Introduction

On 5 December 2022, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research (the Committee) adopted the following motion to study various aspects of gender and diversity pay gaps for faculty at Canadian universities:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(i), the committee study the long term impacts of the gender and diversity pay gap for faculty at Canadian universities, including (i) the percentage and monetary gaps across institutions, (ii) what these gaps mean for monthly, annual, and retirement pay, (iii) what biases cause these gaps, (iv) what universities have done to address these gaps and whether their efforts are sufficient or not, and (v) what is needed to address these long-standing problems; that the committee allocate a minimum of eight hours to this study and report its findings to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.^[1]

Pay equity largely falls under provincial jurisdiction, as does the administration of universities. There are, however, several federal programs which address specific aspects of pay equity among university employees and researchers:

• the Federal Contractors Program (FCP) requires all holders of federal contracts over $1 million and with a combined workforce in Canada of 100 or more permanent employees to collect data on representation of four designated groups—women, members of a visible minority, Indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities—and to file plans for achieving equity;^[2]
• the federal granting councils—the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)—have each set targets related to their funding for the same four designated groups;^[3]
• the Canada Research Chairs program, while not directly responsible for pay equity among university professors, does have equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) requirements and practices, including the development of EDI plans for all institutions with five or more chair allocations, with objectives for the allocation of chairs for the same four designated groups;^[4] and
• Statistics Canada’s University and College Academic Staff System survey (UCASS) collects data on full-time teachers at Canadian post-secondary institutions, including salary, age, education, gender, institution, subject taught, and rank.^[5]

The Committee held seven meetings between 20 June and 30 October 2023 for its study. It heard from 18 witnesses and received three written briefs. The Committee would like to thank all those who took the time to participate in this study. Witnesses spoke directly to the federal role in achieving pay equity among university faculty, as well as to actions taken and recommended for provincial governments and post-secondary institutions, and to the more general context around university pay equity and individual actions.

Further to the evidence it compiled, the Committee is making recommendations to the Government of Canada on reducing the pay gaps experienced by equity-seeking groups among faculty at Canadian universities.

Chapter 1. An Overview of Pay Gaps and Pay Equity in Canada

The available employment data in Canada indicates that there is a significant pay gap based on gender and other factors among all adult workers on average. In an academic journal article shared with the Committee by Tracy Smith-Carrier, Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Advancing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals at Royal Roads University, and Marcie Penner, Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at King’s University College at Western University, it was reported that “[i]n 2018, in Canada, women^[6] employees between the ages of 25 and 54 earned $4.13 less than their male counterparts per hour; meaning that for every dollar earned by men that year, women earned $0.87.”^[7] This gap is even higher for low-income women, racialized^[8] women, and Indigenous^[9] women.^[10] Statistics Canada also provided information for the Committee’s study indicating that “the median gender pay gap in 2021 was 18% among all full-year full-time workers.”^[11]

In her testimony, Alexa D’Addario, a PhD candidate, noted that “[b]oth the United Nations and the Government of Canada recognize gender equality as sustainable development goal 5.”^[12] While gender employment equity is only one part of sustainable development goal 5, the United Nations reports that “[a]t the current rate, it will take 140 years to achieve equal representation in leadership in the workplace.”^[13] She further acknowledged that discrimination often occurs on the basis of multiple, intersecting factors, including gender, race, ethnicity, geography, income, education, religion, language, sexual orientation, age, disability, and migrant or refugee status.^[14]

While much of the testimony received by the Committee, and the data underpinning it, related specifically to gender pay gaps^[15], where possible, this report examines pay equity issues for university faculty based on other factors—particularly race, Indigenous status, and disability status—as well as at the intersection of multiple factors.

Chapter 2. Pay Gaps Among University Faculty

Susan Prentice, a Professor at the University of Manitoba, said before the Committee that “there is a fiction that the academy is a place of simple and pure merit,” and that “this fiction goes a long way toward explaining historical resistance to grappling with documented histories of exclusion, marginalization and systemic discrimination.”^[16]

The following sections set out the pay gaps that currently exist among different groups of university faculty in Canada.

2.1. Pay Gaps Experienced by Women

Many witnesses highlighted gender pay gaps between women and men in academic roles in Canadian universities. Various methods were used to quantify these gaps, resulting in slightly different monetary or percentage values based on a study’s time period, location, and factors considered in the calculation, such as tenure, experience and field of study. The most cited figure was that women professors earn on average 10%, or $10,500, less than men for the same work.^[17] Part of this gender pay gap can be explained by differences in the distribution of men and women at different ranks, ages, and in different disciplines, with a greater proportion of men represented at higher ranks and in better paying disciplines. When those factors are accounted for, the gender pay gap reduces to approximately 4%.^[18]

As outlined in data submitted to the Committee by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, “in the last 50 years, the unadjusted pay gap between full-time men and women professors at Canadian universities has decreased from nearly 20% to 10%. The rate of change, however, has plateaued in the last decade.”^[19] This is illustrated in Figure 1, below.

Figure 1—Pay Gap Between Full-Time Men and Women Professors, 1970 to 2021

Source:  Canadian Association of University Teachers, Study on pay gaps for faculty at Canadian universities, Brief submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research, September 2023.

Other relevant statistics and analysis regarding the pay gap between male and female faculty presented by various witnesses or submitted to the Committee during the study included:

• in 2023, full-time women faculty at Canadian universities earned 7.4% less on average then men doing the same work, with variations by institution ranging from 0% to 15%;^[20]
• in 2021, among full-time academic staff, the median salary for women was roughly 11.1% lower than that of men, decreasing from 1991, when the gap was 20.6%;^[21]
• using data from 1996 to 2016, men were paid on average 2.06%, 2.14%, and 5.26% more than their women colleagues for all university employees, university teaching staff, and deans, respectively;^[22]
• between 1996 and 2016, among Ontario faculty earning above $100,000, “[m]en were paid on average 2.14% and 5.26% more than women faculty for all university staff and deans, respectively;”^[23] and
• among Simon Fraser University faculty in 2015, women earned 10% less than men.^[24]

As noted above, pay gaps between men and women can differ by institution, as illustrated in Table 1 below.

Table 1—Average Salary of Full-time Teaching Staff at Canadian U15 Universities, by Sex

Source:  Table prepared using data obtained from Statistics Canada, “Table 37-10-0108-01: Number and salaries of full-time teaching staff at Canadian universities,” Database, accessed 18 September 2023.

