THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, February 9, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 4:04 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to human rights in general; and, in camera, for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Paulette Senior (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome, everyone. Good afternoon, honourable senators.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
My name is Paulette Senior, a senator from Ontario and chair of this committee. Before senators introduce themselves, I would like to take this time to welcome Senator McCallum, the newest addition to our committee and a new member, as well, to the steering committee.
I would invite senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Robinson: Thank you. Good afternoon. Mary Robinson, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Nunavut.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10, Manitoba region.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Arnold: Good afternoon. Dawn Arnold, New Brunswick.
The Chair: Welcome, senators. Today, our committee will begin our deliberations with our meeting under its general order of reference to discuss employment equity in the federal public service.
This afternoon, we will have three panels. In each panel, we will hear from the witnesses, and then the senators around this table will have a question-and-answer session with them.
I will now introduce our first witnesses. Our witnesses have each been asked to make a five-minute opening statement. With us at the table, from The Enchanté Network, we have Tyler Boyce, Chief Executive Officer; from Pride at Work Canada, we have Jade Pichette, Director, Programs and Advocacy; and from the DisAbled Women’s Network of Canada, we have Bonnie Brayton, Chief Executive Officer.
I will now invite Mr. Boyce to make his presentation, followed by Ms. Pichette and Ms. Brayton. Thank you. If I get your pronouns incorrect, please correct me.
Tyler Boyce, Chief Executive Officer, The Enchanté Network: Thank you very much, Senator Senior. Good afternoon to the senators in the room, as well as those watching at home.
My name is Tyler Boyce. My pronouns are he/him and I am the Chief Executive Officer of The Enchanté Network, Canada’s national network of 2SLGBTQI+ organizations, representing more than 300 organizations spanning every province and territory in this country.
I am speaking to you today because I’m concerned that a promise made to equity-seeking communities has yet to be fulfilled. In December 2023, then-minister of labour Seamus O’Regan announced long-awaited plans to modernize Canada’s Employment Equity Act, or EEA. This was widely understood as a historic commitment.
While the act received its current legislative framework in the 1990s, substantive changes to whom the employment act is meant to protect and support haven’t been changed since the 1980s. I think all of us around the table can agree that Canada has experienced significant changes to our demographic makeup since the 1980s.
Following consultations in 2021, the government committed to updating the act, including formally recognizing Black and 2SLGBTQI+ communities within the act. These consultations represented meaningful engagement and significant public investment.
With The Enchanté Network, I remember three years ago standing alongside the then-minister of labour when he made this historic announcement. I remember the tears from community members and the optimism in the room. We all thought change was finally under way. However, we are now in 2026 and those legislative changes have yet to materialize.
That gap between commitment and implementation is why I’m here today. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about trust. In any healthy democracy, civil society leaders must be able to believe that public announcements by their elected government will be followed by the concrete action that was promised.
When we saw limited movement from this Liberal government, The Enchanté Network partnered with Pride at Work Canada and continued our partnership with the Black Class Action Secretariat to ensure that promise of modernization to the Employment Equity Act was fulfilled.
Last fall, alongside Pride at Work Canada, The Enchanté Network brought delegates from local organizations across the country to Ottawa. We met with more than 30 MPs and senators in less than 48 hours, and it quickly became clear that there was cross-party support for modernization of the Employment Equity Act. What was also clear was many members of Parliament were surprised these changes had not been implemented because they too heard the promise from the Liberal government in 2023.
To understand why this is so important, I want us to dig deeper into what the Employment Equity Act actually does, especially for those watching at home. The act creates accountability where it otherwise might not exist. Through workforce data collection, transparency requirements and employer action, it makes inequities in hiring, promotion, retention and leadership visible when otherwise they would be invisible.
We know Black Canadians continue to experience higher unemployment rates, lower earnings and under-representation in leadership. And, during Black History Month, I’m not very happy to be saying that that’s still the reality. Canada also has a documented history of anti-Black racism through slavery, leading to lasting legacies of inequality that we’re seeing today across systems. Internationally, the United Nations’ recent report has already cited, as findings of their own investigation, anti-Black racism within Canadian institutions.
Similarly, many 2SLGBTQI+ communities, particularly trans and non-binary people within my community, continue to face barriers to stable employment, workplace safety and career development. These are systemic patterns that thoughtful public policy can and should address, and this is a moment to act.
In a period of global uncertainty and renewed conversations about Canadian competitiveness and “Canada strong,” it is time to fully utilize the talent we have here in Canada, and modernization of the Employment Equity Act is allowing all Canadians to bring their talents, their insights and their innovation to meet this current economic moment. Canada has the opportunity to lead here, as we have numerous times before, but leadership requires follow-through on our promises.
Thank you for your time and your service. Thank you for your attention to this very important matter.
The Chair: Thank you.
Jade Pichette, Director, Programs and Advocacy, Pride at Work Canada: Thank you, senators, for the invitation to speak today and the commitment you have been showing by reviewing employment equity in Canada.
Pride at Work Canada is a national non-profit organization focused on creating a Canada where every individual can achieve their full potential at work regardless of gender expression, gender identity or sexual orientation. We work with large employers, including those in federally regulated sectors, including the public service, Crown corporations, banking, transportation, telecommunications and some employers with contracts with the federal government.
Within our work, we have seen the reality for 2SLGBTQIA+ workers in Canada. Despite same-sex marriage, human rights protections, high levels of public support and even our Prime Minister getting involved in the Heated Rivalry craze, we live in a country where 2SLGBTQIA+ workers still live a much different reality.
We know that inequities continue for 2SLGBTQIA+ workers. About 30% of 2SLGBTQIA+ people reported experiencing discrimination or harassment on the job in the past year compared to 8% of non-2SLGBTQIA+ respondents. A workplace where nearly one third of any equity-deserving group is receiving discrimination is one where it is not a marginal issue, but a systemic failure with economic costs.
There is also a financial hierarchy that we see from statistics in Canada when it comes to earnings, where heterosexual men make the most, followed by gay men, lesbian women and bisexual and trans communities. Though these impacts are particularly felt by 2SLGBTQIA+ Canadians, they have an economic impact for all Canadians.
When the modernization of the Employment Equity Act was being discussed in Ottawa, we became quite excited at Pride at Work Canada, as, although this would not be a panacea to addressing all the experiences of 2SLGBTQIA+ workers and job seekers, it would set an important precedent for the inclusion of 2SLGBTQIA+ workers in the public service and federally regulated sectors.
When Pride at Work Canada saw a lack of action, we started to have more conversations with parliamentarians to move this forward. To echo our friends at The Enchanté Network, we saw broad agreement across representatives of all parties who see this as an economic good for Canada.
Jurisdictions that fully include 2SLGBTQIA+ people are more competitive, innovative and easier to do business in. Conversely, we are seeing countries and U.S. states that pursue exclusionary policies experience negative impacts on economic growth and security.
Modernization of the Employment Equity Act may not address every employment inequity that 2SLGBTQIA+ Canadians experience; however, it would be a historically needed update to address past omissions and serve as a model for employers across society that 2SLGBTQIA+ people are a part of our community and must be honoured.
The absence of explicit inclusion in federal law has real consequences. One federally regulated employer recently removed 2SLGBTQIA+ communities from its equity strategy, citing the fact that they are not a designated group under the act. This is not an isolated case. When federal law is silent, employers follow that silence.
We are aware that the Employment Equity Act has been far from perfect. As a result, we support the work of the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force led by Ms. Blackett. I heard you spoke to her last week. This includes legislative as well as non-legislative changes that were recommended. In particular, we look for this act to include Black and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities, to do so in an intersectional way that does not leave out those at the intersections and to be one that provides greater transparency regarding the actual inclusion of all equity-deserving communities.
Senators, I thank you for studying this issue. Despite broad, cross-party support, action has not yet followed. At a time of rising hate crimes and increasing anti-trans and anti-gay legislation at home and across the world, modernizing the Employment Equity Act would send a clear message that Canada is committed to dignity, freedom and economic opportunity for all. Thank you.
Bonnie Brayton, Chief Executive Officer, DisAbled Women’s Network of Canada: Madam Chair, honourable senators, thank you again very much for, as has been mentioned by the previous witnesses, taking on a study or beginning to look closely at this. As they pointed out, this was something that was urgent in 2023. It’s even more urgent in 2026.
My name is Bonnie Brayton, and I am the Chief Executive Officer of the DisAbled Women’s Network of Canada, or DAWN Canada. I identify as she/her.
For background, for over 40 years, DAWN Canada has worked at the intersection of gender, disability and human rights. According to Statistics Canada, in December 2023, 30% of women in Canada lived with a disability. Given this is a quantitative number, given long COVID, given that episodic and chronic disabilities are often not included and given intersecting discrimination, that number is low. And that’s nearly one third of all women in this country, or one in seven Canadians.
Following the passage of the Accessible Canada Act, the Government of Canada committed to hiring 5,000 people with disabilities in the public service. As of late 2025, the government had surpassed its original commitment to hire 5,000 people with disabilities by 2025.
The progress report shows they have hired nearly 7,000 new employees. Hiring totals being where they are, there is a workforce representation shift that we can see. However, again, based on 30% of the population, from 5.4% to 7.7% as the number of people with disabilities employed in the federal public service is clearly not representational with respect to people with disabilities.
There are ongoing challenges in terms of the implementation of the Accessible Canada Act and the hiring of people with disabilities in the public service. Despite hitting the targets, there is a representation gap. While representation has increased to 7.9% in some segments, it falls short of the estimated 12% workforce availability, so we have an opportunity to bring many more people with disabilities into the public service.
Regarding staffing biases, employees with disabilities continue to report fewer positive perceptions of fairness and transparency in the staffing process compared to their peers.
Regarding workplace barriers, significant challenges remain regarding workplace accommodations, particularly with complex IT requests and physical barriers in older buildings.
The point I really want to leave you with is something that I know my colleagues support and that probably everybody who has come to you has said, which is that retention must be addressed in the Employment Equity Act. We can’t keep talking about hiring. We must speak about retention.
