Pay inequality persists for women, minorities in federal public service: report

OTTAWA – While the federal government has made gains on diversity and equity in the public service, inequities persist when it comes to pay, a new Treasury Board report says.
Compared with the entire core public service, employees who fall into 'equity groups' — women, Indigenous Peoples, visible minorities and people with disabilities — are more likely to fall into the lower income groups and less likely to be among employees making over $100,000 a year.
The Employment Equity in the Public Service of Canada report for 2023-24 divides employees into six income groups, starting at those who make less than $50,000 a year and topping out with those who make $150,000 or more a year.
The data shows that about one-third of all employees made less than $75,000, including 1.7 per cent who made less than $50,000. But 39 per cent of women — who account for 57 per cent of all employees — made less than $75,000.
Almost 35 per cent of Indigenous employees made less than $75,000, as did almost 35 per cent of employees with disabilities and 37 per cent of visible minorities. The report said 46 per cent of Black employees made less than $75,000.
With the exception of employees with disabilities, members of identified equity groups were also under-represented at the highest pay levels.
The data shows that almost 13 per cent of all public servants made more than $125,000, including 3.6 per cent who made more than $150,000.
That compares with 11 per cent of female employees making more than $125,000, 10 per cent of Indigenous employees, 11 per cent of visible minorities, and eight per cent of Black employees.
The data shows 14 per cent of employees with disabilities made more than $125,000.
The report says employees in equity groups have seen some improvement in pay.
Nicholas Marcus Thompson, president and CEO of the Black Class Action Secretariat, said that while the numbers are going up, 'the story hasn't changed.'
'Racialized workers, including highly qualified Black employees, remain stuck in the lowest-paid roles, while decision-making positions stay out of reach,' he said. 'This isn't a pipeline problem. It's a systemic failure that demands legislative action.'
Thompson said the government promised to modernize the Employment Equity Act in December 2023 but no real change has happened in the years since.
'Until the government acts, the status quo will hold and racialized workers will continue to be shut out of positions of power,' Thompson said. 'Change isn't real until it reaches the paycheque.'
The report shows that the number of federal government employees across all groups has increased since 2022-23.
The number of people in employment equity groups holding executive positions has also increased overall, though their representation is still lower in the higher executive levels.
The Canadian Press has reached out to the Treasury Board for comment on the data but has not yet received a response.
Nathan Prier, president of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, said the salary data is 'disappointing but not surprising.'
Prier said the public 'heard very clearly' from Justice Jocelyne Gagné, who earlier this year denied certification for a class-action lawsuit filed by Black public servants alleging discrimination in the public service — but also acknowledged the existence of widespread systematic discrimination in many areas of the federal bureaucracy.
Black federal workers who launched the $2.5-billion claim against the federal government are appealing the court's decision.
'This underlines how much we need to expand anti-discrimination measures in the federal workplace,' said Prier. 'We're still wasting talent by allowing artificial barriers rooted in discrimination to persist.'
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 18, 2025.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Winnipeg Free Press

an hour ago

• Winnipeg Free Press

Bill and James' excellent adventure

What if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 election, making her president, and making husband Bill Clinton the first first gentleman in U.S. history — and deep into her first term, Bill had been charged with murder? Oh dear. And that's pretty much all you need to know before launching into the third collaboration between former president Bill Clinton and super-prolific thriller author James Patterson, following The President is Missing and The President's Daughter. Bebeto Matthews / Associated Press files Bill Clinton (left) and James Patterson… TK We've got a courtroom drama, political thriller and police procedural all rolled into one that's both preposterous and preposterously entertaining. The first gentleman is Cole Wright, husband of President Madeleine Wright; he's a former tight end with the New England Patriots, one of whose cheerleaders he is accused of murdering 17 years ago. The big difference this time around is that Cole isn't the first-person narrator, after two whiz-bang novels in which the narrator was a male president who was the greatest warrior in the U.S. of A. No, this time our narrator is a Black woman lawyer and Yale law professor, Brea Cooke (check the initials). She's been researching a book about the disappearance and presumed death of cheerleader Suzanne Bonanno, and had been working along with Brea's romantic and professional partner Garrett Wilson, an investigative reporter. The first few pages tell us Cole is going to trial on the charges, Garrett is dead and it's flashback time. President Maddy is a Democrat, who stands by her man but believes his conviction would scuttle her re-election chances. Clinton and Patterson obviously started writing this book before the most recent election, back when presidents didn't mess with the justice system's independence. Spoiler alert — the word 'pardon' never appears herein. Brea and Garrett met at Dartmouth, the Ivy League school where a generation earlier, Cole, Maddy and her chief of staff Burton had all hung out together. There are rumours of a young woman's having been raped at a frat party full of football players, but all witnesses were bought or threatened into silence. People who know something about the dead cheerleader having dated Cole, and he having allegedly treated her violently before she vanished, start getting murdered. Who could have seen this coming? Brea knows she's being followed by two shady characters, we know a minor-league mobster has unleashed thugs, we know there's a professional hitperson with a sniper rifle stalking a whole lot of people, we know several conspiracies and cabals are feeding Brea clues for reasons unknown, we know intrepid homicide detective Marie Gagnon is refusing to drop her sleuthing — oodles of mysterious stuff we know, without knowing a lot of the why and by whom. The First Gentleman Why did the authors choose the New England Patriots? Maybe because the Pats had a real-life tight end named Aaron Hernandez who was charged with three murders and convicted of one murder. But we digress… While her husband is on trial, President Maddy is busy trying to stop China from invading the Philippines without starting a war, and she's trying to get enough votes from both parties (Bill probably wrote this part) for a rainbows-and-unicorns plan to prevent the States from going bankrupt, by increasing taxes on the wealthy to keep basic programs such as social security and Medicaid solvent. Bill, in what parallel universe did you find these agreeable Republicans? Readers may spend several chapters thinking The First Gentleman will concentrate on violence against women. Then they may think the authors are questioning why a young man who won the gene pool and then married into unimaginable power and wealth should lose everything because of one incident that he now acts in public as though he regrets. Ultimately, the authors have used a devastating societal ill as simply a plot device on which to hang another thriller full of Clinton's intriguing insights into politics and Patterson's bang-bang, never-stop-for-breath plots. Retired Free Press reporter Nick Martin reckons American football coaches will rapidly turn pages for clues how one tight end can turn a small school like Dartmouth, where players are required to go to class and pass courses, into a national university football power.

