By Gender Dissent
One more time for those at the back: “Women are adult female human beings!”
Modernizing the Employment Equity Act
The Government of Canada established the Employment Equity Act (EEA) Review Task Force in July 2021 with the mandate to make “concrete, independent and evidence-based recommendations to the Minister of Labour on how to modernize the Act.”
Created almost 40 years ago and last revised in 1995, the stated purpose of the Act was to achieve equality in the federally regulated workplace (e.g., government/public administration, banking, telecommunications, broadcasting, transportation, postal services, Crown corporations) “so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability” and, “to correct the conditions of disadvantage.”
The Act requires employers to “engage in proactive employment practices to increase the representation of four designated groups, by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences."
The four groups designated for employment equity purposes are:
1. women
2. Aboriginal peoples
3. persons with disabilities
4. members of visible minorities
Legislative review and modernization are undertaken by government from time to time to ensure the continued relevance and effectiveness of its laws. They can help clarify ambiguities, resolve inconsistencies, eliminate outdated or redundant provisions, ensure alignment with new public policy goals and priorities, and more.
“...modernization of the Act is an important step in advancing the state of equity, diversity and inclusion in federally regulated workplaces, including by addressing the need for better retention and leadership opportunities for under-represented groups at some of Canada’s largest corporations. Creating more equitable, diverse and inclusive workplaces will also help result in higher productivity and better retention. Taken together with other measures, this will help build a country where every Canadian has a fair and equal chance to reach their full potential.”
https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/news/2021/07/government-of-canada-launches-task-force-to-review-the-employment-equity-act.html
The task force that was assembled to undertake the review was comprised of a dozen members – nine women and three men, supposedly representing the diversity the government seeks to reflect and retain in our federally regulated workplaces.
"As we work to identify ways to make work environments more inclusive and representative, we must recognize the lived experiences of women, LGBTQ2 Canadians, Indigenous peoples, Black and racialized Canadians, persons with disabilities and other under-represented groups in federally regulated workplaces, and ensure that the Act reflects the realities of today’s workplaces."
Having conducted “extensive research and engagement with Canadians, stakeholders and subject matter experts,” the task force has completed its mission. The government is now asking Canadians for their reactions to what the task force has recommended.
When it comes to how women should de defined in the Act, it appears the task force is in a bit of a conundrum.
Who’s that lady?
One task force member of particular note is Helen Kennedy.
For some reason, Kennedy’s biography on the list of the task force members omits her key credential for being assigned to the influential team. Since 2007, Kennedy has served as the Executive Director of Egale – 17 years at the helm of Canada’s “leading organization for 2SLGBTQI people and issues.”
With an original mission to fight for the “Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (E.G.A.L.E.),” the organization transitioned in 2007 to one that promotes and lobbies for, among other things, gender affirmation and transitioning of children, as exposed in a previous Gender Dissent story by Eva Kurilova.
Helen Kennedy (“she/her”) – Executive Director of Egale. Egale has received millions of dollars of federal funding with which it promotes policies that harm vulnerable children, injure families, and dismiss or transgress the sex-based rights of women.
Last year, Egale attempted to block the implementation of the Government of Saskatchewan’s Parents’ Bill of Rights which requires parental consent before a child under 16 can use a different gender-related name or pronoun at school.
In January of this year, Egale promised to bring legal action against the Government of Alberta following the announcement by Premiere Danielle Smith of new policies to safeguard children and protect women’s sport.
Most recently, Egale has sought intervenor status in an appeal in a defamation law suit against Waterloo Region District School Board by teacher Carolyn Burjoski. Burjoski was expelled from a school board meeting in January 2022, when, as a delegate, she criticized the age-appropriateness of some newly purchased “diverse” children’s books with sexual content in the school library.
One wonders about the integrity of the EEA Review Task Force – given its inclusion of the executive director of an elite, government-funded 2SLGBTQI lobby group that denies the biological reality of women (see below), is trying to dismantle parental rights, and is working to destroy the reputation of a concerned teacher.
Initial consultation
The EEA Review Task Force conducted its research and consultations during the pandemic preoccupation in 2022. Among the questions posed to the public by the Task Force was:
“Should the Employment Equity Act redefine and/or reflect the modern understandings of the current designated groups (for example, different sub-groups within the larger group) and consider adding more groups?”
Canadian women, who had been privately networking and organizing since the passage of Bill C-16, and who continue to raise awareness about the conflict of rights it introduced, had something to say.
In May 2022, Gender Dissent published a submission to the EEA Review Task Force from Canadian Women’s Sex-Based Rights (caWsbar). When it came to the question of defining “women” in the Act, caWsbar was adamant:
“Women are adult female human beings.”
The final report of the task force
The final report of the EEA Review Task Force was released to the public by Labour Minister Seamus O’Regan Jr. in December 2023.