The lowest gender pay gaps among Canada’s largest research universities—3.6% at Université de Montréal and 4.1% at Université Laval—both occurred in Francophone institutions in Quebec. When asked about why that might be the case, Catherine Beaudry, Professor at Polytechnique de Montréal, testified to the role of collective agreements in reducing the gender gap, as “[i]n Quebec, if I'm not mistaken, with the exception of McGill University and HEC Montréal, all universities have collective agreements, that is to say professors have a union.”^[25]

2.2. Pay Gaps Experienced by Other Groups

Beyond gender, witnesses also spoke to other pay gaps experienced by university faculty in Canada, particularly those experienced by racialized and Indigenous faculty, and faculty with disabilities.

Dina Al-khooly, Senior Director of Impact and Learning at Visions of Science, testified before the Committee that “[w]hile we have substantial evidence that illustrates and quantifies gender pay inequity, we have little data around other dimensions of marginalization.”^[26]

While less data has been published on the employment experiences of racialized faculty within Canadian universities, some witnesses did identify existing pay gaps. Alexa D’Addario referenced data from the Canadian Association of University Teachers that showed that “racialized professors experience a 10% pay gap relative to their non-racialized peers,” a statistic also cited by other witnesses.^[27] Dina Al-khooly testified that “racialized university professors are paid almost 15% less than their white counterparts.”^[28]

Less data was presented to the Committee on pay gaps experienced by Indigenous faculty in comparison to their non-Indigenous colleagues. Marcie Penner testified that there is a 26% pay gap between Indigenous university faculty and non-racialized male faculty based on Canada-wide 2016 Census data and an analysis conducted by the Canadian Association of University Teachers.^[29]

While data specific to the income of university faculty with disabilities was not presented during this study, Mahadeo Sukhai, Vice-President of Research and International Affairs and Chief Accessibility Officer with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, did speak to pay gaps between individuals with disabilities and those without disabilities among the general population in Canada aged 16 and over. He identified a 21.4% gap between the pay of individuals with disabilities and those without, which widens to 46.6% for those with cognitive disabilities.^[30] He also noted that the age at which a person first experiences disability influences career trajectory, career quality, and pay equity.^[31]

2.3. Intersectional Pay Gaps

As explained by Vincent Dale, Director General of Labour Market, Education and Socio-Economic Wellbeing Statistics at Statistics Canada, looking at only the difference in pay regarding one characteristic, such as gender, race, disability status or Indigenous status, “might disguise relevant, important, insightful differences for smaller populations” whose identity comprises multiple, intersecting characteristics, such as women with disabilities.^[32] Marcie Penner, for example, testified to the fact that “the pay gap for racialized women professors in Canada is double that for non-racialized women,”^[33] while Robin Whitaker, Vice-President of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, identified a 25% pay gap for racialized women university teachers in comparison to white men.^[34]

According to the Canadian Association of University Teachers, “[w]age gaps exist between the dominant group (non-Aboriginal, non-racialized men) and all others. The gap is deepest for racialized women professors who earn an average of 68 cents for every dollar” made by this dominant group.^[35] Malinda Smith, referencing “Differences in Representation and Employment Income of Racialized University Professors,” by Howard Ramos and Peter Li in the book The Equity Myth, further distinguished that:

[W]hite male professors earn the most, followed by visible minority South Asian men and Aboriginal men. Among those with the lowest mean incomes were visible minority Black women, Arab women, Asian women and South Asian women, all earning half of the average. While white female professors had the highest income [among women], it is also notable that their income was clearly below the average of white males.^[36]

The findings from this study—based on Census data from 1992, 1996, 2001, and 2006—are summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2—Employment Income of University Professors, 1992–2006

Source:  Table prepared using data from Howard Ramos and Peter S. Li, “Differences in representation and employment income of racialized university professors in Canada,” in Frances Henry et al., The equity myth: racialization and indigeneity at Canadian universities, 2017.

While these findings are dated, they are included here to also show the importance of disaggregated data. For example, Marcie Penner spoke about an average gap of 12% for racialized faculty in comparison to overall faculty earnings in 2016, however, when looking at specific racialized groups that pay gap ranged from 3% to 28%.^[37]

These findings also demonstrate that the combined effects of gender, race and Indigenous identity affect employment incomes among university professors, with non-white racial identities and Indigenous status producing a negative effect on income, and with the worst income levels experienced by non-white women.^[38]

In The Equity Myth, a book referenced by Malinda Smith, Vice-Provost and Associate Vice-President of Research (Equity, Diversity and Inclusion) at the University of Calgary, in her testimony before the Committee, it was written that:

[T]he lumping together of at least eleven ethno-racial groups into the category of “visible minority” represented in the Canadian census does a serious disservice to the understanding of ethno-racial positioning in Canadian universities. Just as the overall categorization also hides the clustering and the differential proportion of racialized faculty in different faculties and disciplines, larger numbers for certain ethnic groups not only hide the smaller numbers in other groups but also minimize the different ways in which racialization is experienced within different groups.^[39]

Chapter 3. Other Inequities Experienced by University Faculty

In addition to pay gaps, witnesses further testified to other inequities experienced by university faculty based on gender, race, Indigeneity, and disability.

3.1. Representation

While several witnesses identified increasingly representative faculty compositions, this is primarily seen at the level of junior faculty positions; and senior positions remained less accessible to women, racialized people, Indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities.^[40] For example, Airini, Provost and Vice-President Academic at the University of Saskatchewan, testified that, “[r]ight now, in a new cohort of assistant professors, we have more faculty who are women than men. Over the next decade, we expect to see women trend closer towards 50% of full professors.”^[41] Meanwhile, at the University of Toronto, Heather Boon, Vice-Provost of Faculty and Academic Life, mentioned that “in the last 15 years or so, we’ve almost reached gender parity with respect to women and men at the assistant and the associate professor ranks.”^[42]

Despite these recent trends, representation remains skewed towards men among the higher faculty ranks, as illustrated in the University of Toronto’s 2019 Report of the Provostial Advisory Group on Faculty Gender Pay Equity. The authors of that report wrote that “[w]omen comprised 36% of faculty in the tenure stream in 2015–16. These women tend to be younger and hold more junior tenure stream faculty positions compared to men. For example, just 34% of women hold the rank of Professor, versus 53% of men.”^[43]