Pay equity in the federal public service is failing women with disabilities, not because of oversight but because disability has never been meaningfully built into pay equity frameworks. Pay equity is not simply a technical exercise. It is a human rights obligation grounded in the Charter, in the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, or CEDAW, and in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Yet women with disabilities remain among the lowest-paid workers in the federal system. Why? Because women with disabilities are disproportionately concentrated in lower-paid classifications, part-time positions, term positions and jobs that rely on accommodations but offer limited advancement.
They are evaluated through systems that assume standard productivity, linear careers and uninterrupted work histories.
Those assumptions systematically undervalue our labour. If disability is not explicitly accounted for in the job evaluation and pay equity analysis, women with disabilities disappear from the data while remaining overrepresented in poverty. Intersectionality matters here. Disabled women are not a single group. Indigenous women with disabilities, racialized women with disabilities, deaf women, neurodivergent women and women with episodic or chronic illnesses experience compounded barriers in hiring, classification and wage progression.
Yet pay equity models continue to treat “women” as a homogeneous category and disability as an accommodation issue rather than a structural factor shaping inequality.
As a result, pay equity corrections often benefit non-disabled women first while leaving disabled women behind. Again, this is not because we want to pit ourselves against women who do not live with disabilities, obviously.
This is not equity. It is stratified inclusion. From a human rights perspective, this raises serious concerns.
Canada cannot credibly claim leadership on gender equality while its own public service reproduces wage discrimination against women with disabilities.
So, what needs to change?
First — and these are the most urgent actions — mandate disability-inclusive pay equity analysis. That means disability-disaggregated data and intersectional analysis built into every stage of pay equity implementation.
Second, reform job evaluation systems. They must recognize non-linear career paths, value relational and care-based work and account for how accommodation and ableist performance norms suppress wages.
Third, ensure independent oversight with disability expertise. Organizations led by women with disabilities must be involved in monitoring, evaluation and accountability. Pay equity that excludes women with disabilities is not equity. It is managed inequality.
The federal public service should be a model employer. Right now, for women with disabilities, it simply is not. DAWN Canada supports reforms that move Canada closer to its human rights obligations and stated values.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentations. I would now like to proceed to questions from senators. Just to remind my colleagues, you have five minutes for your question, which also includes the responses. I will begin with Senator Wells.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you all for being here in person on short notice. We greatly appreciate it. My question will go to the panel.
You’ve all mentioned that it has been three years since this commitment was made by a former Liberal government, and I think we can even go back further to 2020, when former member of Parliament Randall Garrison introduced a private member’s bill to add 2SLGBTQI+ individuals to the Employment Equity Act, so really, it has been six years since this conversation has been introduced and studied. My understanding is committees and reports have been written and witnesses have been heard on this, and we continue to bring witnesses speaking to the importance of this change forward, which appears to be a relatively simple legislative change that must be made.
I’m wondering if, from your perspectives, you could speak to the challenges of the delay of this being passed and what you’ve been seeing in the community because these two groups in particular are not named as part of the Employment Equity Act.
Also, what are you hopeful of seeing should, hopefully soon, this act become law? Maybe we’ll start with Mr. Boyce.
Mr. Boyce: Thank you, Senator Wells, for the question, and thank you, senators, for your attention to my response. When we think about the consequences of the federal government not fulfilling its promise that was announced in 2023 about inclusion in the Employment Equity Act, the ramifications in the community have really been felt. The key word here is “trust.” In 2023, when the announcement was made, it was warmly embraced by civil society because we trusted that it would be followed up with concrete action, but that didn’t happen. Three years later, communities are questioning whether these announcements in front of the press will actually result in pen hitting the paper. In a healthy democracy, that’s not where we want to be.
When we talk about the real impacts for the millions of people that this small change to the Employment Equity Act could support, it’s disheartening to see the statistics that my colleagues have pointed to around the realities for queer and trans communities as well as Black communities — to be unable to fully participate in the economy because of discrimination and not because we lack the talent to bring value to the labour force.
So when we think about what we can do in the face of these challenges, well, that’s why we’re here today.
Finally, my little nerdy self is always thinking about the Senate holding the House to account. That’s why I keep going back to the possibility of kind of enacting that mandate in this moment, alongside myself and my colleagues in civil society.
Ms. Pichette: So I would add that specific portions of our community are experiencing discrimination at higher rates. One of the reasons why we want to ensure that the act becomes intersectional and not just simply a new check box to add to the act is because we need to look at those direct challenges within the community. With trans folks, in particular, and for bisexual communities and Black, Indigenous and queer people, we see them — well, us — experiencing unemployment at significantly higher rates in the economy as a whole. We also see that employers are not taking up responsibility for our communities. Even many federally regulated sectors, some of which wanted this change, have not seen it happen. So we’re seeing certain organizations now removing 2SLGBTQI+ people from their equity-deserving strategies, and I think that is not only a shame, but also a challenge because of the lack of legislation.
I know we only have so much time, so I’ll pass it to my colleague Bonnie.
Ms. Brayton: Thanks, Jade. Thank you for the question. I think what I would like to say to the committee is something that perhaps all of us understand, which is that human rights are very siloed. The treaties, which are very important and which focus on individual types of discrimination, have essentially forced the most marginalized to the furthest margins because intersectional discrimination does not make it easier; it makes it harder.
So, again, building off my colleagues’ comments, I would say the updates to the Pay Equity Act and the throwing out of something called GBA Plus — because we’re not a “plus” — are the kinds of things indicating it’s time for the Pay Equity Act to also understand that it is about intersectional equity in the public service. It is no longer about any specific rights groups. It’s about the idea that the public service must embrace an intersectional approach because that is where we are going. I’ve been to the UN for just about every treaty you can think of. I love going to the UN, and I’ve been to the UN in the past with a senator, but it hasn’t changed anything. We continue to do those shadow reports. We continue to talk about the rights. The Pay Equity Act is a concrete way we can attack discrimination. It’s a tool we have at our fingertips now, and it is one that requires action. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. I will now go to Senator McPhedran.
Senator McPhedran: Let me begin by thanking each of you for your advocacy. Having occupied that space for a while, I know it’s never fully compensated. It’s something where you dig deep and give more, and we really appreciate you being here today.
I’m not expecting this question to be popular, but please hear it as pragmatic. I asked Professor Blackett when she was with us whether there were recommendations that she made that were achievable without the legislative step that is clearly the focus or primary outcome that is desired.
I asked her that partly because of the change in attitudinal environment — I don’t need to tell any of you about that — and thinking about places where we could take action that did not depend upon charging up the legislative machinery. She said that there were, indeed, recommendations.
I wonder if you have given that some thought. If you have, are you comfortable highlighting some of what you think we could do more quickly to get this rolling? This is not in any way to say we should not work for legislative change, but that’s usually very time-consuming; you’ve already accurately pointed out how much delay there has been already, and I’m not sure we’re seeing an indication to move quickly on the legislative change.
Mr. Boyce: Thank you, senator, for your question.
At The Enchanté Network, we’ve thought a lot about what it means for us to have a legislative backbone to the promises that have been made. Right now, we look at the broader context. I take your point that Canada has changed a lot in terms of attitudes. That attitude, from my understanding, is one through which we have dared to dream beyond incrementalism. By 2030, more than 40% of the province of Ontario will be made up of racialized folks. We have another four years until we reach that point, but there is a certain sense of urgency. We’ve waited for three years for this government to put this back on the table. Now, three years later, after an announcement was made, where the legislative process should have started, at The Enchanté Network, the consensus around these hundreds of organizations is that now is the time to act with urgency.
There’s a global backlash against queer and trans communities. Hate crimes in this country have increased astronomically. The most violent types of hate crimes in this country are against queer and trans communities, and the most common type of hate crime is against Black communities —
Senator McPhedran: I’m sorry to interrupt, but I think you covered those points really well in your original presentation. My question is going to whether any of you feel you could identify recommendations that could be acted upon without the legislation changing.
Again, I’m not suggesting that the legislation should stay the same; I’m just asking about recommendations that could become levers to try to accelerate the process that I think, quite correctly, you’ve described as stalled.
Mr. Boyce: I take your point.
The short version of my remarks is that legislative change is where we should be going right now. We fundamentally believe there’s momentum in the House to have this passed and that there’s momentum, hopefully, in the Senate to treat this with the utmost urgency. That is what civil society is pushing for.
We work on the front lines with folks who are experiencing the employment discrimination that is keeping them homeless. If there’s an opportunity for them to move from homelessness to stable, dignified employment, I think that’s a priority that should be progressed with the utmost urgency.
I’ll pass it to my colleagues now.
Ms. Pichette: I’ll jump in on this. Thank you, senator, for the question.
I watched the previous proceedings and really do understand the premise of your question in terms of that need to create some of these changes without, necessarily, the legislative piece. If we look at the economy as a whole, I don’t think we will see those impacts. However, to answer your question directly, I think we can always create a strategy around equity-deserving groups, and we can do that in an intersectional way that does not require legislation.
That’s something we do with our partner network on a regular basis. We work with them around their data, benefits and policies, all of which are things that can happen internally within the public service or within employers without the legislative piece, necessarily.
That being said, we need the legislative piece, as well.
However, it’s a very fair point, and it is something I would like to see the public service take up more actively, because there are a lot of really good recommendations within that report that are non-legislative, as well, that speak to intersectionality, specifically, and how we collect data where we’re not just addressing communities as monoliths but actually looking at them directly — to my colleague’s point around retention, as well.
If we’re collecting that data and continuing to look at the impacts of retention in the public service, that would be a major piece that would have an impact.
I am happy to answer more questions as we go forward.
The Chair: We’re out of time, but we can go to second round to hear Ms. Brayton’s response.
Senator Arnold: Thank you for being with us.
When talking to Professor Blackett in our last meeting, I was struck by how much work went into the study — 51 meetings, 337 attendees, a 500-page report and 12 task force members.