“The Government welcomes this report and the reality it presents as an opportunity for reflection, for assessment, and for action. The Government broadly supports the Task Force’s recommendations for transforming Canada’s approach to employment equity.”
Among the 187 recommendations of the task force:
"Recommendation 3.14: Women should remain an employment equity group."
“Our task force concludes that women workers should remain an employment equity group in Canada, and that we should intensify efforts to achieve substantive equality for all women." - Pg. 10, EEA Review Report Executive Summary
This would appear to be good news until one reads further in the report and understands that the “women” the task force recommends being maintained as an equity group seemingly includes anyone who identifies one:
– Pg. 129, EEA Review Final Report
Not surprisingly, the task force report also includes this recommendation, which the government promises to be among the first recommendations to be actioned for modernizing the EEA:
"Recommendation 3.18: 2SLGBTQI+ workers should comprise a new employment equity group."
We have questions:
How will the addition of 2SLGBTQI+ workers as a new employment equity group in the EEA be implemented, provided the government’s direction to respect and support anyone to identify their gender however they wish – including gender fluid – at any time at all?
If a man identifies as a woman, will they be accounted for in the women equity group or the 2SLGBTQI+ equity group?
But wait, what? Fraudulent self-identification is real?
While the government has accepted the task force’s recommendation to maintain women as an equity group (one that apparently includes males who self-identify women), the report references known instances of fraudulent self-identification by some citizens who may want to claim benefits or accommodations not intended for them.
“The Task Force addressed the particular challenge that arises in the context of self-identification for Indigenous peoples, considering that self-identification under the Employment Equity Act framework needs to be understood in the context of the Government of Canada’s responsibility for dismantling internal colonization through an evolving process of reconciliation. The task force acknowledges the gravity with which we currently witness the combination of instances of identity fraud by non-Indigenous individuals who claim preferential treatment, alongside First Nations, Métis or Inuit workers who hesitate to self-identify for fear of facing further discrimination.”
– Pg. 9, EEA Review Report Executive Summary
Canadians are left to understand then, that while the government acknowledges that some citizens may falsely self-identify as Indigenous for reasons of self-gain, the potential for men to self-identify as women in order to benefit from services or programs initially intended for biological women, or to access women’s private spaces or activities for any reason, is, apparently, a non-starter.
Consider this against the Prime Minister’s pronouncements that “trans women ARE women” (on International Women’s Day, no less) and denouncements of any woman who may object to his assertion.
If this doesn't convince Canadians that Trudeau doesn't have the best interests of actual women at heart, watch him high-tail it away from a citizen in Shawinigan asking him how he defines a woman:
Next steps towards modernizing the Employment Equity Act
In order to implement the task force’s recommendations to modernize the EEA, in May 2024, the government announced another “focused” consultation – this one specifically asking for input from stakeholders in the present (and future) employment equity groups.
Once again heeding the call, and seeing that once again, the government needs help to accurately define what a woman is, caWsbar, along with Women’s Declaration International – Canada (WDI Canada), prepared a joint submission. In it, they again emphasize the necessity of maintaining women as an employment equity group and that women must be clearly defined in legislation as “adult female human beings” – as was submitted in response to the initial consultation in 2022.
They assert that incorporating the reality-based, biological definition for women is the only way that the Act can deliver on its purpose “to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment.”
Below is an excerpt of the submission. The submission letter in its entirely is posted on the WDI Canada and caWsbar websites.
In response to the Employment Equity Act Consultation review question regarding whether we have concerns with women being maintained as a designated group, WDI Canada and caWsbar provide this joint response:
In the current political climate, there is a growing number of people espousing the view that women who are not transgender-identified, homosexual, or racialized are an oppressor class. We have concerns with eliminating women as a designated group based on this controversial view.
We strongly urge the task force to ensure the continued protection of all members of the female sex class by preserving “women” as a designated group, as the Act purports to be “a proactive approach to achieving and sustaining substantive equality in the workplace.” In order to achieve this goal, the disparity between male and female employees must be addressed.
Women must be defined as “adult female human beings,” as described by Liberal MP Lisa Hepfner in her response to question number 2473 in the House of Commons on May 6, 2024.
This definition was so widely accepted at the time the Act was written that legislators left the word undefined. They could not have anticipated a time when men would claim to be members of, and take opportunities and protections from, the historically oppressed female sex class.
Article 1 of the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) defines discrimination against women to mean, “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”
Sex is defined by the United Nations as “the physical and biological characteristics that distinguish males and females.” (Gender Equality Glossary, UN Women).
The United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem, recently wrote a position paper on the definition of “woman” in international human rights treaties, specifically the CEDAW, which Canada signed on July 17, 1980. Alsalem makes it crystal clear that women should be defined as biological females and that any signatory of CEDAW would be in contravention of international law by adopting any other definition.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 15 1) states, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”
The Charter predates the Employment Equity Act, and it specifically included “sex” in Provision 15 2) Section (1) because the female sex is unquestionably the disadvantaged sex class. Further, Section (2) Subsection (1) provides for programming to ameliorate conditions of disadvantage that women experience by virtue of their sex class.
