I shouldn't say that boys learn
more effectively in co-ed than in male only environments, I haven't seen much
research one way or the other).
There is nothing inherently wrong with either, they are just different. The problem
however comes from the organization of our learning institutions which are almostly
exclusively structured to create a competative, co-educational, environment. Is it any
wonder that boys seem to do better, particularly in the most demanding areas ?

> E(ducation)E(quity) should be the emphasis, not E(mployment)E(quity),
> where livelihoods are being artificially assigned and bottom line
> decisions for public and private enterprises are being legislated
> discriminatorily.
>

Here here ! Couldn't agree more.

> Ensure every child has the same education benefits and then if they
> all grow up to be equal candidates not only are we going to have a
> great workforce, we will have achieved Employment Equity naturally.
>

> The problem is that for today's radicals, a 15-20 year evolution
> toward EE is not good enough and they insist on a "R"evolution
> instead.

Hey, the "boombers" are incharge of the asylum now ! You know, we used to be called
the "ME" generation, the instant (or faster if possible) gratification generation ! Are
you suprised at the result ??

...Ken

cat...@execulink.com

unread,

Jun 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/21/96

to

ssc...@vcn.bc.ca (Sheldon Scott) wrote:

>cat...@execulink.com wrote:
><snip>
>: I've criticized EE from a hiring perspective. Instead I would look at

>: the early school grades where the formation of inappropriate mindsets
>: and preferences can result in these 1:9 and 1:3 ratios. You know the
>: ones: how 'girls don't like math' etc.?

><snip>
>"inappropriate mindsets and preferences"? Oh, I don't like the sound of
>that.

Yeah, I know, good one. Verbal gunk. I have to come up with
something better than that.

> In my experience, most girls seem to think and do in fact act
>differently than boys. Who is going to decide which children have
>"inappropriate" behaviour?

"Inappropriate" behaviour? Oh, I don't like the sound of that. I was
trying to get at the 'girls like Barbies and boys like GI Joes and
never the twain shall meet' mindset. No, wait... acculturalization!

My sensitivity in this issue must be the result of all the teddy bears
I had when I was a young lad. Course, they weren't for cuddling, it
was just that I couldn't afford Joe; I had great battles with my
bears!

>You can't force equality of result; nor can
>you force boys and girls to be the same.

Result? Not. Opportunity to learn is what I'm getting at.

>They _are_ different, you see.
>(heavy sigh) Why does this even need to be said? What is wrong with you
>EE fans?

Har har har! Me? an EE fan?

Dr. Feelgood

unread,

Jun 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/23/96

to

d...@xl.ca (D.Hu) wrote:

>In article <4pibh7$h...@news.pig.net>, tr...@pig.net (Troy Williams) says:
>>
>>an62...@anon.penet.fi wrote:

>>>- Secondly, employers whose workforces do not match the community
>>> must make efforts to address that imbalance, including
>>> implementing POSITIVE measures and setting goals bases on
>>> expected turnover and availability of qualified applicants.
>>

>Diana Hu
>A Canadian

Black people are big, white people are smart. . . But, will the world
make it to the year 1999? Hmm, I'm not to sure. . .

an62...@anon.penet.fi

unread,

Jun 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/23/96

to

Globe and Mail

Commentary

June 18, 1996

Please identify yourself

THE decomposition of true liberalism into identity politics afflicts
more than interest groups such as the National Action Committee on
the Status of Women. Ontario came within a hair's breadth of state
employment quotas based on race and disability until the voters rejected
New Democrat Bob Rae's regime and the Progressive Conservatives repealed
the so-called "employment equity" law. And then we had
the curious phenomenon of universities and colleges, many of which
have convulsed in vicious fights over hiring quotas, zero-tolerance
codes of behaviour and "chilly climate" witch-hunts, ironically,
against men.

In this context, we could not help but notice the current advertisement
by the University of British Columbia seeking a president. The ad
says almost nothing about the duties or qualifications involved,
mentioning general supervision over academic work and responsibility
for directing the operation of the university and its business affairs.
But it emphasizes that "The university is concerned about the
under-representation in administration of women, aboriginal people,
visible minorities and persons with disabilities. The university
welcomes all qualified applicants, especially members of these designated
employment equity groups."

The NAC is one thing. UBC is prepared to discriminate in hiring on
the basis of race, gender and disability in hiring its president.
Who would have thought we would come to this?