First, were any of you involved in it? Second, have you had recent discussions with the Minister of Jobs and Families? Someone said there’s momentum in the House, but have you actually spoken to that minister to see where this is on the legislative agenda?
Mr. Boyce: That is a great question.
The Enchanté Network worked very closely with the task force. As Canada’s largest network of queer and trans organizations, we were able to consult 2SLGBTQ2IA+ organizations from across the country. With that data, through research and focus groups, we were able to create a comprehensive report that we presented to the task force to include within their report as an addendum.
The second part of your question was about what the reality of getting a meeting with Minister Hadju has been like. We’ve been trying since last summer and have not been able to have a meeting with her. I think we spoke with many colleagues within caucus during our many meetings on the Hill who are in support, so the momentum in the House is coming from across different parties. Right now, the task before us is ensuring that we are able to sit down with our current Minister of Jobs and Families and have an honest conversation about how we can move this toward a legislative framework that can lift a lot of Canadians out of poverty.
Ms. Pichette: As mentioned, we are trying to secure that meeting. There has been progress toward that, but the meeting has not been secured.
In terms of our participation, we were part of the written submissions to the task force. Additionally, we participated in the consultations done after the task force was completed in 2024.
Ms. Brayton: I haven’t had recent meetings with Minister Hadju about this. DAWN is the oldest organization in the world for women with disabilities — 40 years here in Canada — so we are always consulted. However, I would say, along with my colleagues, that we are quite disappointed with the fact that we’ve been consulted multiple times on this issue without there being any real movement on it. When it came back and we were invited, I was thinking, “Are we going to talk about it some more?” But not here, where it feels as if there is some momentum. I’m hopeful.
We have to make a really strong economic argument here, and there is one to be made for all kinds of reasons. Thanks.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations.
I was looking at the history and the recommendations that came with it — 3.17 and 3.18, where Black workers should constitute a separate employment equity and 2SLGBTQ2IA+ should recommend that. I agree with that. When you are included in the group, only then can the Human Rights Commission be responsible for enforcement of that act and do you become a protected group. But right now, you have no one, right?
So the other point is that people think inclusion and diversity is not merit-based. However, this is all merit-based, and it’s so important to say that all the time. So when we look at the act, that is going to be put into it.
There is also a measure of the social fabric of Canada, and that social fabric is within the public service as well, where they continue to carry bias. You still have barriers in there.
How would you want the social fabric of Canada addressed? I’m saying this as a First Nations woman, because we have to do our work apart from legislation because it belongs in a different arena. Do you understand what I’m saying? We need that to make people understand why you need to be in the act. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Boyce: I would love to. First, I think that we take a lot of notes and learnings from Indigenous communities, and I appreciate the thought in the question.
When it comes to what this act could do to really change the attitudes in the minds of Canadians, it’s truly infinite. Our social fabric, senator, as you mentioned, takes notes from our legislation and regulation federally here in Ottawa.
So, to note Black and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities as distinct groups in the federal Employment Equity Act sends a huge signal not only to the private sector and public sector but the heart of the country, that these communities deserve to participate in our labour force and exact their full potential in Canada. I appreciate the question.
Ms. Brayton: I want to, of course, remind everyone here of something that perhaps people don’t think about. When you think of the Black, Indigenous and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities, within all these communities, the rate of disability is at least 30%. It isn’t different because of that other intersection.
Of course, that is the point regarding the social fabric. There are levels of privilege everywhere. Within the public service, I think we all understand there has been a privileging of certain types of people with respect to employment and moving up through the ranks.
In order for our public service to reflect our community, as you’ve mentioned, senator, we need to see the faces of the public service change. That is really what we are talking about: When you look around, you must see difference now. If we don’t move forward with this legislation, we don’t represent the people we claim to represent here — that you represent here.
So I think when you talk about that social fabric, I’m very moved by this idea. In my organization when we committed to intersectional human rights, I brought a woman from Indigenous Disability Canada. She’s my director; it’s a cross-appointment between my organization and Indigenous Disability Canada. These are the kinds of things we have to do. It’s not just talking about things; it’s about action. It’s where you put your resources and how you make your decisions.
I’m a privileged white woman. I live with a disability, but I have privilege, and it’s important for me to think about the changing face of my organization to reflect the future. The public service is the same. Thank you.
The Chair: Before we go into second round, I’m going to take the chair’s privilege to poke away at a question, if that’s okay.
I’m really heartened by the term “intersectional equity” in place of GBA Plus. Can you speak to that a little further, Bonnie, please?
Ms. Brayton: Thank you, senator. GBA Plus was an important step forward in federal policy because it was GBA before it was GBA Plus.
Again, we’ve talked about incrementalism. I think that’s a good example of incrementalism in public policy. Recently, I was consulted by Women and Gender Equality for an OECD event about women with disabilities in an intersectional policy context. It was somebody from Canada going to an OECD meeting. So, as I said, it’s too late: They can’t go back now.
And quite clearly, the concept of GBA Plus, while well intentioned, invisibilized who is the “other.” And really, calling us a “plus” is a slap; it’s an insult, because nobody’s a “plus.”
As I said, it’s critical, especially when we start to talk about the Pay Equity Act, that we’re very clear about this. As the senator has mentioned, there are groups who we must name in the legislation, but we must also ensure that the new Pay Equity Act not only names protected groups but understands that those groups and the intersections around them are where we really must do the hardest work.
Ms. Pichette: I’ll join on that. We know that within queer and trans communities, these intersectional issues are very important. For instance, bisexual communities make less than half of what other groups make, especially heterosexual men. We see some of these statistics really drilling down into some of the realities within our communities, but we know when we drill down further, we find people who are not getting to the labour market, are not getting through the door the first time and really don’t see themselves as having a space to be welcomed in to be part of community.
I think this idea of intersectional equity speaks to that. It says that, although the discrimination that cisgender women — women assigned female at birth — experience is significant and terrible in our communities and we need to recognize that, we also need to recognize that this type of legislation has historically privileged white cisgender women and generally left the rest of us out.
As a non-binary person, I’m not part of this act. I’m not part of this legislation, so I don’t see myself represented, and that is something we want all Canadians to be able to see. Thank you.
Mr. Boyce: I’ll add that on the practical side, it’s really about how this applies. So if 2SLGBTQ2IA+ and Black communities are added to this act, it provides different pathways for these intersectional communities to seek justice when they’re experiencing employment discrimination.
In addition to the comments from my colleagues, in practice, again, I want to bring us back to why we’re in the room today, which is the opportunity to provide labour market participation as a reality for Canadians.
The Chair: Thank you for that reminder.
Senator K. Wells: I just have a general observation and question. When we look around the world, we’re seeing some countries, and indeed some provinces here in Canada, moving away from equity, diversity and inclusion. This is trickling down to some universities, which used to be some of our strongest leaders in Canada around this work.
What message will it send if these changes to the Employment Equity Act are not enacted? And does it seem that Canada is moving closer to Trump’s vision of the world?
The Chair: Before you respond, it’s a three-minute round.
Ms. Pichette: I’ve been elected.
I feel like not enacting these changes continues a history of inaction that says that our communities are less important, less deserving and not as welcome in the Canadian fabric.
In fact, when we look at support for trans individuals in particular, that is decreasing significantly within Canada because of misinformation and disinformation, and I know that’s a big issue. I worry that if we do not showcase ourselves as leaders in the world, we will cede human rights and who we are as Canadians at our core, and I don’t want to see us do that.
Mr. Boyce: If I can add to Jade’s comments, the question really speaks to where we are in the world today. We saw that the Employment Equity Act modernization conversation started around a critical time in the world, around 2020, and the conversation about anti-Black racism and the Black Lives Matter movement. There was political capital in that conversation, which is very important to note. Today, we’re experiencing a global backlash against the 2SLGBTQI+ community, and we’ve already seen so many huge private corporations pull back from the commitments that they made in 2020 and pull back from participating in pride events around the world. I think it would send a horrible message for Canadians to see our government also pull back on their promises to include not only Black communities but also 2SLGBTQI+ communities in our labour force.
Ms. Brayton: Gender-based violence has increased threefold over the past decade, so there is no question that we’re in a very perilous time when, again, we can’t afford to have any slippage on diversity, equity and inclusion, and, in fact, we are going the other way. Based on population and on good business, it would be the right thing to do also. I do think, as I said, to push back on the Trump idea, there’s a business case for human rights, and I think we have to keep our finger on that button and keep focused on the idea that it has to be legislation — and legislation with teeth. As I said, both the human rights argument and the economic argument align with us pushing back, in the way that we appear to be trying to push back, on other planes with respect to the Trump effect. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. I’m the proud mother of a non-binary person, and I was very interested in your comment. Could you help us understand better why you don’t see yourself and your colleagues in the non-binary community in this legislation?
Ms. Pichette: So, currently, the legislation requires reporting and action on only two genders: women and people who aren’t women. That’s often how it’s described by many of these employers: They collect their data on women, and then they have their data on men, which includes everybody else. “How many non-women do we have?”
The reality is that they’re only collecting two genders, and we know that throughout many societies, many Indigenous nations and throughout cultures globally, non-binary people of some sort that do not fit into explicitly male or explicitly female are there. So, for myself, I am not explicitly included in any of this legislation as it currently stands. However, if 2SLGBTQI+ people were included as a whole, that would be great. But we also have to make sure that trans people are not forgotten within that acronym and that, as a non-binary person and a transfeminine person, I am actually being counted.
Being counted only goes so far, but it has an impact because it means that you exist. At a time when we are seeing the absolute and intentional erasure — and even some genocide scholars looking at renaming the definition of genocide to include how trans people are being treated in some parts of the world — this is a real concern and something that I have seen without any recognition of ourselves in the act currently.
And so kudos to you for having and raising such an amazing child, and if there are any additional pieces to that, I’m happy to answer. But I know that, for non-binary communities, our access to employment is seriously reduced. Even though non-binary people have one of the highest levels of education in Canada, we have one of the lowest levels of employment and one of the highest poverty rates. So we see that non-binary people make — according to Statistics Canada — slightly more than trans women but significantly lower amount than cisgender men.