Regarding Indigenous faculty, the Canadian Association of University Teachers reported that in 2018, Indigenous academics made up just 1.4% of all university professors in comparison to 3.8% of the total labour force and 5% of undergraduate university students.^[44] The Canadian Association of University Teachers further reported that the “overall share of racialized university professors grew from 17% in 2006 to 21% in 2016, on par with growth in the proportion of the overall labour force aged 25 and older.” These gains, however, are not spread evenly across different racialized groups and are lower than the proportion of racialized students (36%) and racialized doctoral degree holders (31%).^[45]

Overall, the Canadian Association of University Teachers also noted that racialized, Indigenous and women post-secondary faculty are less likely to be employed as full-time, full-year staff, and experience higher unemployment rates than white male professors.^[46]

3.2. Job Responsibilities

Witnesses identified workplace cultures that push less rewarded tasks and responsibilities onto marginalized faculty as a barrier to their equitable participation as university faculty.^[47] Ivy Lynn Bourgeault, Research Chair in Gender, Diversity and the Professions at the University of Ottawa, described this experience as “academic housework,” which includes teaching large undergraduate classes, managing multiple teaching assistants, and extensive academic mentorship.^[48] While she highlighted a general lack of data in this area, she did share that:

Where data does exist, it points to greater inequities for Black women, Indigenous women and women of colour in academia, especially around the emotional care labour, around inequities that [came to light] in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement and the discovery of over 10,000 graves around residential schools.^[49]

Susan Prentice further explained that her “Indigenous colleagues, for example, spend enormous amounts of time mentoring Indigenous students at the University of Manitoba. This is absolutely critical to student success.”^[50]

Witnesses explained the traditional university division of labour for tenure-track and tenured positions involves 40% teaching, 40% research and 20% service—such as sitting on committees, reviewing for journals and the “academic housework” outlined above—but that this service component, often disproportionately placed on marginalized staff, is not considered as part of the promotion criteria, harming the ability of marginalized staff to progress in their careers.^[51]

The University of Manitoba, as an example, has identified an average difference of 18 months between promotion to the rank of full professor for women in comparison to men.^[52] Dina Al-khooly also spoke to a study that found that “racialized faculty had 54% lower odds of being tenured and 50% lower odds of being promoted to associate professor than non-racialized faculty.”^[53] In The Equity Myth, the authors also identify that it takes racialized professors three years longer to be promoted to full professor than their white peers.^[54]

3.3. Grants and Publications

Tracy Smith-Carrier testified before the Committee on the different standards used to recognize experience when awarding grants, explaining that, “[w]hen applying to a national research council for funding, women need more than twice the academic output of men to receive the same competency score.”^[55] Ivy Lynn Bourgeault also testified to this effect, sharing that “women in the peer-review process are penalized. Their grants are more likely to be smaller, and they’re more likely to be of shorter duration, which makes it very difficult to sustain careers and sustain research teams, which help fuel productivity.”^[56] The issue of grant size was further contextualized by Tina Chen, Vice-Provost of Equity at the University of Manitoba, who testified to the fact that “those who are systematically marginalized do not ask for the biggest sums of money. They don’t go after the biggest grants.”^[57]

In Equity for women in science, authors Cassidy R. Sugimoto and Vincent Larivière noted that “women are less likely to apply for grant funding; they are less likely to receive funding when they apply; and they receive smaller grants, on average, than their men counterparts.”^[58]

Regarding the output of research, largely academic publications, Catherine Beaudry also shared that “when men and women publish in scholarly journals with the same impact factor, the greater the proportion of women co-authors, the less likely the article is to be cited.”^[59]

Three witnesses linked these differences in the recognition of experience among grant receipt and citation likelihood to differences in the rate at which academics are promoted, as discussed in the previous section.^[60]

3.4. Experiences of Discrimination

Several witnesses highlighted the discrimination experienced by marginalized faculty—including women, racialized people, Indigenous persons, and persons with disabilities—as a barrier to their full participation in academic careers.^[61] Ivy Lynn Bourgeault, for example, highlighted experiences of gender-based harassment reported by women in the United States, particularly in male-dominated faculties such as engineering, as driving women out of academic positions, with compounded effects for faculty who are Black or Indigenous.^[62]

Mahadeo Sukhai, meanwhile, testified to the burden researchers with disabilities face:

In the sciences, researchers with disabilities often bear the burden of advocating for their own workplace adjustments or accommodations while grappling with systemic biases. This cognitive load or access work can hinder their career progression and well-being. Furthermore, the health impacts of continual stress, often referred to as weathering; the additional living costs associated with living with a disability; the barriers to publishing; the lack of accessible spaces within research, such as meetings, conferences, classrooms, seminars and laboratories; and the prevalent biases in hiring and promotion processes—among others—present substantial barriers for researchers with disabilities. These barriers further exacerbate the experienced pay gap. Additionally, these affect not just the financial security but also the mental health of researchers with disabilities. The stress of navigating existing systemic barriers, advocating for accommodations and dealing with pay inequity can significantly impact mental health, affecting productivity and career progression.^[63]

Chapter 4. Drivers of Pay Gaps among University Faculty

Witnesses identified several drivers, or causes, of pay gaps among university faculty.

4.1. Faculty or Field of Study

Several witnesses identified the importance of considering the faculty in which a professor teaches, or their field of study, when accounting for pay gaps between different groups of university faculty.^[64] At Simon Fraser University, for example, its President Joy Johnson explained that market differentials are offered in “areas where it’s hard to recruit people or where their salary expectations are higher,” such as in business schools, accounting programs, and among engineering faculty, where the representation of men is also higher than that of women.^[65]

In a written submission to the Committee, the Canadian Association of University Teachers also put forth that “disciplines that have historically been dominated by men pay more than those traditionally occupied by women. These pay differences are reflected in academia, where typically engineering and business, for example, pay more than nursing and teaching.”^[66] While these differences in faculty representation may reflect different career choices made by different groups of faculty, Ivy-Lynn Bourgeault also explained the ways in which those choices regarding field of study can be constrained by external factors:

You should think about occupational segregation as being hand in hand with the pay inequity we're seeing. It's not just about choosing different pathways. It's also about being channelled into different pathways. It's about how comfortable or how uncomfortable.... Sometimes you talk about chilly climates that are created when you're the only woman, or you're the only person who's Black or who identifies as Indigenous in particular environments. It's about your mental health in staying in those environments. There's choice, but lots of those choices are constrained, and in certain cases you're channelled. The occupational segregation that we see among the social sciences, natural sciences, engineering, and health is very impacted by these different levels of equity.^[67]