--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to ab...@anon.penet.fi
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to he...@anon.penet.fi
If you have any problems, address them to ad...@anon.penet.fi

Shr...@hishouse.com

unread,

Jul 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/2/96

to

d...@xl.ca (D.Hu) wrote:

>Diana Hu
>A Canadian

Damn good point...
"Windows...just another pane in the glass..."
"del *.* = 100% file compression..."
"DATA CORRUPTED. SMASH HEAD ON KEYBOARD TO CONTINUE..."

Thomas Rod.

unread,

Jul 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/4/96

to

Shr...@hishouse.com wrote:

>d...@xl.ca (D.Hu) wrote:

>>Diana Hu
>>A Canadian

What people who stand against equal employment and most of those who
are in favor ignore, or pretend to ignore, is the the real wording
and the real spirit of the original legislation.

I used to hate it and, thinking that I knew what I was talking about,
I used to call it a stupid, racist, feminist and age discriminatory
legislation (remember that it is NOT only for blacks; it is also for
women, minorities : white and non-white (immigrants, asians,
hispanics, etc.))

I so much disliked it that I decided to see by myself what those nerds
who invented it had in mind. I read the original document. That's how
I found that the nerd, the stupid and the ignoramus was me. I had been
brainwashed by the media and by the opinions of people as bigotred and
shallow as me.

The reality is that the original legislation (in the U.S.A) said that
under EQUAL CONDITIONS (qualifications, experience, etc.) there
should be a BALANCE in employment. The main point is the equality of
conditions.

What is wrong with that?

Nobody ever said that you should hire a nerd to fill a quota. Can
anybody point to a concrete official document that establishes any
quotas, anywhere in the world? Or to a document that says you should
hire a woman, a black or a chinese even if there is a better qualified
caucasian candidate?

This principle of Equal Conditions can be used even in your sports
team example, to bring in good white, asian or arab athletes.

What is unfair, and none of the critics is addressing with a sound and
concrete alternative SOLUTION, is the IMBALANCE in employment under
EQUAL CONDITIONS.

If you have not suffered it, it will be very difficult for you to
understand how unjust and humiliating it is to be discarded
a priori, solely on the basis of your skin colour or your last name
phonetics.

I, for example, have qualifications and experience that very few
Canadians or Americans could match ( a Magna cum Laude graduated
aerospace engineer and pilot with 25 years of experience in the
design, manufacture, testing, flying, certification, maintenance,
repair and operation of jet fighters, airliners, helicopters and light
aircraft; as well as airline management, flight operations, flight
safety and accident investigation, academic lecturing and 3 1/2 years
out of a 4 years Ph.D. And, what makes the difference, I can do all of
that in Spanish, English, Russian and French.

And what happens?

When I apply for any job, they look at my last name: Rodriguez and
dump my application. Or, at best, I get a polite "thanks for applying"
note.

The closer I got to landing a position was on one ocassion, when I
attended an open house and was interviewed by engineers. They
recommended me for hiring; but Personnel, against their opinion (as
they told me), sent me a letter saying they would keep my files in
case a "Junior" opportunity opens.

If this had happened only to me, I would not be too concerned. What is
shameful is that it is the secular history of millions of blacks,
yellows, whites, natives, immigrants, and other women and men more
capable, intelligent and experienced than me.

Luckily Canada is not like that; Canadians are not like that. Only
some people here are like that. And, believe it or not, most
discriminators and bigots are immigrants like you and me.

Thomas Rodriguez

A future Canadian.

jjohnson

unread,

Jul 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/5/96

to

In article <DsKpI...@iceonline.com>, sea...@iceonline.com (Bonchlord) wrote:

I wonder if so many here have been so vocal when their
sisters/aunts/mothers/wives/girlfriends/black friends/native friends felt
shafted in the decades past for not getting that job because... well, just
because. reverse discrimination, my arse.

--
The road to hell is paved with good Nintendoes.

s. keeling

unread,

Jul 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/5/96

to

Incoming from Thomas Rod. (trod...@wwonline.com):

> What people who stand against equal employment and most of those who
> are in favor ignore, or pretend to ignore, is the the real wording
> and the real spirit of the original legislation.
>

> The reality is that the original legislation (in the U.S.A) said that
> under EQUAL CONDITIONS (qualifications, experience, etc.) there
> should be a BALANCE in employment. The main point is the equality of
> conditions.
>
> What is wrong with that?

Who cares what the legislation says? In _practice_, the only way to
carry out the high-minded ideal is by enforcing quotas, aka
descrimination in the name of anti-descrimination.

--

skee...@mts.net Taxation is legislated theft!

Bob Levitt

unread,

Jul 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/5/96

to

You support Employment Equity based upon the theory of what it is meant to
do in the USA, but lets look at the actual legislation as it exists here
in Canada.