Mr. Boyce: Would I be able to add something very short? My 15 seconds will be used to say that this doesn’t mean we need to go back to the drawing board. In the report submitted by Ms. Blackett from the task force, 2SLGBTQI+ communities are all included. This is about how we interpret that. The second piece is that Canada became one of the first countries in the world to collect data on gender identity in 2021, so we have the data to ensure that the remarks from my amazing colleague can actually be fulfilled through this act.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: When we look at the act, it places an onus on employers to identify and rectify when there is under-representation, but that isn’t happening. So when you look at the five recommendations that came in, would you say that the top two would be the first two, where you want the update of 2SLGBTQIA+ workers and also Black communities as designated groups? Are those the top two? Because the other three are things to do when they get in. I’m just asking because these are recommendations that, if that is the case, then it’s explicit for this committee that is what you want.
Ms. Pichette: It’s an important piece of what we want. So that explicit inclusion of Black and 2SLGBTQI+ people is inherently important to the act, and I’m very grateful to the work of Black communities who have pushed this forward. We’re just trying to help it along a little further. I really see that need for us to also do it in an intersectional way, though. If we don’t revise the act in an intersectional way, if we just add us as check boxes, we are going to lose the people at those intersections. We’re not going to not include First Nations women and we’re not going to include trans people. We’re going to include the people who are at the top of each of those equity-deserving groups, and that’s what we’ve seen.
Senator McCallum: But in the first place, we need to get them in.
Ms. Pichette: Agreed.
Senator McCallum: This is the chance to do it.
I just want a “yes” or “no” to this: Would you say this act is non-compliant with the Charter?
Mr. Boyce: No, I think that this act allows us to fully step into the Canadian Charter —
Senator McCallum: I’m saying the act because it excludes you.
Mr. Boyce: Modernization, yes.
Senator McCallum: It should be inclusive of all Canadians, but it isn’t. That’s what I’m asking about.
Mr. Boyce: My apologies for misunderstanding the question. I believe the act as is goes against the Charter, but modernization would allow us to step into the full dream of the Charter.
On the first question, it’s interesting that you asked it on this panel. As a member of the Black community, and of the 2SLGBTQI+ community alongside Jade, it’s almost as if we’re looking into the future. Persons with disabilities have been included in this act since the 1980s; looking at all the issues and wins that are still yet to be made by that community — which you brought up, Bonnie — allows me to answer your question from the bottom of my heart, which means that right now, the conversation is about putting Black and 2SLGBTQI+ communities into the act.
There will be work that needs to be done after that. What we’re asking for today is to allow us to make the first step so that one day, we can be here, like the communities that Bonnie represents, talking about how we can get better and better. But the first step is those two recommendations of including Black and 2SLGBTQI+ communities in the act to start.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That’s a good place to end our first panel. I want to sincerely thank each of you for agreeing to participate in this meeting. Your assistance with our work is greatly appreciated, and we look forward to further work as we move forward with our work in this committee.
I will now introduce our second panel. Our witnesses have been asked to make opening statements of five minutes each, which will be followed by questions from the senators. With us by video conference, from the Native Women’s Association of Canada, we have Madeleine Redfern, Chief Executive Officer. Welcome. Also by video conference, from the Federal Black Employee Caucus, we have Ronald Sharpe, Senior Strategic Advisor. We welcome you, as well; thank you for joining us.
I will now invite Ms. Redfern to make her presentation, followed by Mr. Sharpe.
Madeleine Redfern, Chief Executive Officer, Native Women’s Association of Canada: Thank you so much. The Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC, is a national Indigenous organization that defends the rights of, delivers programming to and amplifies the perspectives of Indigenous women, girls, two-spirit and gender-diverse people across Canada, inclusive of First Nations people on- and off-reserve, status and non-status, disenfranchised, Métis and Inuit. NWAC’s position on the proposed legislation is that employment equity is a necessary but insufficient tool for advancing fairness in the federal public service, industry and society across all sectors.
While Indigenous representation has increased, Indigenous women in all their diversity continue to face systemic and gendered barriers to secure, well-paid and culturally safe work. Employment equity must move beyond counting representation to delivering real economic security through Indigenous-led, rights-based and culturally grounded approaches.
To understand how the Employment Equity Act can best meet the needs of Indigenous and diverse women and peoples, NWAC engaged in research, virtual consultation and a national round table with community members and employment experts to advise Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, in their review of the act.
Key findings from NWAC’s research focused on the role of racism and sexism, plus the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health challenges and the underpaying or undervaluing of Indigenous People. In doing so, NWAC provided the following recommendations: develop stronger legislation enforcement mechanisms that understand the direct impacts on the lives of Indigenous People, including Indigenous women in all their diversity; incorporate valuable networking and mentoring sessions to promote connections within and throughout government; normalize seeking help and removing associated stigmas for employees, especially minorities, who are still dealing with systemic and societal discrimination.
We know that there are numerous employment barriers. They exist in policies or practices that exclude certain groups based on factors unrelated to their ability to perform work.
Indigenous women in all their diversity face these additional and more prominent employment barriers related to limited access to education, underfunded on-reserve schools, disproportionate impacts of poverty, intergenerational trauma and more. It’s important to note that Indigenous women face compounded barriers related to both race and their gender. They also carry primary caregiving responsibilities that reduce the time and opportunities they are able to dedicate to their career development.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Redfern.
Ronald Sharpe, Senior Strategic Advisor, Federal Black Employee Caucus: Thank you very much. Honourable senators, I’m honoured to appear before you today and to speak from one of the regional locations, specifically Miramichi, located in the unceded traditional territory of the Mi’kmaq People. This land is governed by peace and friendship treaties — not by surrender, but by agreements to establish mutual respect, coexistence and shared responsibilities, which the Federal Black Employee Caucus, or FBEC, supports dearly.
I am honoured to speak on behalf of my Black ancestors during Black History Month, and I am always happy to join you as a member of the Federal Black Employee Caucus, an organization that exists because Black public servants continue to encounter structural barriers that limit entry, progression and psychological safety across the federal workforce.
For over three decades, Canada has studied, reported on and consulted on employment equity in the federal public service. We have commissioned reviews, identified barriers, acknowledged data gaps and reaffirmed commitments, most recently through the exceptional and highly anticipated work of the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force between 2021 and 2023. There were government commitments made upon the release of their report, as noted by Adelle Blackett in a speech on February 3, particularly regarding creating new employment equity groups for Black Canadians, federal public servants and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities.
Yet, as of February 2026, many of the systemic barriers that the recommendations of the task force would have formally addressed in terms of anti-Black racism within the federal government, with lasting effects far beyond any current event or celebration of Black excellence through Black History Month, have yet to be actioned. So, at this point, it is necessary to name what this represents, which cannot be categorized as a mistake.
By the government’s own record, employment equity barriers have been formally identified for over 30 years. There have been multiple commissioned reviews, as the mandate mentioned. It recognized the need to combat anti-Black racism through formal recognition of a decision reached through over 109 consultations and with 176 organizations. When a problem is known, re-documented, re-explained, re-consulted and still reproduced, it no longer meets any reasonable definition of “institutional mistake.” At this point, non-action becomes a decision against all those supported by the Employment Equity Act modernization. That diagnosis matters because it reframes this issue before the committee from one of awareness to one of justice.
When it comes to workforce availability, periods of workforce adjustment are not neutral administrative exercises. They are moments that reshape the demographic future of the public service, and historically Black public servants are particularly vulnerable during selection of employees for retention or layoff, or SERLO, and workforce adjustment processes. We saw this after the cuts in the 1990s and again after 2012, and we are seeing the warning signs now. Therefore, we are calling for a mandatory Black equity lens in all workforce adjustment decisions, including SERLO. Without these safeguards, workforce adjustment becomes a reset — one that can undo decades of equity progress in a single fiscal year.
Black public servants continue to experience distinct, measurable patterns of exclusion in advancement, executive representation, performance assessment and psychological safety. This is not perception. It is seen in reports, including Rachel Zellars’s report on Black executives, which confirms that there are evidenced patterns.
Honourable senators, no people, young or old, were meant merely to survive. We were fearfully and wonderfully made above all creatures on this earth. Yet, even today, we require consultations and frameworks simply to have our humanity recognized and protected within our workplaces. These issues before you here today are not abstract, new or unknown; they are solvable. What are we are looking for? The Federal Black Employee Caucus stands ready to support you in your commitment and in your work.
Finally, FBEC recommends that racism and discrimination be explicitly recognized in departments’ hazard prevention programs and embedded within The National Standard for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace. Psychological safety cannot exist where racism is unnamed, unmeasured or untreated. Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you both for your statements today. We will now move to questions from senators.
Senators, as a reminder, you have five minutes for your question, and that includes the answer.
Senator Arnold: Thank you both for being here today. I will begin with Ronald. Nice to hear you are on the Miramichi. That’s lovely. You mentioned the cuts that are in the newspaper daily. I have two questions. First, were you consulted by Professor Blackett on her study? Second, has there been any kind of engagement in advance of the upcoming cuts?
Mr. Sharpe: First, thank you very much for your question. With regard to Adelle Blackett, no. The Federal Black Employee Caucus was not involved in that report and review because this is for executives and we represent the employees in that case. However, we were very focused on the fact that the study recognized what atrocities were happening at the executive level. When you look at it from that perspective, when those who were at the highest echelons within our government weren’t protected after reaching those levels, what do you believe is happening to those at the lower classifications who are employed when the management structures have no recourse?
I want to give time to your second question. Just to clarify —
Senator Arnold: It was just on the upcoming cuts and whether there has been any consultation as far as how those will be done.
Mr. Sharpe: There has been no consultation in relation to the cuts directly with FBEC. However, we have been in consultations with numerous bodies in relation to data on what specifically is occurring within the Black community. As you heard on February 2, there are no specific details as to how you can review, specifically in measuring the data and the situation regarding who is cut. But within our structure, we are looking to obtain that in our own ranks by having our own networks to determine if we can help support in that regard.
