Embedding Anti-Discrimination Policies and Allyship in Mining and Engineering Workplaces: A Pathway to Decent Work

Abstract

Despite the existence of human rights legislation in Canada, equitable access to these rights remains elusive in many workplaces—particularly in traditionally male-dominated sectors such as engineering and mining. This paper argues that the proactive application of human rights frameworks can drive meaningful workplace culture transformation by addressing both overt and systemic inequities. While Canadian human rights laws offer legal remedies for discrimination, underrepresented groups continue to face barriers, especially in non-unionized environments where support mechanisms are limited. This paper presents a novel analysis of Canadian workplaces through a human rights lens, emphasizing the need for policies that go beyond reactive measures. It advocates for increased public awareness, targeted allyship training, and leadership accountability to foster inclusive and equitable work environments. The findings have broad implications for advancing decent work across sectors and for building representative and inclusive workforces.

1. Introduction

Human rights laws are critical elements for “social engineering and transformation” [1] (p. 51). The global human rights legislation transformation began with the formation of the United Nations, which was shortly followed by the International Declaration of Human Rights [2]. However, human rights legislation first appeared with The Saskatchewan Bill of Rights in 1947 [3]. Today, legislators have implemented Canadian human rights at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels. While the scope and application vary across Canada, legal remedies exist for those who experience inequity based on many aspects of one’s identity, such as sex, race/ethnicity, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, religion, and family status. Furthermore, human rights were firmly embedded in the Canadian constitution through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I, Constitution Act of 1982 [4]. The Charter outlines that “every individual is equal before and under the law” and allows for equitable solutions which address “disadvantages because of” one’s identity [4] (sec. 15). Furthermore, the Charter ensures that rights outlined in the Charter should be equally accessible to men and women [4] (sec. 28).

As a result of the Charter and human rights statutes, there has been a decrease in overt discrimination in Canada [5]. Conversely, social engineering has also negatively impacted the Canadian mining industry by systemically excluding women’s full participation through legislation; for example, the 1909 Coal Mines Act stated: “No boy under the age of twelve years nor any woman or girl of any age shall be employed or be permitted to be in the workings of any mine” [6] (c. 23). However, because of the Charter, legislation that once prevented women from working in the Canadian mining industry has been rescinded [7] and explicitly sexist corporate policies that limited women’s careers have been revised [8]. Despite Canadian legislation which offers human rights protections, women in traditionally male-dominated industries continue to face inequities in their workplaces and at higher proportional rates than men [9,10].

These inequities are perpetuated by harmful biassed behaviours, such as sexist and racist comments, and systemic discrimination perpetuated by biassed systems, such as pay inequity [11]. As a result of systemic and individual biases, many organizations and professions across Canada are striving yet struggling to retain a representative workforce that is reflective of the communities in which they operate and serve. For example, women in Canada make up 50% of the population and 47% of the workforce [12]; however, in the Canadian engineering profession, women only comprise 14% of practicing professionals [13] and 16% of the mining industry [14]. Furthermore, the glass ceiling for women is the toughest to break in male-dominated fields, as women are more underrepresented in leadership roles in the mining sector than in almost every other sector [15] and are also disproportionately underrepresented in engineering leadership [16]. A cultural transformation is needed to address the systematic and often subtle inequities preventing equality for women and other marginalized groups in traditionally male-dominated workplaces, like mining and engineering.

In this paper, I argue that the practical application of human rights frameworks can aid in advancing workplace cultural transformations by proactively addressing systemic inequities prevalent in traditionally male-dominated industries, like mining and engineering. I first compare the scope, implementation, and impact of the Charter and human rights legislation in Canada. Next, I summarize the status of women in mining and engineering and highlight case studies to answer the question: what systemic and intersectional barriers do women and other underrepresented groups face in Canadian engineering and mining workplaces? Lastly, I discuss how human rights-centred frameworks can proactively influence policies and practices to improve the retention of women and other underrepresented groups in these workplaces and explore the role organizations, professional regulators, and industry associations can play in advancing equity, diversity, and inclusion beyond legal compliance.

The scope of this paper primarily examines Canadian human rights systems as they apply to workplaces; as such, it does not provide a critical review of all laws and policies relevant to the mining sector, including those that may inform mining’s relationship with the environment or Indigenous communities. The significance of this work lies in its novel examination of Canadian human rights and its implications for advancing inclusion and equity for underrepresented groups in workplaces. While I use the mining industry and engineering profession throughout the discussion, the value of this paper extends beyond these traditionally male-dominated workplaces and may support the implementation of policies and practices in other workplaces as they strive to achieve a representative and inclusive workforce.