Section 28 of the Charter states “Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons”. The language used in the Charter makes it plainly obvious that the Charter was concerned about equality of the two biological sexes.
The Canadian Human Rights Act clearly defines the prohibited grounds of discrimination to include sex and clarifies that “(2) Where the ground of discrimination is pregnancy or child-birth, the discrimination shall be deemed to be on the ground of sex.” Modernizing the Employment Equity Act should include clarification that “woman” is a sex category and not a gender category because gender and sex are no longer synonymous. The word gender has evolved to have many other connotations. Women’s rights in Canada were established on the basis of sex. This is noted by Professor Debra Haak of Queens University Faculty of Law.
Further, as stated above, in the House of Commons on May 6, 2024, in response to question number 2473 from Conservative MP Kerri Lynn D Findlay, Liberal MP Lisa Hepfner, parliamentary secretary to WAGE replied, “a woman is an adult female human being.”
The Oxford dictionary also aligns with this description, defining woman as “an adult female human being.”
Whatever definition the task force uses must include all females, regardless of sexual orientation, ‘gender identity,’ or gender expression. Women are not defined anywhere else in Canadian legislation. For this reason, it is of the utmost importance to ensure that the definition reflects the spirit of the law. We submit that the most inclusive definition of woman would be “adult female human being.” No woman should have to identify into their own sex class. The Act should not require, for example, a female who identifies as a transgender person to ‘identify as’ female. It should be made clear on self-identification forms that it is a biological sex category.
No biological female’s protections should be lost in the modernization of the Employment Equity Act. By defining women as biologically female, the rights of all women, regardless of gender expression or ‘gender identity,’ would be preserved.
Using the definition of “adult female human being” would enable the intersectional lens to be used more effectively. For example, a transgender-identifying female could face employment barriers based on being a member of two designated groups.
There is no risk to adopting “adult female human being” as a definition of women since the Employment Equity Act is adopting 2SLGBTQIA+ as its own designated group.
Transgender-identifying males, who are members of the male sex class, would still be protected under the Act from unfair employment practices.
Using the definition of “adult female human being” for women would include intersex individuals. Intersex is an umbrella term for people who can nevertheless be categorized into either male or female - perhaps not in conventional ways, or at conventional times. That is why it is important not to ask one’s sex “at birth” or “sex assigned at birth” on self-identification forms. For an intersex person, they may have been assigned the wrong sex category at birth that did not match their genetic biological sex, or they might have discovered their biological sex at a later time in their life. Therefore, when asking workers to self-identify their sex, the question should clearly ask their biological sex.
According to Intersex Human Rights of Australia (IHRA), “Intersex people have innate sex characteristics that don’t fit medical and social norms for female or male bodies, and that create risks or experiences of stigma, discrimination and harm.” No intersex person should be excluded from the female category for having a body that varies from the norm. Scientifically, intersex people are people living with disorders of sexual differentiation. All female intersex individuals would be included in the category of female, such as intersex workers with Trisomy X, SRY negative, Tetrasomy X, or Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia. IHRA also advises against offering a sex category “other” to select on forms.
The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act defines “female predominant” in relation to a job group or job class, as “a job group or job class, as the case may be, composed of at least 70% female employees.” It is made clear here that the societal problem of inequality in the workplace relates to the biological sex of employees. The main intent of including women as a designated group of the Employment Equity Act should be to reach parity between male and female workers.
The report to the Clerk of the Privy Council by the Treasury Board and the Department of Justice published in September 2018 states that, “Sex refers to biological characteristics, whereas gender refers to a social and personal identity. Departments and agencies should collect or display gender information by default, unless sex information is specifically needed.” We argue that when it comes to employment equity between the two sexes of male and female, sex information is specifically needed. Since the self-identification forms are confidential, and there is an option to opt out, there is no need or requirement to make any exceptions for the collection of sex-specific information.
The report also states that Departments and agencies should collect sex information when biological information is necessary to fulfill the specific needs of programs or services such as when demographic statistics are required. We would argue that biological information is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the Employment Equity Act, and that the Act requires demographic statistics to measure outcomes of employment equity between male and female workers. The conditions of exception outlined by the report are clearly met by the Employment Equity Act.
Gender as we know it today is a social construct, based on sex stereotypes which continue to be used to subjugate women. Biological sex, on the other hand, is an immutable characteristic found in the genetic coding of every cell of the human body and is established at the moment of conception. It is on the basis of our female biology that these sex stereotypes have persisted.
Signed,
The women of International Women’s Declaration – Canada
The women of Canadian Women’s Sex-Based Rights
Comments