Evidence of the Social Problem Outcome
Wage Gap in Canada
In this graph, the average annual earnings of full-time men workers is compared to women in the same position. You can clearly see the wage gap between the two genders.
(In 2000, there was an average wage difference of $15,600, in 2001, a difference of $16,400. In 2002 the difference was $16,200, $16,200 in 2003, $17,000 in 2004 and finally in 2005 an average difference of $16,500) 25
(In 2000, there was an average wage difference of $15,600, in 2001, a difference of $16,400. In 2002 the difference was $16,200, $16,200 in 2003, $17,000 in 2004 and finally in 2005 an average difference of $16,500) 25
Canada in Comparison to other Countries
In this graph, you can see the Gender Gap in Median Earnings of Full-time Employees. Here Canada has the 4th
largest pay gap of the 22 countries listed. You can also see the OECD average (the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) listed, which Canada's median is above. 26
A 28 year fight for pay-equity at Canada Post
The original complaint for this issue was created in 1983. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found a wage gap for women working in clerical jobs with men working in identical valued jobs in various operation jobs at Canada Post. This discriminatory act affected 2,300 employees, and finally after 28 years, a $150 million compensation has been awarded for a settlement that will cover the wage difference between 1983 and 2002.
See the National Post news article here 27
See the National Post news article here 27
CNR promoted policies discouraging women from working in blue-collar jobs
In 1987, the CNR appealed decision made by the Human Rights Tribunal made to prevent discrimination for female workers at CNR who were said to have been prevented and discouraged from working in blue-collar, or manual labour, jobs. The Rights Tribunal put down an order that 1 in ever 4 hired must be a woman, but after the appeal, the case was brought to federal court. The court ended up ruling in favour of CNR because “s. 41(2)(a) allows the Tribunal to prescribe measures which will prevent discriminatory practices from occurring in future, but not to remedy the consequences of past discrimination”. Finally, when brought to the Supreme Court, the court overturned the federal governments's decision because the tribunal’s order was "to prevent the same or a similar (discriminatory) practice occurring in the future." The order’s intent was not to remedy the situation but to break the continuing cycle and to attempt to guarantee that future women wanting to work there would not face the same barriers 28
See the court summary document here
See the court summary document here