Senator Arnold: Thank you. My next question is for Madeleine. I’m curious if you were consulted on Professor Blackett’s study.
Ms. Redfern: I do not believe so, but I can verify and confirm that in writing for you.
Senator Arnold: You said you did your own study. I’m curious what compelled you to do this separate study.
Ms. Redfern: The Native Women’s Association of Canada generally looks at various funding opportunities to see if there are any that align with our mandate and mission. It was determined that the Pay Equity Act was something that our organization saw immense value in engaging with our regional and grassroots women on, to see what their perspectives, knowledge or experiences were and to compile these recommendations on their behalf as an advocacy organization.
Senator Arnold: I’m assuming, by your answer to the first question, that this report wasn’t added as an addendum to Professor Blackett’s.
Ms. Redfern: Not from the work that we did, no.
Senator Arnold: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. In looking at some of the reports that have been done and listening to your presentation, it seems the act is not working because systemic inequities continue to exist and numerical goals are not enough.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission, or CHRC, is the enforcement agency of this act. It gives CHRC the power to issue decisions that are enforceable as court orders. So I’m wondering — this is for both panellists — if you have had any dealings with the CHRC. We need to go beyond the act. Sometimes legislation isn’t enough and we need to do more. Could you comment on the Canadian Human Rights Commission?
Ms. Redfern: Thank you. I’ve been at the Native Women’s Association of Canada since April 2024. As far as I know, there have been no recent engagements with the commission. I believe that historically there have been.
The challenge, of course, is that these tend to be very individual-based. There are barriers where individuals may not understand the process though which they can bring a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. Often, there is not enough access to supports to follow through.
Something I have found particularly useful — and it’s similar to Statistics Canada — is actually having associated departments be legislatively required to produce statistics and explain how and why there is or remains under-representation. Similarly, moving forward with the potential cuts across the bureaucracy, what are the systemic considerations on whom to keep and whom to let go? We know that education and experience, of course, are incredibly important. However, there is equally a lot of lived experience, which has immense value in the development of all policies and government programs. Thank you.
Mr. Sharpe: Thank you. Probably about five years ago, FBEC was in contact with the Human Rights Commission. There were some issues the Human Rights Commission had to work on within their own ranks at that time, so we had stepped away.
In the last year, we have started to re-engage with them as they have tried to readjust to changes within their body; they have started to develop ways to ensure that some of those same issues do not happen again. Our engagement has been, at this point, to be supportive of them in their realignment regarding their purpose and why they were created.
At this point, we are there to support the changes that we see are getting there, but we have not engaged as we put our focus on what we can control and achieve in parallel to their development.
As for your question on the Employment Equity Act failing, I believe it’s more why the Employment Equity Act might have been becoming separated from its purpose and why it was created in the first place. It was never meant to be a replacement for the Human Rights Act. It was meant to be a complement. It recognized disaggregated data and that there were issues that required that sole constructive focus to ensure that some of those measures, if done right, would help regarding human rights for all.
The reason why you see so many coming forward to say that the Employment Equity Act is important and that its modernization is required is because, without it and without those changes, particularly when we’re speaking about the Black community, there remain issues with regard to our statistical invisibility in key decision-making moments. Without updating the legislation, recognition of modernized data frameworks and representation gaps is underestimated, risks are misidentified and inequity outcomes will continue to not be course-corrected.
Second, career progression remains unleavened and fragile. Without the enforceable equity obligations — advancements into executive and feeder groups, for example, FBEC is supportive of the Investing in Black Talent Program that has been decimated in many ways since WFA started — these areas demonstrate the requirement for such a need for those changes to occur.
Finally, psychological safety becomes eroded. When equity commitments are repeatedly studied but not actioned, it signals to Black employees and executives that their experiences are acknowledged but not prioritized. This contributes to disengagement, burnout and attrition, outcomes that undermine both individual well-being and the recognition of all that has been achieved in the last decade. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator K. Wells: My question is for Mr. Sharpe. Picking up on what you said, and from what we’ve heard from other witnesses, it’s clear that these changes are vital and long overdue. I’m wondering if your caucus has met with the Minister of Labour or her representatives about these changes to the Employment Equity Act and why there’s been such a delay to this important work.
Mr. Sharpe: Those are excellent questions, senator. First, have we met? I would equivocally say no.
We have been doing our work, and we’re expecting the minister to do hers. As you’ve heard, some organizations, even here on this panel, have been trying for an extended period of time to get a meeting. We don’t have time to focus on areas where action should be coming without the need for repeated interventions.
We’ll work at making those changes, building programs, supporting and working with allies and building that up. When we do come to the minister, we will have a lot of questions regarding what she has done on her table by the time we come there.
Can you clarify your second question?
Senator K. Wells: The second question was about the delay and if you’ve heard from the minister — and, obviously, you haven’t recently — on why there is such a delay to this important work. We’re hearing from witness after witness that this work has been delayed, and it’s critical. We’re wondering what the reason from the government will be for that.
Mr. Sharpe: That also speaks to my opening discussion with regard to the fact that it is known — it’s not abstract or unknown — that this is necessary and needed. There have been so many studies. We could speak again about 500 pages, the work and excitement around the work of the task force, the commitments that were stated within that time frame and the joy that came from the fact that we finally had recognition. Yet here we are, in 2026, so I trust this committee will bring the minister before it to ask that same question.
Senator K. Wells: Mr. Sharpe, if I could indulge you a bit further: Is your caucus concerned about the government’s Comprehensive Expenditure Review and the associated layoffs, and how that could potentially impact the ability to gather and assess the data that is necessary to properly enact the current Employment Equity Act and, if these legislative changes go through, how they impact future data collection?
Mr. Sharpe: That is an excellent question. In fact, that has been one of the major questions that we have been receiving within our caucus as to how to respond. There were no safeguards or —
This is to give you a little bit about FBEC and its reach: We do not have one department that we fall under. FBEC was designed as a horizontal plane that could offer support across the federal public service — every department and agency — for Black employees who seek supports within our two mandates: disaggregating the data as well as the mental health of and support for our Black employees.
When we look at the fact that, in both the 1990s and in 2012, in each one of the cases — and I believe it was discussed by the first panel, or at least on February 2, PSAC mentioned “last in and first out” — the issues and the concerns within the Black community were that we definitely have a lessening within our ranks. I believe the last time was 2012, with the Deficit Reduction Action Plan, or DRAP — whatever name they conceive to put it under, it always amounts to many of the gains and supports that have been achieved being reduced. Then, each time, there are no safeguards in place to ensure supports for promotion, career, hiring and retention.
How else can it be looked at but as a reset? That is what we see happening without those protections of the Employment Equity Act modernization.
The Chair: I’m not seeing any other questions, but I’d love to insert one or two of my own. It seems to be my habit.
Thank you, both, for your testimonies. Ms. Redfern, I paid particular attention to a few of the things you said with respect to compounded barriers specifically. Could you speak about that? In the previous panel, we talked about intersectional equity, but with the Indigenous women’s lens, I wonder if you could speak about compounded barriers a bit further.
Ms. Redfern: Thank you, senator.
For the most part, the majority of Canadians — and, I would expect, the senators present here — are fully aware of the history of Canada with our Indigenous Peoples and the numerous systemic discriminatory policies, programs and actions that have done tremendous harm. Those harms have intergenerational effects and impacts. Unfortunately, some of those also continue to frame stereotypical or negative mindsets regarding Indigenous Peoples, including Indigenous women. They lead to higher rates of violence, both within our communities as well as regarding our safety outside them.
There is discrimination of low expectations as a result — the perception that we’re not capable, not educated or not smart. Even when our people do receive education and experience, generally, there remains a pay inequity, not just between men and women but with minority women — Indigenous women, in particular — because of those stereotypical mindsets that we are worth less or are less capable.
The intersectionality between both gender and culture or ethnicity for Indigenous women, unfortunately, is quite tremendous. As I said, it leads to all sorts of disproportionate actions that, in turn, lead to compounded harms that keep us out or keep us down.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Sharpe, I’d like to ask a question with respect to a few things you said. You said that institutional mistakes that are not corrected become decisions — I’m paraphrasing — and then you also talked about the importance of the mandatory Black equity lens. Could you talk about those two things a bit further?
Mr. Sharpe: Certainly.
Regarding inaction becoming a decision, I’ll take the example of the majority of our discussions here: the Employment Equity Act. You saw the amount of work that went into it from 2021 to 2023. You saw the recommendations that would finally be recognized. You saw there were commitments and excitement in the room and in the media in relation to the fast track of this course to make it possible. Then, you see changes in political mindsets and silence, and, three years later, you see we’re here again.
I just went back to 2021, but there are reports older than 30 years on this action. So, when I say that it’s not a mistake, there’s no viable, realistic reason why there could be silence from the minister’s office about something that has been sought, was publicized and would provide immense transformational change within the federal public service. Yet we’re still here.
This can’t be a simple mistake; this must be a design flaw within the system.
Next, I would say that what is needed are design models within the system that are independent and could approach these issues. I’ve heard talks of a commissioner, whether it be a racialized commissioner or Employment Equity Act commissioner, that did not report specifically to a department but had an independent lens that could ensure that these things don’t happen and would have the power to bring these issues to Parliament directly.
These are safeguards that were envisioned and dreamed of in some of the work the FBEC has been privileged to be a part of, and yet still we wait for the system to want to adjust itself.
I thank you for your panel and for your work. There are definitely things that I was reviewing from the Senate regarding what you had the ability to do, and I trust that your next moves in this work will be actioned, and I look forward to seeing what comes from this.
The Chair: I am seeing one more question. We’ll go to Senator McCallum again — second round.
Senator McCallum: The federal government expects the size of the federal public service to decline by 40,000 positions by 2028-29. The 2025 Budget indicated that the federal public service will be reduced by 16,000 full-time equivalent positions over three years while also protecting diversity in the public service workforce and managing these reductions to the greatest extent possible through attrition and voluntary departures. These reductions are managed through a process known as workforce adjustment, or WFA.