Winnipeg Free Press

2 hours ago

• Winnipeg Free Press

Canada still doesn't understand respecting Indigenous rights

Opinion Thirty-five years ago this week, history was made in Manitoba. Events this week in Ottawa point to just how little we have learnt from that history. In Manitoba in June of 1990, Elijah Harper, MLA for what was then the third party NDP Opposition in a minority government, said 'No', and opposed the Meech Lake Accord. The backdrop was clear. A crisis. In this case, the 'need' to include Quebec in the constitution. The solution, Canadians were told, was the Meech Lake Accord. It was agreed to by Canada's premiers with an artificial deadline set by then-prime minister Brian Mulroney. He talked about rolling the dice. There was one problem. There were many people opposed to Meech Lake. In particular, Indigenous people were clear. It not only excluded Indigenous people, but threatened to be a major step backwards. Elijah Harper was the voice for Indigenous Peoples when he came out against the Accord. What is often missed is how Elijah Harper said 'No'. He said no to procedurally giving leave to rush through the ratification of Meech Lake. Despite great pressure from the federal government, Speaker Denis Rocan ruled in favour of the key point of order brought forward by Elijah Harper arguing that the proper notice procedure had not been followed. There was no closure and the Legislature could not pass the Accord before the deadline. Thirty-five years later, in Ottawa, the House of Commons is rushing through Bill C-5 without consultation. It is a bill that claims to respond to a crisis. That somehow Canada's response to the so-called existential threat with Donald Trump is to throw out our existing processes for approving major projects, and instead we must speed up approvals by threatening to sideline Indigenous rights and environmental protections. To achieve this, the government is relying on the full support of the Conservative opposition, not only to support the legislation but to bring in closure, limiting debate. A handful of MP's have spoken out against both the contents and process of Bill C-5. The Green and NDP MPs who face a challenging situation because they do not have party status have opposed it. Even one Liberal MP called out the unfairness of the process. What is different is that in 1990, despite all the pressures, the Manitoba legislature followed its own procedures based on hundreds of years of parliamentary democracy and did not ram through the Meech Lake Accord. The actions of not only Elijah Harper, but so many other Indigenous people forced Canada to recognize the need to respect Indigenous rights. In many ways, it was a major first step towards what in subsequent years has been reconciliation. What has been happening with Bill C-5 in 2025 couldn't be more different. There has been a blatant disregard for the process you would expect for a bill of this significance. The hasty introduction and closure being attached to Bill C-5 fly in the face of the consultation you would normally expect on any bill, let alone the constitutionally required consultation on matters involving Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples have been clear in opposing both the process and substance of the bill. Many people have been calling out what is seen as a betrayal of reconciliation. We learned a major lesson in 1990. That Indigenous peoples will defend their rights. That reconciliation starts with not only recognizing Canada's history of genocide against Indigenous peoples but that provincial and federal governments must recognize the limits of their own powers in the context of Indigenous rights. But as Santayana said 'Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it ' Sadly, in 2025, key political leaders have chosen not to remember these lessons of history and are repeating Canada's failure to recognize Indigenous rights. There is one more lesson too. We also learned that the 'crisis' of 1990 was greatly exaggerated. Despite subsequent efforts with the failed Charlottetown accord, the constitutional question was never finally closed. But Canada continues. The so-called crisis we are facing currently will go the same way. What will matter is not just how we react to Donald Trump or any other political leader or economic threat. In terms of history, it is how much we will have acted in accordance with our own values based on our own distinct history. The events of 1990 set us on a better course. The events of 2025 with Bill C-5 threaten to set us back dramatically. Steve Ashton is a former member of the Manitoba Legislature. He was the NDP House Leader during the debate on the Meech Lake Accord in the Manitoba Legislature in 1990. Niki Ashton is the former NDP MP for Churchill-Keewatinook Aski

Toronto Star

8 hours ago

• Toronto Star

Mark Carney promises to consult with Indigenous communities in choosing projects under controversial Bill C-5

OTTAWA — Facing concerns and warnings of Indigenous resistance against a key part of his governing agenda, Prime Minister Mark Carney acknowledged Friday that 'more fulsome conversations are needed' to choose the development projects his government wants to fast-track through controversial new legislation, Bill C-5. Speaking moments after the bill passed third reading in the House of Commons, Carney pledged to hold meetings in the coming weeks with First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders and experts in a series of summits to 'launch the implementation of this legislation in the right way' in 'full partnership' with Indigenous communities.