Even for women in higher paying faculties, Catherine Beaudry further testified that, in her experience, “women fall off their chairs when they realize that some of their colleagues have market premiums, and they didn’t even think for one minute to ask for them.”^[68] Joy Johnson and Malinda Smith also noted that there are differences between genders in how people negotiate their salaries.^[69]

In an analysis conducted by the University of Toronto, controlling for academic unit—or field of study—reduced the gender-based pay gap among tenure stream faculty from 12.1% to 7.1%.^[70] This indicates that, on average, there is a 7.1% gender pay gap between faculty members working in the same field. The five percentage point difference between the uncontrolled 12.1% gender-based pay gap and the 7.1% pay gap when controlling for academic unit represents differences in rates of pay within them, in such fields as engineering and English, and reflects the larger proportion of men employed in higher paying academic fields.^[71]

4.2. Rank or Experience

As identified previously, rank and years of experience also influence salary, and are distributed unevenly across different groups.^[72] A brief submitted by Universities Canada, an advocacy and networking organization composed of university presidents, wrote that:

The latest [University and College Academic Staff System (UCASS)] survey for the year 2021–2022 found that gender parity at higher ranks has not been achieved. Over the previous 50 years, women have increased their representation among full-time academic teaching staff in Canadian universities. However, men are still overrepresented in higher ranks, especially at the full professor rank.

[…]

In sum, it appears that men are overrepresented in higher ranks such as fulltime professors and tenured positions whereas women are overrepresented in lower ranks or in part-time academic work. This implies that women’s pay in academia is, on average, lower than their male counterparts as women face more barriers in accessing higher-paid positions.^[73]

As Ivy Lynn Bourgeault testified, “[i]t is important to stress that these independent factors are in and of themselves influenced by gender and other forms of inequity.”^[74] As already noted, men are also more likely to be promoted than women, who also take longer to be promoted than men, despite being “just as likely as men to ask for promotions and raises.”^[75]

A University of Toronto report referenced by Heather Boon illustrates the impact of rank and years of experience on the gender pay gap at that university in Figure 2 below. As the report explains:

The first bar in Figure [2] shows a raw gender-based pay gap among full-time faculty members who are tenured or in the tenure stream at the University of Toronto of approximately 12%. However, once we control for the number of years since highest degree, the gender-based pay gap decreases to approximately 6.6%. Controlling for academic rank instead of years since highest degree yields a similar result: the gender-based pay gap is slightly smaller, at 6.4%. Controlling for both years since highest degree and rank generates a further modest reduction to 5.6%. Thus, we see that experience (years since highest degree and academic rank) explains about half of the raw gender-based pay gap.^[76]

Figure 2—Gender-based pay gap and experience of tenure stream faculty at the University of Toronto

Source:  Dwayne Benjamin et al., Report of the Provostial Advisory Group on Faculty Gender Pay Equity: University of Toronto, 15 April 2019.

When rank, years since highest degree, and academic unit (faculty or field of study, as discussed previously) were all controlled for, the gender-based pay gap among tenure stream faculty at the University of Toronto was reduced from 12.1% to 1.1%, as illustrated in Figure 3 below.^[77] That is to say, when university faculty with the same number of years of experience, at the same rank, and working in the same academic unit are compared, there is only a 1.1% difference in their average salaries.

Figure 3—Gender-based pay gap, academic unit and experience of tenure stream faculty at the University of Toronto

Source:  Dwayne Benjamin et al., Report of the Provostial Advisory Group on Faculty Gender Pay Equity: University of Toronto, 15 April 2019.

Even when women reach higher ranks, as Marcie Penner explained, “the gender pay gap widens as women advance in academia and doubles for women who are deans.”^[78] Catherine Beaudry further outlined that gaps widen at higher levels due to bonuses and professional fees:

Both Statistics Canada's descriptive statistics and those from my survey show that men earn more than women, and that the gap widens as one progresses in one's career from assistant professor to full professor. There are fewer and fewer women at full professor level. Survey data show that when it comes to administrative bonuses, men earn $16,000 compared to $9,000 for women. On the market bonus side, men earn $13,000 compared to $7,000 for women. The biggest gap is in professional fees: $25,000 for men and $13,000 for women. While the gap between men and women at the rank of full professor is $7,000 if we consider just base salary, it rises to over $15,000 if we consider total compensation. So, it's when it comes to total compensation that the gap is widest.^[79]

4.3. Labour Productivity

An argument can be made that differing levels of productivity explains pay gaps between different groups of university faculty. As Ivy Lynn Bourgeault explained, the labour productivity argument “says that a woman’s lack of progression could be justified if she is less productive or less experienced than her colleagues.”^[80] Multiple witnesses explained that productivity in academia is often measured by research grants and publications, and that women are more likely to be assigned less prestigious work tasks, such as teaching, supervision, and service work, which is less likely to be acknowledged when determining salary and promotion.^[81] As mentioned earlier, Tracy Smith-Carrier stated that even when pursuing grants and publications, women often need more achievements in order to reach the same level of perceived competence as men.^[82]

In Equity for women in science, the authors found that:

For all disciplines and researchers who published at least once between 2008 and 2020, we observe a sizable gap in productivity, with men publishing over the period an average of one paper more than women. For all disciplines, save arts and health, men published at least 20% more than women, with differences that reach as high as 50% more in psychology and more than a third as many articles in physics, mathematics, and social sciences.^[83]

Mahadeo Sukhai also spoke to the Committee about the impact that certain assumptions can have on the income of persons with disabilities and on the relevant pay gaps, testifying that, “many of the deeply held conventions around productivity and persons with disabilities go along with this notion of starting later or moving through our career paths more slowly. That also ends up leading to diverging earning potential over time.”^[84] He testified that there existed ableist perceptions that persons with disabilities were “not really supposed to be in science.”^[85]

Despite these barriers to pay equity, Malinda Smith, referencing Howard Ramos and Peter Li’s work in The Equity Myth, explained that “[m]ultiple studies show that racialized minorities outperform and out-innovate in many instances, but they are still underpaid.”^[86] Catherine Beaudry, meanwhile, testified that her research “has shown that, for the same amount of grant funding obtained, women publish more than men.”^[87]