1.1. The Ripple Effect of the Charter

As outlined in the introduction, the Charter’s entrenchment in the federal constitution allows for the protection of human rights in Canada under the law. Canadian human rights statutes, including the Charter, protect fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of association. Human rights statutes also create civil and political rights, such as protection against arbitrary detention; however, this paper focuses on anti-discrimination or equality provisions in human rights statutes. The Charter’s constitutional powers improved upon the original 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights [17], which had limited practical application for protecting equality [18]. Furthermore, the Charter was established to be a living document that would advance along with Canadian society. For example, in 1996, the interpretation of the Charter broadened to encompass sexual orientation; although it was not until 2005 that same-sex marriage was legalized in the Civil Marriage Act. Likewise, while the Charter, which came into effect in 1985, “applies only to government actors and actions,” the Charter creates a ripple effect that aids in applying fundamental freedoms throughout Canadian society in related human rights statutes [19] (p. 141).

Conversely, Canadian human rights statutes extend beyond interactions with the legal system or policies and include conduct between governments, private individuals, and businesses, including employment. For example, equality provisions in the Canadian Human Rights Act apply to interactions that individuals may have with the federal government, such as accessing goods, services, or facilities and receiving accommodations based on prohibited grounds [20]. Human rights statutes are “considered quasi-constitutional” [19]. Significantly, the Canadian Human Rights Act applies to employment agreements with the federal government and, as an example, includes provisions for pay equity based on sex [20]. Federal legislation, such as the Canadian Human Rights Act, applies to federally regulated industries, like transportation, uranium mining, telecommunications, and banking.

Similar to the Canadian Human Rights Act, various provincial and territorial human rights statutes provide anti-discrimination provisions for individuals in accessing accommodations and services to the public and establishing business transactions, including employment contracts, within provincial or territorial jurisdictions [20]. For example, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, 2018 includes protections for rights relating to freedom of conscience, expression, association, arbitrary imprisonment, employment, property sales, or accessing a rental property [21]. Furthermore, human rights legislation includes a means for resolution, which is typically overseen by a human rights commission or tribunal in the appropriate jurisdiction. Resolutions for complaints and support mechanisms may vary slightly across Canadian jurisdictions and could include mediation, arbitration, tribunals, or accessing the courts. Commonly, human rights commissions act as gatekeepers, interpreting and guiding human rights complainants toward resolution. Additionally, human rights commissions are frequently mandated to establish preventative educational programming.

Conversely, Charter complaints against a law or policy frequently proceed through the court system or administrative decision-makers, such as labour relations boards or arbitrators. When the Supreme Court issues a Charter decision, it is intended that applicable legislative changes will ripple into effect throughout the country. The first Supreme Court case to respond to the Charter was Andrews v Law in 1989 [22]. Since then, the interpretation of rights has continued to evolve through court decisions. Milestone court rulings that positively impacted women include recognizing sexual harassment as sex discrimination [23], recognizing pregnancy discrimination as sex discrimination [24], and legalizing abortion [25].

In reality, the ripple effect from Supreme Court decisions can have different implementation outcomes in each jurisdiction, which Koshan argues may be linked to masking known prejudices [19]. As a result, White argues that Canada’s federalist system allows for disparities in access to accommodations and resolutions across the country [26]. For example, accessing reproductive rights and same-sex marriage rights can vary widely depending on where one lives in Canada [26]. Furthermore, accessing equal pay for equal work has proven to be difficult to identify and remedy. Despite pay inequities being well-documented as a form of prohibited discrimination for decades, not all Canadian jurisdictions have systems and policies to support pay equity [27,28,29]. Furthermore, even when legislation is in place to support pay equity claims, reactive resolution processes have proven to be largely inaccessible to those without the backing of a battle-ready union [27]. Proactive pay legislation exists in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and at the federal level, while some provinces—like my home province of Saskatchewan—have no pay equity legislation. It seems that recognizing human rights and realizing fair and equitable access to these rights are two different things in Canada.

1.2. Positive Impacts on Institutions and Workplaces

Generally, the Charter and human rights legislation across Canada have had a positive impact on the everyday lives of many Canadians. Early in Canada’s history, many groups of people have experienced discrimination, as legislation and common law court decisions were largely made by and for the benefit of upper-class, heterosexual, cis-gender, white, English-speaking, able-bodied men. For example, in Canadian history:

• Women’s voting, reproductive, and financial rights were abdicated to their husbands [30,31],
• Indigenous Peoples’ rights were restricted under the Indian Act [32],
• Disabled people were institutionalized and sometimes sterilized [33],
• Racialized minorities were treated with racism and segregation [34,35], and
• Homosexuality was treated as a “sin, sickness, or crime” [36].