In this context, several stakeholders have raised concerns about maintaining progress toward employment equity goals. For example, Nicholas Marcus Thompson, the President and CEO of the Black Class Action Secretariat, was quoted in The Hill Times as saying:
We’re very concerned Black workers are being disproportionately impacted by the austerity measures the Government of Canada is taking. . . . We know that the majority of Black people are hired on term [contracts], and based on those systemic structures, term employees are first to go.
What efforts, if any, should the federal government make to protect term employees who are part of the under-represented group? To go beyond that, how should the government protect the four groups that are already supposed to be protected? It doesn’t sound like that is happening.
Can you comment on that? Are you concerned that the first to go, when they look at downsizing, will be the equity-seeking groups?
Mr. Sharpe: If I may comment on that, yes — a thousand times, yes — to that question.
When you look at the way data is being reviewed today within the federal government, you see first the harm caused by continued reliance on outdated workforce availability data. It’s real, foreseeable and already occurring.
Whenever you have a process where you’re looking at it to say that you are supporting and reviewing what is happening with employment equity and workforce availability — and we should be using 2021 census-based data, though it is already wrong. But if you have some departments relying on 2016 data during workforce adjustment and SERLO, the impact is that it systemically undermines the availability of racialized persons and Indigenous People, distorts representation analysis and embeds inequity in decisions before they are ever reviewed.
That harm is avoidable. There are some departments doing excellent work in demonstrating how you can have progressive reviews closer to real-time data — and the Treasury Board has acknowledged this — while others are staying streamlined to the policy itself, and saying, “We can’t do more.”
I’ll give you an example. I’ve seen and worked closely with some of the work from Justice Canada, and they have done more predictive modelling designs — instead of us having 2016 or 2021 data — that actually predict where we are sitting today in 2026, so that by the time the next census comes out, we can predict whether we’re on course or on par.
They have looked at self-declaration as a way of supporting the collection of 2SLGBTQIA+ data in the sense of collections that are not specifically already within the Employment Equity Act. They have seen an influx of support where you wouldn’t get it through self-identification, and it was voluntary.
Some of these reports and reviews are being reviewed with the Treasury Board, beyond what the policy indicates, and there are departments looking at these precedents and saying, “We can do better.” However, others are not.
So you’re going to see the departments that are most hit, specifically those like Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, and some others that are really strong regarding employment equity, that may not have the correct supports around the data. It’s discretionary and depends on who is doing the data collection and how the data is being used. There need to be some safeguards and supports to allow for discretion beyond what the policy states.
I don’t know if you are familiar with something called fettering of discretion. This is where some people are so rigid in some departments and agencies that they will not allow things like what I’ve given to you today to be considered because the policy says, “This is as far as we can go.”
The Supreme Court looked at that and has addressed the issue of public authorities using internal policies versus formal regulations and the related principles of fettering discretion in several key cases. The core principle is that while policies can be used, a decision maker must not treat them as binding and must retain the discretion to consider the unique circumstances of each case.
So the use of WFA based on the 2021 census data does not match the actual availability. Its use is equivalent to a policy decision.
So, yes, we are 100% concerned with how they are actually doing the supports to support equity during this time. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sharpe, and thank you, senators. We have a follow-up question.
Senator McCallum: You talked about the employment equity commissioner. Do you think that having a commissioner would help you in the work that you do? If you want to reply in writing, you can.
The Chair: We have some time. Could I ask both witnesses to answer that?
Ms. Redfern: I would say, inherently, it always has value to look at some sort of systemic structures that actually sort of monitor the progress and the interpretation, application and effect of those policies.
In this process, data collection is incredibly important. Whether you call it a commissioner or some sort of watchdog figure, it is not just an individual who faced systemic discrimination making an application to the Human Rights Commission. Rather, it is like the Auditor General of Canada ensuring these societal goals and values that we understand about diversity and inclusion — and including for us, as Indigenous Peoples but also as Indigenous women. We see the need to not just have front-end preferential hiring policies. Those are to ameliorate the discrimination that happens against minorities, but we need to have that monitoring, mitigation and reporting system in place.
Mr. Sharpe: Thank you. We could provide an answer in writing. I would love to provide you with details in responding to that question, since we’ve been working on that for many years.
The Chair: That would be great, Mr. Sharpe. Thank you very much. We would welcome being able to go through your response.
If there are no further questions, that brings us to the end of this panel. We thank you very much for taking the time to answer our questions and for being thoughtful in your responses. On behalf of the committee, I’d like to thank you for appearing before us today. Your testimony will be very helpful as we deliberate further.
I will now introduce our third and final panel for this evening. Our witnesses have been asked to make opening statements of five minutes each. These will be followed by questions from senators.
With us by video conference from Inclusion Canada, we have Krista Carr, Chief Executive Officer. Also by video conference, we have Wendy Cukier, Professor, Entrepreneurship and Strategy, and Director, Diversity Institute, Toronto Metropolitan University. Finally, with us in person, from the Jewish Public Servants’ Network, we have Amichai Wise, Steering Committee Member. Welcome to all of you. I invite Ms. Carr to make her presentation.
Krista Carr, Chief Executive Officer, Inclusion Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair and senators. My name is Krista Carr, CEO of Inclusion Canada, a national federation of people with intellectual disabilities and their families, allies and organizations. We work to advance the full inclusion and human rights of people with intellectual disabilities and their families.
Inclusion Canada has been deeply engaged in the review and modernization of the Employment Equity Act over several years. In 2022, we were contracted by the federal government to conduct national focus groups with people with intellectual disabilities, families, employers and community organizations.
In 2024, we again participated in the government’s formal consultation on modernizing the act.
Across both processes, the central message we heard is this: The Employment Equity Act has not worked for people with intellectual disabilities.
Today, people with intellectual disabilities continue to experience the lowest employment rates of any disability group in Canada. Senators, only about one in five working-age adults with an intellectual disability is employed. Many have never worked at all and those who are working are often underemployed, earning low wages and living in poverty. This is not because people with intellectual disabilities cannot work, but rather because our systems were not designed to be inclusive.
When disability is treated as a single, homogeneous category, people with intellectual disabilities are often forgotten. Traditional hiring processes, online applications, rigid job descriptions and standardized interviews block people before they ever get in the door.
Accommodations are still understood too narrowly, focused on equipment or technology rather than the human and communications supports that many people actually need.
Across our consultations, we have heard clearly that legislation alone is not enough. Employment equity requires intentional design, accountability and leadership.
Based on what we heard nationally, Inclusion Canada has made six consistent recommendations for reform. These include establishing a clear federal definition of “inclusive employment”; investing early through inclusive education and career development; reallocating resources toward sustained employment and growth, not short-term job placements; collecting better disaggregated data so progress can be measured; and supporting employers with the tools and knowledge they need to succeed.
Today, I want to focus on one recommendation that is specifically relevant to this committee’s study. Recommendation 6 calls on the Government of Canada to become an employer champion. The federal public service is one of the largest employers in the country. It sets standards, signals what is possible and has the power to model what inclusive employment looks like when it is done well.
Canada’s Ready, Willing and Able initiative, in partnership with our service delivery partner LiveWorkPlay in Ottawa, has demonstrated that people with intellectual disabilities can and do succeed in the federal public service. Their work has supported 231 jobs across 42 departments, with 50 permanent positions secured. These results show what is possible while underscoring how much further the federal system must go to achieve meaningful scale.
Right now, people with intellectual disabilities are severely under-represented in the federal workforce. This sends a message that these jobs are not meant for them, but the opposite could be true. The federal government could lead by intentionally hiring people with intellectual disabilities, redesigning job processes, proactively offering accommodations and publicly sharing what it learns. It could demonstrate that inclusive employment is not charity; it’s good public policy, and it’s good for workplaces.
We know inclusive employment works. Through Ready, Willing and Able, employers across Canada have successfully hired and retained people with intellectual disabilities when the right supports are in place. Programs like this show that when hiring systems are flexible and human supports are available, people with intellectual disabilities succeed in competitive-paying jobs. It offers a practical example of what the federal public service could scale as an employer champion.
Modernizing the Employment Equity Act is an opportunity to move beyond compliance and toward real inclusion, and it means ensuring the act works for those who have historically been left out, even within equity frameworks.
People with intellectual disabilities want what all Canadians want: meaningful work, fair pay and the dignity that comes from contributing to their communities. With the right reforms and federal leadership, employment equity can finally begin to deliver on that promise. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Carr.
Wendy Cukier, Professor, Entrepreneurship and Strategy, and Director, Diversity Institute, Toronto Metropolitan University, as an individual: Thank you so much. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I’ll try to keep my remarks brief, although that’s difficult for a professor.
First, I agree with much of what has been said. I think I have a different sense of the current context, perhaps because I’m in business school and perhaps because of the work that I do with employers. And my concern, frankly, is not only what more should and can be done, but also ensuring that we do not move backwards. The evidence is strong, despite gaps and areas requiring improvement: Canada’s employment equity legislation has helped accelerate the hiring and promotion of individuals from designated groups.
The research clearly shows that the public sector and federally regulated companies surpass others in terms of representation in their workforces, although there are still gaps.
It’s important to underscore, however, that currently, the employment equity legislation applies to less than 10% of jobs in this country. So if we’re talking about areas for opportunity, the application of the act and its scope are things that could be considered.
I am from a business school, and my orientation to this issue is not just coming from commitments to social justice or human rights, but the recognition that our economic development, sustainability, self-sufficiency and ability to enter new markets globally are very much grounded in our commitments to equity, diversity and inclusion.
We’ve seen horrific rhetoric, hate speech and the legitimization of words that I never thought I would hear in my lifetime. It’s really important that we reinforce — as many of the other speakers have — Canada’s unique context. As well, we have to separate misinformation from evidence and ground policy in data and evidence.
Many have talked about where the gaps are. I can talk more about the data and the research and how they reinforce much of what has been said.