While witnesses noted that collective agreements among university faculty often set a salary floor for specific academic ranks, starting salaries can often be negotiated at higher levels, and during this process, women’s experience and merit can be undervalued.^[88] This point was reflected in comments by Tracy Smith-Carrier, who noted that “in experiments where an identical resumé is presented, but either with a typical man’s name or with a typical woman’s name, the candidates with a man’s name are judged as more competent and are offered a higher starting salary.”^[89]

4.4. Caregiving Responsibilities

The decision to have a family is also often seen as a challenge for women in academia, with parental and caregiving leave having “punitive effects that impact when women start their careers, the breaks they accumulate over their careers, and the decisions they make about when and whether to seek promotion.”^[90] It was further noted by Joy Johnson that “faculty who take parental or medical leaves, regardless of gender, faced lower odds of promotion.”^[91] She also discussed studies that were done on parental leave that found that “when men take parental leave, they might do child care, but they also work on their papers and are very productive at home,” whereas women “tend to actually leave the university, care for their children, take care of their home and so on.”^[92] Catherine Beaudry gave the example that “[m]any women will take the decision to not write another paper over the weekend because they want to be driving to ski lessons or swimming lessons.”^[93] She also gave her own life as an example, testifying that, “I didn’t do any lectures from 1999 to 2006, because I was taking care of my children.”^[94] Even when not on parental leave, Catherine Beaudry testified to studies that show, “[s]ystematically, women have the bulk of the childcare, and that has a direct [impact] on their publications, their citations and the repercussions of that.”^[95]

Cassidy R. Sugimoto and Vincent Larivière wrote that “the research productivity penalty for men and women is a function of the level of engagement in parenting activities… the more engaged a scientist was in caregiving, the lower their production. This cost, however, is largely borne by women.”^[96]

As Mahadeo Sukhai testified, “[you] also have this conception of what a productive scientist should be. That definition of productivity doesn't include parental leave.”^[97]

Witnesses also discussed the ways in which exterior factors—including the COVID‑19 pandemic—exacerbated already unbalanced systems of household labour that may have influenced the productivity of academics.^[98] Ivy Lynn Bourgeault discussed the ways in which “women faculty were more likely to take on child care activities during lockdown, significantly affecting their productivity, especially in terms of publication and research grants, which are the key reasons for promotion and tenure.”^[99] Indira Naidoo-Harris, Associate Vice-President of Diversity and Human Rights at the University of Guelph, also noted that “[w]e saw a lot of women leaving [Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)] research, for example, around the time of the pandemic—and we are just coming out of that now—because there were so many more responsibilities for them to carry. It was having an impact on many individuals.”^[100]

Chapter 5. Repercussions of Pay Gaps Among University Faculty

5.1. Retirement Income

Witnesses also highlighted how pay gaps during a faculty members’ career can be compounded in retirement because of reduced savings or the ways in which pensions are calculated using income.^[101]

As Laura Neals, Director of Academic Staff Relations at Dalhousie University, explained, a defined benefit pension is calculated on the basis of a faculty member’s best three years of earnings, and so salary adjustments made to reduce pay gaps will also ensure more equitable retirement income as long as they are implemented at least three years prior to retirement.^[102] This is different from retirement income received from a defined contribution plan, which is based on what faculty members are able to pay into the fund throughout their career. This type of plan may result in more of a retirement income gap between different groups of faculty. In addition, many people also invest in personal retirement savings beyond institutional retirement plans, and as Laura Neals testified, “[t]heir career earnings will impact how much they're able to put away for that.”^[103]

Work conducted by Marcie Penner and Tracy Smith-Carrier on the impact of lifetime earnings and retirement income, and quoted by several witnesses, found that, “[a] starting wage gap of less than $9,000 resulted in a $300,000–$400,000 gender wage gap over the course of a career, and a further $148,000–$259,000 gender pension gap, for a total gender pension and wage gap of $454,000–$660,000, depending on the rank achieved.”^[104] Further work conducted by Marcie Penner and Tracy Smith-Carrier on this topic found that “[i]n retirement, the gender pension gap translated to a $7,000 to $12,500/year difference in employer pension (which translates to $583 to $1,020 per month).”^[105]

5.2. Contributions to Research

Witnesses further discussed the value diversity brings to post-secondary research and education, and the ways in which pay gaps can harm diversity by driving people away from faculty careers. Dina Al-khooly, for instance, testified to how low pay can discourage people from ever entering certain fields, saying that youth from low income and racialized communities “are motivated by earning potential as a means of pulling themselves and their families out of poverty. Inadequate pay is an important deterrent for our youth wanting to pursue a career path.”^[106]

As Ivy-Lynn Bourgeault explained, less representation among university faculty can lead to less diverse research outputs:

I want to make it clear here that this is not just a gender equity issue. This is about knowledge. Women academics and folks from diverse backgrounds ask different research questions. They undertake research in a different way, and there are literally undiscovered countries of knowledge that we don’t enable by having this inequity. Diversity in science makes better science, so we should really think about this as what we want in terms of that knowledge.^[107]

Marcie Penner also spoke on this topic, testifying that, “[w]omen bring a different perspective, as do Indigenous faculty and racialized faculty. They bring a different perspective and address research questions using different methodologies, as well, that are lost. If we are in search of the truth, we’re missing some of that answer.”^[108] Other witnesses also supported this point.^[109]

As an example of the cost to research caused by a lack of representation in research, Dina Al-khooly presented the following scenario:

Black women, specifically, have the worst maternal health outcomes out of all women across Canada. We know there are many issues with [artificial intelligence] that have specific racial biases. We know that climate impacts are impacting marginalized communities at a disproportionate rate to other communities. All of these are implicit results of the fact that we don’t have researchers who reflect the diversity of our Canadian population. They’re unable to inform this research. They’re unable to inform the innovations that are coming out to address our specific community problems, so that has an impact not just on folks within the research community, but across our society.^[110]

Equity for Women in Science provided further examples of the impact of a lack of diversity on various research fields, such as the exclusion of female samples in biomedical research, and car manufacturing safety testing that fails to adequately account for gender and diversity.^[111]

Chapter 6. Reducing Pay Gaps Among University Faculty

While this report makes recommendations only to the federal government, witnesses put forward potential solutions to pay gaps that could also be implemented by universities, labour organizations, and provincial governments. These have been presented here to reflect the valuable testimony of the witnesses and to provide, as some witnesses suggested, a resource for others who may be addressing these same issues.