Some of you know we provided expert testimony, for example, to support the Black Class Action suit. Also, I have previously testified that we believe that there is merit in extending designated groups to include the Black community and those who identify as 2SLGBTQIA+, but I can talk about that separately.
What I really wanted to underscore is that, despite the rhetoric and troubling signs of backsliding, we don’t have the most recent employment equity data available. However, we can see from research, for example, on board appointments and executive roles that there is evidence of backsliding.
It is important to underscore that most Canadians — more than half — think that equity, diversity and inclusion is mostly a good thing. They outnumber those who think it’s mostly a bad thing by 3 to 1, and yet we see politicians using this as a wedge issue, trying to dichotomize commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion against commitments to merit.
I think the employment equity legislation is an important instrument to advance our commitments to truth and reconciliation, to gender equality as well as inclusion for others, and I think we can do more.
Something I really wanted to underscore is the importance of linking these commitments to organizational performance and effectiveness. When we look at the implementation gaps, whether within the federal public service or within the private sector, people have mentioned tick-box exercises. I actually feel very strongly that to move beyond tick-box exercises, you have to appeal to the hearts and minds of the people responsible for implementation.
One of the most effective ways to do that, in my experience, is not by appealing to their better selves but to their self-interest. I think there is clear evidence to suggest that, regardless of the sector, doing a good job with equity, diversity and inclusion enhances organizational performance.
So I certainly agree with Professor Blackett’s recommendations, and we were a part of that process. However, I would like to add that we need unequivocal leadership and a clear tone from the top about why this is important, why this is not just about wokeness or some historical artifact and why it’s core to the Canadian fabric, to our values and to our social and economic development.
I think it’s critical to link commitments around equity, diversity and inclusion and representation in the workforce to the need to serve an increasingly diverse Canadian population. Whether it’s around recruiting talent, around services and markets or around penetrating new markets globally, there is no question that a diverse workforce helps us do these things better. This is true across sectors, whether it’s technology, health care, manufacturing or the public service.
Third, we think that the government’s approach to employment equity, which focuses primarily on the workforce, needs to be reinforced with commitments to mainstreaming gender equity, diversity and inclusion, as well as truth and reconciliation, through the whole of government, not just as a plus — as was mentioned before — but with respect to every investment, project and program. That will help reinforce their importance.
In closing, I want to say that Canada has the legislative foundation and public support needed to advance employment equity in this country. However, there is much that is at risk, and we can see that with the rapid shift in public opinion around immigration and how that was fuelled by misinformation and influenced public policy very quickly. That’s what I’m concerned will happen if we do not stand our ground.
Also, it’s important to think about this not just as a legal obligation, but as a prerequisite for an effective, trusted and future-ready public service. And it shouldn’t be a partisan issue. It’s marketing 101 and critical to communities large and small in every part of the country.
Thank you for your attention, and I welcome questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Cukier.
Amichai Wise, Steering Committee Member, Jewish Public Servants’ Network: Thank you, Madam Chair, honourable members of the committee and fellow panellists. It’s my privilege to appear before you representing the Jewish Public Servants’ Network, or JPSN, which represents approximately 700 members. The network connects Jewish public servants and allies across the Government of Canada to ensure that the needs and perspectives of Jewish public servants are conveyed and understood within the public service.
The JPSN actively collaborates with other affinity networks to cultivate a truly diverse and inclusive workforce.
The JPSN supports the recommendations in the Blackett report to create two new designated groups of Black workers and 2SLGBTQIA+ workers, as well as replacing the term “members of visible minorities” with “members of a racialized group.”
The JPSN submits that Jewish workers should be included as a numerated group under racialized persons, and I’ll proceed to explain why.
The federal government in Canada is the largest employer and a microcosm for what is occurring throughout the country.
Contemporary surges in anti-Semitism within Canada, therefore, are reflected within the civil service.
We are, however, stuck in something of a Catch-22 where Jewish people are not included in the protections afforded by the EEA because there is no large-scale data, such as data captured through self-identification. Currently, Jewish public servants are largely unable to self-identify.
A failure to interrupt this self-reinforcing systemic barrier can lead to increasingly concerning outcomes for Jewish employees.
While there has historically been a lack of data on Jewish public servants, we now have some small degree of data that, not surprisingly, indicates serious issues.
For the first time, the 2025 Public Service Employee Survey included information on Jewish employees, and the results are concerning.
Jewish employees reported experiencing harassment at 50% higher rates than the general public service population and discrimination at twice the general level.
These results are consistent with findings from a March 2024 survey administered by the JPSN of Jewish public servants across 55 departments and agencies that showed that many Jewish federal public servants have experienced discrimination in the workplace, such as being held responsible for the actions of the Israeli government, being accused of disloyalty to Canada, being faced with anti-Semitic tropes and microaggressions in the workplace and being told that they cannot participate in reconciliation exercises because they are colonizers. In one instance, a manager said to a Jewish employee that the Holocaust did not happen.
According to Statistics Canada data from July 2025, there were 920 police-reported hate crime incidents in 2024, making Jews the most targeted group in Canada — not just the most targeted religious group, but including all groups: race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation. That’s despite representing only 1% of the Canadian population.
While we as a network are most concerned about the public service, these events are happening in the communities where our members live and work.
It is worth noting that, despite the evidence that I just presented, the JPSN’s efforts to include Jews as a racialized group have been met with resistance by some, though not all, DEI professionals in the public service.
One frequent argument we hear for excluding Jews as a racialized group is that Jews are exclusively seen as a religious minority. This oversimplified characterization of Jews does not reflect the whole picture of Jewish identity. Jews are a people, a nation and an ethno-religious group, as mentioned in the Canadian Handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism.
Like all racialized groups, the scope of our discrimination is determined by those who discriminate against us to a degree. We have seen this historically — for example, in the Holocaust, where Jewish converts to Christianity faced the same murderous end through racial discrimination as Jews who did not convert.
Jewish people are further perceived as being homogeneously white and benefiting disproportionately from group prosperity and privilege as a result. This perception is historically and demographically inaccurate and conveniently ignores the legacy of discrimination against Jews in Canada.
The exclusion of Jews from the EEA creates a data and protection gap for Jewish Canadians at a time of rising anti-Semitism. The lack of data should never be mistaken for the absence of harm.
And so, the JPSN has the following recommendations: The Government of Canada should include Jews as an identifiable group under enumerated groups of racialized persons under any amendments to the Employment Equity Act. Further, the Government of Canada should increase opportunities for Jewish public servants to self-identify. As dedicated public servants, we strive to be in the service of Canadians and work hard each day to ensure fairness and inclusion for all Canadians. We are simply asking for the same in our workplace. I would invite any questions.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses for your statements. We will now move into a question-and-answer session. We have five minutes for each question and its corresponding answer.
Senator Arnold: Thank you to all three witnesses. This is fascinating. If there was any question of why this is so important, I think it has been dispelled. My first question is a short one for you, Krista. Have you had any follow-up with the labour minister recently?
Ms. Carr: On this particular issue, no, we have not.
Senator Arnold: Thank you. To Professor Cukier — first, I loved what you said and totally agree that it’s a “tone from the top” question. This is kind of an unfair question for you, but if you had 10 minutes with the Prime Minister right now, how would you communicate to him the importance of “tone from the top” on this question?
Ms. Cukier: It’s interesting because there are some people in the equity, inclusion and diversity community who spend a lot of time talking to people who think exactly like them. I spent a lot of my time talking to people who don’t.
There was an Indigenous Elder who once said, “If you want to catch a bear, you have to think like a bear.”
I spend a lot of time with businesspeople and people who do not live and breathe equity, diversity and inclusion. It doesn’t mean they don’t share the basic values, but the language and the way they think about things may be very different.
So, quite frankly, with the Prime Minister and his current preoccupation with the economy, international trade, self-sufficiency and even sustainability, I can make a very coherent argument about how, if you do not include women, Indigenous Peoples, racialized people, the Black community, persons with disabilities and the 2SLGBTQI+ community, you’re fishing in a really small pond, whether you’re looking for labour and talent, looking at businesses or looking at opportunities to go global.
I think the economic evidence is really clear about linking this to our growth agenda, but also cost reduction. If you get someone a university education and you get someone a job, you are reducing social costs that result from underemployment, physical and mental health consequences and so on.
At this moment, given the disruption and crisis that we’re facing, that framing becomes very important, not just for the Prime Minister but for a lot of people in positions of power.
Senator Arnold: That is very helpful.
Senator K. Wells: The first question is for Professor Cukier. Thank you for being here. A common theme we’ve heard is that equity, diversity and inclusion policies aren’t just the right thing to do; they are the smart thing to do. Inclusive workplaces have better retention. Employees are more productive when they don’t face discrimination. Diverse ideas lead to more innovative and better solutions and, in turn, have significant economic benefits such as higher productivity, employee retention, product innovation and healthier communities. These are just a few examples, some of which you have mentioned as well.
Could you expand upon the economic benefits of the proposed changes to the Employment Equity Act and any tangible examples you might foresee if that were to pass and be implemented?
Ms. Cukier: Sure. Again, my focus has not been so much on things like adding the designated groups, but we have done research. Specifically, last year we published a report on the state of Black economics, research that looked at education, employment, promotion and entrepreneurship. It’s patently clear that if you have gaps that are caused by anti-Black racism — and we can show that it’s a factor in all those areas — you’re missing economic opportunities, and there are economic costs as well, whether it’s through social programs or health care and so on.
Looking at the 2SLGBTQI+ community, we’ve done work with what is now called the Queer Chamber of Commerce, looking, for example, at the experience of entrepreneurs from the community and the barriers they face. Canada is a country of small business, and so it’s not just a matter of the things that were discussed by the previous witnesses in terms of access to employment and reducing mental and physical health consequences of exclusion; it’s also a question of creating jobs because we know that entrepreneurs from the designated groups also create jobs when they’re given opportunities. In the current environment, thinking about procurement, major projects, community benefits and all those levers to complement employment equity is the smart thing to do.
Senator K. Wells: If I could follow up on that, would you agree with the general statement, then, that passing these changes to the Employment Equity Act would be good for Canada’s economy?