6.1. University-Driven Solutions

6.1.1. Pay Gap Studies and Salary Adjustments

Many witnesses spoke of studies of pay gaps at their institutions and the subsequent salary adjustments that followed to help improve equity.^[112] For the University of Saskatchewan, this also included the development of new demographic data collection processes, such as their Indigenous citizenship verification policy, which allows them to better track measures of inequity and examine diversity pay gaps.^[113] The expansion of institutional data collection processes was also highlighted by Joy Johnson, who testified that for Simon Fraser University:

We have not, to date, collected detailed information from our faculty on all of the demographic categories that, in my view, will influence and impact salary outcomes. Currently, we're moving forward in this regard, but we're not there yet. We're not collecting information about race. We haven't collected information about Indigenous identity or about disability. Some of the constraints have been because of privacy issues, but we are overcoming those now.^[114]

Heather Boon, speaking on behalf of the University of Toronto, reported to the Committee that while it was still undergoing analysis of its most recent salary review at the time of her testimony, preliminary analysis suggested that adjustments made in 2019 are holding. She added and that the university does “not currently have any differences in pay for faculty who are men and faculty who are women once we control for experience and field of study.”^[115] An analysis at Dalhousie University of salary adjustments made in 2017, found that these succeeded in reducing pay gaps, and in 2020 there was “almost no difference” between faculty of different genders at each faculty rank. This result was also confirmed in a 2022 analysis.^[116]

However, Tracy Smith-Carrier put forward a critique of pay gap studies and salary adjustments that they do not address the structural inequities that led to initial differences in pay.^[117]

6.1.2. Recognizing the Importance of all Responsibilities

As discussed earlier, when being considered for promotion, universities often place importance on research publications and citations, and put less emphasis on the service portions of a faculty member’s responsibilities, such as mentorship and committee work, which are often disproportionately part of the workload of marginalized staff.

Witnesses explored ways in which universities can change the way job responsibilities are weighted for promotion in order to encourage greater equity.^[118] As Dina Al-khooly testified, “[t]hey can reflect lived experience and responsibilities, such as teaching, outreach, mentoring, and committee and equity work—which ultimately benefits the university as well as the country as a whole—in their pay structure, workload and role expectations.”^[119]

Catherine Beaudry spoke of her experience with the Polytechnique Montréal. The university implemented a system of “retroactive promotion,” where those who received promotions after a period of parental leave receive retroactive pay for the time they were on leave so as not to penalize those who take parental leaves with delays in their advancement.^[120] By contrast, Heather Boon explained that at the University of Toronto, those on leave ‘pause’ their deadline for tenure review, which typically occurs after a faculty’s sixth year in a tenure track position, to ensure that all six years represent active academic work.^[121]

Tina Chen similarly talked about normalizing leave at the University of Manitoba, including for Indigenous faculty who take time away from the university to participate in ceremonies.^[122]

Witnesses also suggested that providing additional research and teaching supports, or flexible workplace arrangements, to faculty with care-giving responsibilities would increase gender equity among university faculty.^[123]

Several witnesses also highlighted the value of having on-campus day care spots available for staff and students.^[124] While some of the representatives from universities that appeared before the Committee on this study said their institution provides day care, it was often oversubscribed, with too few spaces available for the demand.^[125]

Childcare was generally highlighted as an important factor in allowing women to achieve equity in the workforce. Provincial childcare programs, such as Quebec’s, were highlighted as an important source of “good, high-quality childcare.”^[126]

6.1.3. Training

Witnesses presented several perspectives on the value of equity, diversity and inclusion training on addressing issues of pay equity.

Joy Johnson spoke to the value of unconscious bias training for hiring committees, which has helped address issues where “[t]here has been a tradition, to be frank, at universities that people basically replace themselves. You have a largely male, white faculty, and they think excellence looks like that.”^[127] Heather Boon and Indira Naidoo-Harris recounted similar unconscious bias training for faculty members and administrators involved in hiring and career review decisions.^[128]

Ivy Lynn Bourgeault testified to the risk training poses if it is presented on its own, without follow-up or additional supports, saying:

I think a lot of people feel that if we just have some training, we’ll fix this. Now, it depends on how training is integrated. If it’s sort of a one-off, it doesn’t have the impact. In some cases, it can have a negative impact because the people who have undertaken the EDI training say, “I’m done. I’m fully versed in equity, diversity and inclusion.”^[129]

Tracy Smith-Carrier also referenced research that had recently been completed by the Harvard Review that found that some diversity training is not effective at increasing diversity.^[130]

While witnesses largely talked about training regarding equity, diversity and inclusion, some witnesses also discussed the potential role universities can play in supporting the professional development of under-represented^[131] faculty.^[132]

6.1.4. Hiring

Heather Boon, speaking on behalf of the University Toronto, mentioned ongoing monitoring of practices “to ensure that we are thinking very carefully about who we are hiring.”^[133] She explained that this led to a pattern over the past few years of “hiring about 50% women each year, sometimes slightly over that, into our continuing tenure stream and teaching stream positions.”^[134] The University of Toronto has also put in place a system where new hires and their salaries are approved centrally, “based on an analysis of the rank at which they are being hired, the time since their highest degree—which is a proxy for experience—and field of study.”^[135]

Another suggestion put forward by Tracy Smith-Carrier was to strip CVs of identifying information when hiring, including names, publication titles, and other potential identifying markers, to help reduce incidences of bias that may occur.^[136]

Additionally, Dina Al-khooly discussed the potential for universities to “designate faculty positions for those from marginalized communities.”^[137] This was also identified by Robin Whitaker, who testified that “universities and colleges need to look at equity hiring in disciplines traditionally dominated by men.”^[138]

6.1.5. Pay Transparency

While pay transparency was largely discussed in terms of legislation, and is explored more fully below, some witnesses also highlighted how individual universities could promote pay and promotion transparency within their institutions.^[139] For example, Robin Whitaker mentioned the value of having transparent, compressed salary scales that “move people up in fewer and bigger jumps” in order to put women on a more equal threshold sooner and for longer.^[140]

6.1.6. Academic Staff Associations

Witnesses identified ways in which academic staff associations can embed equity requirements into collective agreements. This could include routine pay equity studies, setting diversity targets for hiring, establishing parental leave, and having labour representation present during salary and other negotiations with new hires.^[141]

6.2. Provincially Driven Solutions

Witnesses also highlighted several provincial initiatives that have been put forward to address pay inequities among university faculty in their jurisdiction.