Ms. Cukier: I believe so. The only thing I would say is the current environment is very challenging with a minority government, with the kind of opposition that’s being faced and so on. Even though we can show public opinion is there, that doesn’t necessarily translate into the ability to pass legislation.
Senator K. Wells: A good example of how all of Parliament coming together despite political party or affiliation to ensure that this act is passed quickly would be a strength for Canada’s economy moving forward, then.
Ms. Cukier: Yes.
Senator K. Wells: Great. Thank you.
My next question is for Mr. Wise. In terms of the wider discussion we’re having here today about equity and fighting discrimination, I wonder if you have any reactions to the recent announcement that the federal government is eliminating the position of Canada’s Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism. As we have heard, instead, it will establish a new Advisory Council on Rights, Equality and Inclusion. Do you have a view or perspective on the elimination of the special envoy and the creation of this new advisory council?
Mr. Wise: Thank you for your question. First, I would be remiss if I didn’t take an opportunity to thank past special envoys, both the Honourable Irwin Cotler and Ambassador Deborah Lyons, and their staff for their support of the mandate of the Jewish Public Servants’ Network, or JPSN. In particular, we’re grateful for the publication of the Canadian Handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism.
Second, I sincerely hope that the newly announced advisory council continues the good work of the Office of the Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism by continuing to deal with the surge of anti-Semitism both in larger society and within the federal public service. The JPSN stands by to support the efforts of the council in fulfilling its important work.
The Chair: Thank you. Until I see another hand, I will ask a question or two or three.
Ms. Carr, I would like to explore a comment you made earlier with respect to the fact that hiring and working with people with intellectual disabilities is not charity but good public policy and good for employers, if not the economy. Could you expand on that, please?
Ms. Carr: Yes. We often think about hiring people with disabilities generally, and certainly people with intellectual disabilities, as something we do to be nice or as tokenism a little bit. What we’re really saying is that when people with intellectual disabilities are given a chance to work, as we have shown in the limited experience we’ve had in the federal public service, they are obviously very valuable employees who contribute a lot to workplaces.
To what Professor Cukier and others have said in these panels, diverse hiring and, in this particular circumstance, hiring people with disabilities or people with intellectual disabilities specifically is good for business. The outcomes are better, retention is better and turnover is reduced. The benefits to employers in hiring people with disabilities and, in our case, people with intellectual disabilities, are proven over and over again. However, we still aren’t doing it at the scale that we should be, and I think that is a gap we’re really trying to focus on.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
People with disabilities are already included in the act. Could you talk about where people with intellectual disabilities stand with respect to that?
Ms. Carr: We’re not looking to make people with intellectual disabilities a special group in and of themselves. People with disabilities are not a homogeneous group, so we don’t disaggregate within that category by type of disability, et cetera. Of course, layering an intersectional lens on top of that is critically important. That’s what we would really like to see.
Then we can see, even within the category of disability, who’s falling further behind and who isn’t getting as much of a chance as others.
Thank you for the question, senator. It was a good opportunity for me to clarify that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Wise, I wanted to ask two things of you. You talked about collaborating with affinity groups. Was there a role that your organization played with respect to Ms. Blackett’s study or work?
Mr. Wise: Yes, we provided submissions to Professor Blackett’s study. We worked with other groups at the time, and we’ve continued our engagement, mostly with the Treasury Board — inside the government employment family — to further our views on that. But, yes, we have. It was maybe three years ago, I think, that we provided submissions.
The Chair: You talked about the fact that members of the Jewish community are not homogeneous. Could you talk about intersectionality within that understanding?
Mr. Wise: Of course. Intersectionality is a big part of many Jewish people and their experiences; it’s just a very diverse group, inevitably so.
I think some communities may appear to have different pigmentation or whatnot, but we’re going back to a people who, 3,000 years ago, were expelled and dispersed around the world. So you end up, after thousands of years, perhaps, looking like the people you’re living with, but the connection remains.
But, of course, in a more modern sense of intersectionality, there are all kinds of Jews, obviously. This is partly why, when we take positions to support other marginalized groups, we are very quick to recognize their stories and how they approach their identity, and we’re quick to support that.
The Chair: Thank you. I do have questions for Ms. Cukier, but I’m putting myself on second round.
Senator McCallum: Thank you all for your presentations. It’s disheartening to hear all these stories. Despite legislation that has been put in place and people knowing what should be done, things seem to be getting worse.
These groups represent the Canadians who have been ignored and are mirrors of the neglect of existing legislation and policies, like the missing and murdered women. I’m talking from first-hand experience of being a living witness of residential school.
We’re looking at bringing back humanity to the processes, our legislation and everything we do.
Do you have any final comments on anything, or have you thought of something that you would like entered as evidence here for all the panellists?
Mr. Wise: I’d like to wholeheartedly support your statement. It is about humanity; it’s about just recognizing that. I don’t have much to add to your eloquent words. Thank you, senator.
Ms. Carr: I can go next. Then I’ll hand it over to Professor Cukier.
Thank you. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement as well. I think the big thing we sometimes miss is, while we talk about “build Canada strong” — or whatever the slogan of the day is — what it’s really about is the diversity that makes up the fabric of Canadian society and makes us who we are.
We will only be strong as a country when we capitalize on the gifts and talents brought by each and every citizen and support everybody in reaching their fullest potential. The data is there to show us that it works.
We know, in the employment context, it’s good for business. We know people would rather work in diverse workplaces. We know all of these things. What is keeping us, then, from scaling this up, actualizing it and making it what we know it has the potential to be? There are pockets of it all over, which are great examples. That is what I would want to say.
Ms. Cukier: I would echo that. I think the evidence is clear. I’m not sure I would agree that “we” — meaning everybody — know this. I think there’s a group of people who understand this very clearly and know the data.
I can say that the gap between Black people and everyone else has narrowed in terms of university graduation — Black people are just as likely to have graduated from university as anyone else — and yet Black university graduates are twice as likely to be employed in jobs only requiring high-school education; or that a university graduate with a disability has the same employment outcomes as a high-school dropout; or that Indigenous Peoples with a university education have the same employment outcomes as everyone else, but only half of them get a post-secondary education because of all the barriers, the history of genocide and so on.
I don’t think, quite frankly, everybody understands that, because if they did, how would we be hearing the sewage echoed in the highest levels of our country around the dichotomy between merit and inclusion, or stereotypes and racist tropes that I never thought I would hear in my adult lifetime?
So I agree with you that the evidence is there, and it is about humanity, but I think it’s about leadership and standing up for these important principles in the face of so much rhetoric and opposition and, frankly, a pretty scary global context.
The Chair: We are at second round.
Ms. Cukier, may I call you Wendy?
Ms. Cukier: Yes, you may.
The Chair: You made a couple statements that I’m trying to piece together in my mind. You talked about the importance of linking commitments to organizational performance, and you also talked about how it’s important to appeal to hearts and minds. How do you do that?
Ms. Cukier: It comes back to what we were just talking about. There’s the evidence and there’s the data, and we need to reinforce that. We need to ensure that our policy decisions are based on evidence, not necessarily shifts in public opinion. So I think the evidence has to drive policy where possible.
At the same time, I think we have to recognize that — and our polling shows this — more than half of Canadians think that, basically, equity, diversity and inclusion is a good thing in the workplace; 18% think it is a bad thing; but 33% don’t have a view one way or the other.
How do we move those people into the camp of those who think it is a good thing? How do we ensure that leaders stand up and put their courage in the sticking place? I think that’s where it’s not just an appeal to the data and the evidence; it’s an appeal to people’s hearts.
I think of Ed Clark, who was CEO of TD Bank. There’s a very well-known story about him coming out very strongly in support of 2SLGBTQI+ rights at a time when no one was talking about them, and he was CEO of a fairly conservative bank. It was because someone from his executive team sat down and told him that he was gay; Ed couldn’t believe that he had known this person for years and that he had only just shared this aspect of his identity because of fear of marginalization, stigma and so on.
For some people, those stories really make a difference.
The Chair: You mentioned the immigration bill being informed by the way that public opinions sometimes inform public policy. However, you also mentioned that about 50% of Canadians support DEI, albeit with a gap in the middle that doesn’t care; there’s no movement on that beyond what we currently have today. What do you think the difference is there?
Ms. Cukier: Immigrants are a smaller percentage of the population. If you look at the designated groups and add them up, 50% of the population is women, 25% is racialized and 27% identify as having a disability. While the percentages of the 2SLGBTQI+ community and persons identifying as Indigenous are smaller, they have a lot of allies.
If you think about it, there’s a very strong critical mass, and as long as we support one another, that critical mass can hold. The difference is that immigrants were scapegoated. They’re a smaller percentage of the population. There were very deliberate efforts at misinformation and linking immigration rates to housing prices. I think it was a Senate committee that looked at foreign interference and how they used immigration as a wedge issue and so on.
Even though immigrants are not a designated group, we know a high percentage of them are also racialized. We know that 60% of the Black community are also immigrants.
For me, that is the canary in the coalmine that I’m watching carefully because I’m concerned that we might see similar shifts, particularly if different groups say, “Well, employment equity was good for you. It wasn’t good for me. Therefore, it’s a bad thing,” or whatever.
I think we have to be aware of those potential threats, and we have to ensure that we do not succumb to the rhetoric and misinformation that we’re seeing being promoted very actively in certain quarters.
Merit versus equity, diversity and inclusion is one of those sound bites. The legislative committee looking at science and technology got a big dose of that. We can’t be complacent and assume that everybody thinks or feels the same way we do. We have to be vigilant.
The Chair: I believe there are no more questions for the panel. I want to take this opportunity, on behalf of the committee, to sincerely and deeply thank you for taking the time to appear before us today. Your testimony will be very helpful as we move forward with our deliberations.
Thank you, honourable colleagues and guests. That concludes the public portion of our meeting. We will suspend this meeting for a few minutes and resume in camera to discuss our draft agenda.
(The committee continued in camera.)