6.2.1. Pay Transparency

Although some provinces, such as Ontario and Nova Scotia, have pay transparency requirements for the disclosure of salaries over $100,000 by public sector employers, several witnesses mentioned the potential of expanding such programs, either in other provinces or with a lower earnings threshold.^[142]

Witnesses also discussed the implementation of pay transparency legislation, such as British Columbia’s Pay Transparency Act that requires employers to specify expected pay ranges for publicly advertised job opportunities and prohibits employers from obtaining pay history information from applicants to inform negotiations and from making reprisals against employees who disclose their pay to colleagues.^[143]

6.2.2. Investment in Education

Dina Al-khooly noted the importance of investing in education to support the inclusion of diverse communities in post-secondary and research careers, including both post-secondary support and earlier learning support in elementary and secondary schools, as well as out-of-school learning.^[144]

She also discussed Visions of Science programming, which matches students as young as Grade 10 with internships in STEM to help them build momentum on science-related career paths while still earning money.^[145] As she described, “[t]he impacts of exploring academia on folks who are experiencing poverty cannot be overstated; it’s an impossible trajectory for someone who is coming from a place of economic insecurity.”^[146]

6.3. Solutions for the Federal Government

6.3.1. Research Funding

Witnesses identified potential methods of reducing pay gaps among university faculty through the federal research funding system, including the federal granting councils: CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC. These are also collectively known as the tri-council.

Several witnesses recommended that the federal government require institutions to provide specific data on gender and diversity representation and pay in order to receive funding. This would encourage more equitable distribution of funding and provide data that can be used to inform future research and decision-making.^[147] Joy Johnson described the process by which an institution is eligible to receive funding from the three federal granting councils:

[U]niversities have to apply and be recognized as an institution that can hold tri-council dollars. Usually that recognition is based on whether you have good audit functions, can manage the funds and all those kinds of things, but there are other levers that could be utilized to indicate that a university is eligible for funding from the federal government for tri-council dollars. For example, they would have certain policies and practices in place.^[148]

The Canada Research Chairs program, which provides funding for 2,285 research professorships at post-secondary institutions across Canada, was also highlighted as an example by several witnesses of how similar requirements can prompt change.^[149] A human rights complaint had led to changes in the equity requirements for research chair allocations. Witnesses discussed whether that model could be expanded to other federal funding programs.^[150]

The Canada Research Chairs program requires all institutions with five or more chair allocations to develop equity, diversity and inclusion plans. These must include chair representation targets for women, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples and visible minority individuals.^[151] If institutions do not meet their targets, they will only be able to submit new nominations for individuals who self-identify as belonging to one of the four designated groups: women, members of a visible minority, Indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities. Furthermore, their total allocation of research chairs will be reduced if targets are not met by 2029.^[152]

The program’s overall representation targets were set based on data from the 2016 census and June 2021 program representation, as outlined in Table 3 below.

Table 3—Canada Research Chairs Representation Targets

Source:  Canada Research Chairs, Establishing equity targets for 2021 to 2029.

Laura Neals testified to the wider effect that reporting requirements in programs like the Canada Research Chairs can have on university policies, saying that “what’s typically required for the Canada Research Chairs eventually flows out to the rest of our faculty members.”^[153] However, Joy Johnson noted that while establishing equity targets for the Canada Research Chairs program has ensured a diversity of representation in those positions, it has not addressed the issue of differential pay.^[154]

The representation requirement for Canada Research Chairs has also received criticism by some who feel as though it is leading institutions to put in place additional hiring criteria that are not merit based.[155] For example, on 7 December 2023, the National Assembly of Quebec passed a motion expressing concern over the exclusion of certain candidates for Canada Research Chairs on the basis of criteria unrelated to competence, reiterating the importance of academic freedom and the independence of academics from granting agencies, stating that promoting greater representation among under-represented groups should always be on the basis of equal competence, and denouncing the federal government’s introduction of requirements that affect Quebec institutions, but that do not reflect Quebec’s particular characteristics.^[156]

The Dimensions pilot program was also identified as a potential model for further expansion that would increase the data collected and reported on by Canadian universities.^[157] The pilot program worked with select institutions to advance equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the research ecosystem by developing and implementing a recognition program that allowed institutions to direct their ongoing development work in this area and promote their institution’s achievements.^[158]

Several witnesses also recommended increasing stipends and funding for graduate students to provide them with income while they develop the skills that may lead to a career as university faculty.^[159] Witnesses also spoke to the particular importance of these early career awards for under-represented groups to begin working as researchers.^[160]

As Mahadeo Sukhai explained during his testimony, regarding the importance of ensuring equity early on in individuals’ career trajectories, “you can’t be an assistant professor with a disability if you haven’t been a post-doc with a disability, a graduate student with a disability, an undergrad with a disability or a high school student with a disability.”^[161]

Describing the situation as it currently stands, Susan Prentice testified that:

We expect graduate students to spend years—two years for a master’s degree, and between four and six or more years as a Ph.D. student—to get the highest academic qualifications, and we pay them shamefully. By “them”, I mean families without money who can’t supplement, people without partners, people who are already disadvantaged and people whose living costs are higher perhaps because they have children or additional costs.^[162]

Susan Prentice also suggested that graduate students who receive scholarships from the federal granting councils—CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC—continue to receive funding during parental leave.^[163]

More general funding for research from the federal granting councils was also identified as important, the absence of which can lead to interruptions in faculty members’ careers due to a lack of institutional funding to provide full-time, full-year employment.^[164] It was also noted by Tina Chen that federal research funding should ensure that different types of research are recognized by award programs, in particular to acknowledge community-based research conducted by marginalized faculty.^[165] Community-based research can broadly be defined as a research methodology that centres on community partnerships and collaboration, with a focus on addressing challenges identified by the affected community as the starting point of research projects.^[166] Catherine Beaudry also identified making research funds available for childcare on eligible trips, such as to conferences, and ensuring that funding committees have an equity, diversity and inclusion representative.^[167]

6.3.2. Pay Gap Research

Witnesses identified several research gaps in the study of pay equity. Tracy Smith-Carrier, for example, recommended further investigation of pay gaps to explore “the longer-term impacts of these differentials, including implications for pensionable incomes, both occupational and policy-related. Examples are [the Canada Pension Plan] or the [Quebec Pension Plan].”^[168] She further recommended examining factors such as unionization, tenure status, and care work, and an exploration of the extent to which interventions to address pay equity have been successful.^[169] Similarly, Marcie Penner spoke of the need to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and policies designed to address equity, diversity and inclusion in order to better inform evidence-based practices.^[170]

Other witnesses identified gaps in the available data related to demographic information on university students and faculty, including with regard to race, Indigeneity, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity.^[171] Catherine Beaudry, meanwhile, identified data gaps related to university faculty members’ careers that span different institutions.^[172]

Tracy Smith-Carrier recommended that “Statistics Canada publish gender and diversity pay gaps at appropriate aggregate levels and make this information publicly available.”^[173] Vincent Dale, speaking on behalf of Statistics Canada, testified that while much of the data that the department collects is available for free through their website, advanced data, such as that requested by Tracy Smith-Carrier, can require additional physical and digital infrastructure.^[174] In those cases, Statistics Canada does recover their costs, resulting in fees levied on the researchers requesting the data.^[175]

Statistics Canada’s University and College Academic Staff System survey (UCASS) was also cited by witnesses as a source of pay equity data. UCASS collects data on full-time teachers at Canadian post-secondary institutions, including salary, age, education, gender, institution, subject taught, and rank. UCASS does not include data on racialized identity, Indigeneity or disability status. Vincent Dale, speaking on behalf of Statistics Canada, also explained that UCASS receives and compiles information using the administrative systems of the educational institutions involved.^[176]

Multiple witnesses called for the expansion of UCASS as a means to further data collection and ensure data standardization, particularly as it related to expanding to include contract and part-time academic staff, and the inclusion of data related to disability and other demographic factors.^[177]

Vincent Dale explained to the Committee that Statistics Canada is currently “assessing the feasibility of enhancing the information included in UCASS.”^[178] The feasibility study is expected to be completed by March 2024.^[179]

Airini, meanwhile, recommended further support of the Government of Canada’s Gender Results Framework.^[180] The Gender Results Framework is a tool developed by Women and Gender Equality Canada to track Canada’s current performance on gender equality, define next steps for enhancing gender equality, and establish measurement criteria for gender equality.^[181] Airini testified before the Committee that “[i]n collaboration with universities, the framework could generate case studies, beginning with pay gaps experienced among faculty at Canadian universities.”^[182]

The Disaggregated Data Action Plan, which currently funds a variety of initiatives across Statistics Canada, including the feasibility study Vincent Dale mentioned above, was also identified by Tina Chen as a way to ensure that post-secondary institutions are collecting and reporting data.^[183]

6.3.3. Federal Contractors Program

Witnesses also discussed strengthening the Federal Contractors Program, which currently requires all holders of federal contracts over $1 million and with a combined workforce in Canada of 100 or more permanent employees to collect data on representation of four designated groups—women, members of a visible minority, Indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities—and to file plans for achieving equity.^[184] A number of Canadian post-secondary institutions are currently included in the Federal Contractors Program:

• Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology;
• Bishop’s University;
• British Columbia Institute of Technology;
• Camosun College;
• Cape Breton University;
• Carleton University;
• Cégep de Rimouski;
• Cégep Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu;
• Collège Édouard-Montpetit;
• Corporation de l’École des hautes études commerciales de Montréal;
• Dalhousie University;
• École de langues La Cité inc.;
• Institut de recherche du Centre universitaire de Santé McGill;
• Institut national de la recherche scientifique;
• Nova Scotia Community College;
• Queen’s University;
• The Governing Council of the University of Toronto;
• The University of British Columbia;
• Université de Montréal;
• Université Laval;
• Université Saint-Paul;
• University of Calgary;
• University of Guelph;
• University of New Brunswick;
• University of Ottawa;
• University of Regina;
• University of Waterloo; and
• York University.[185]

Robin Whitaker and Susan Prentice noted in their testimonies that the funding threshold for the Federal Contractors Program was increased in 2013 from a previous level of $200,000. Robin Whitaker continued that she would like to see the threshold lowered to “bring more universities and colleges under federal legislation.”^[186] Indira Naidoo‑Harris, meanwhile, testified that she would like to see the program expanded beyond the existing four demographic groups to include Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and other sexually and gender-diverse (2SLGBTQI+) individuals, and with more specific and disaggregated reporting of data related to racialized individuals that reflects, for example, the experiences of the Black community.^[187]

It should be noted that in December 2023, after the Committee had finished receiving testimony on this report, the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force (EEART) released a report that covered some of the same topics covered by the committee’s study.^[188] In July 2021, the EEART was asked to advise the Minister of Labour on how to modernize and strengthen the Employment Equity Act, which requires employers under federal jurisdiction to take steps to increase the representation of the four designated groups—women, members of a visible minority, Indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities—at all levels of employment.^[189] While the Employment Equity Act does not apply to universities, it does have implications for the Federal Contractors Program, which replicates those designated groups in its own requirements, and includes some universities within its scope, as discussed above.^[190] The EEART study took a particular focus on supporting equity groups, improving accountability, compliance and enforcement; and improving public reporting.^[191] Its recommendations included:

• a decrease in the monetary threshold of the Federal Contractors Program;
• required participation in the Federal Contractors Program for colleges and universities that receive federal research grants; and
• that the Employment Equity Act expand its four designated groups—which are replicated in the Federal Contractors Program—to include Black and 2SLGBTQI+ individuals.^[192]

Recommendations

Considering the evidence collected during this study, the Committee makes the following recommendations to the Government of Canada:

Recommendation 1

That the Government of Canada, in interactions with post-secondary institutions, provincial governments, and territorial governments, emphasize the importance of cross-jurisdictional coordination to achieve greater pay equity among university faculty.

Recommendation 2

That the Government of Canada, through Statistics Canada and the federal granting councils—the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research—develop a standardized data collection tool for post-secondary institutions to report on pay equity, including consistent demographic data on gender, race, disability status and Indigenous identity that would be tied to institutional funding eligibility.

Recommendation 3

That the Government of Canada, to the extent that federal jurisdiction allows, through the federal granting councils—the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research—consider specific supports to increase pay equity for under-represented groups.

Recommendation 4

That the Government of Canada amend the Federal Contractor’s Program to require participation for all colleges and universities that receive federal research funding, expand the four designated groups of the Employment Equity Act and Federal Contractors Program to include the 2SLGBTQI+ community, and require the submission of disaggregated racial data, as possible given privacy requirements.