Over the past half-century, challenges faced by equity-deserving groups in Canadian society have been brought to light in several reports [33,37,38,39]. Awareness of these societal inequities helped shape the Charter [40]. Additionally, L’Heureux-Dube argues the Charter brought with it “the positive effect of making the relationship between judicial decision-making and societal values more transparent” [41] (p. 400). As a result of the Charter, many unique rights of individuals are now protected, and Canada is frequently recognized as a global leader in human rights. Furthermore, Canada’s human rights legislation has positively impacted social expectations—for example, women have meaningfully increased their participation in the workforce [42], can legally access abortions [26], have better access to childcare and pregnancy leaves [43], and can marry or divorce whomever they like [44]. Pay equity gaps have narrowed across many industries and professions in Canada due, in part, to proactive pay equity legislation’s positive impact on creating accessible data [28,43]. Marginal progress has also been made to diversify who sits on boards and in government seats [45]. Similarly, professions like law and medicine that were once male-dominated are approaching gender parity [46,47].

However, progress has not been equal across all industries, and advancements remain out of reach for some. There has been the least progress for those in lower socioeconomic groups and those who exist at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities [48]. Intersectionality is a concept coined by Crenshaw, who recognized that Black women faced compounding challenges of racism and sexism [49]. Similarly, depending on a person’s identities, one may face overlapping and compounding challenges due to homophobia, ableism, ageism, and other forms of discrimination. In Canada, Indigenous women and girls experience a higher proportionality of violence, sexual violence, and murder compared to other demographic groups [50]. Intersectional challenges also exist in the workplace. As such, women who are also Indigenous, Black, a member of a racialized minority, disabled, or 2SLGBTQ+ are more likely to be under- or unemployed and underpaid compared to white and able-bodied women [48]. Individuals belonging to more than one equity-deserving group clearly face intersectional systemic challenges.

Due to the uneven progress, many scholars criticize whether human rights gains have been enough. Scholars like Godley [51] and Kapur [43] highlight the persistent prejudice that women experience, resulting in discriminatory treatment in hiring, promotions, and pay. Furthermore, Koshan argues that inconsistencies in court decisions can perpetuate discrimination and placing the onus to prove discrimination on the victim is unjust [19]. Requiring individuals to seek resolution of systemic problems is neither practical nor just. Human rights frameworks were originally premised on the notion of providing a combination of both proactive and reactive measures [1]. In alignment with the intent of human rights statutes, Clément calls for policymakers to rethink human rights legislation with an added focus on prevention—through education and training—and accessible support to resolution for the most marginalized [52]. What then might a proactive anti-discrimination approach look like in traditionally male-dominated industries, such as mining and engineering?

1.3. The Status of Women in Engineering and Mining

In the Canadian mining industry, the biggest constraints that the sector faces are centred on labour availability and remaining competitive in global markets while supporting the energy transition. To reduce the risk of labour shortages due to an ageing workforce, mining companies are increasingly looking to hire local and representative workforces [9]. A representative workforce in mining—which is often situated in remote and rural locations—inherently implies a higher percentage of women and the inclusion of Indigenous peoples. Since mining in Canada commonly occurs near Indigenous communities and Indigenous rights are clearly defined in the Charter, mining needs to engage with and consider the needs of women and Indigenous people as well as other equity-deserving or underrepresented groups, including persons with disabilities, racialized minorities, Black people, and members of the 2SLGBTQ+ community [4]. Currently, in the mining industry, Indigenous women remain underrepresented compared to Indigenous men [53]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, women in mining—who are often highly educated—were able to retain their employment in mining at higher rates than those with lower levels of education, which, due to Canada’s ongoing colonial policies, are often Indigenous peoples [53]. Furthermore, even though the retention of women in mining persisted through the pandemic, women in mining remain underrepresented in all occupations and skill levels compared to women in other Canadian industries [14].

2. Materials and Methods

The case studies shared in this paper are captured from public court records accessible through CanLII. The methods for finding these cases included using keywords of mining, sex harassment, sex discrimination, pregnancy, and family status. To aid with the further discussion on paths to resolution, I also offer details on the length of time for resolution, note whether the complainant and defendant were unionized—which is atypical of those in the engineering profession—and share details on the resolution process and outcome offered to complainants due to their hardships.

3. Results

Women in the mining industry and women in engineering face several challenges due to their gender and at the intersections of other aspects of their identities, despite often being highly qualified and educated [54]. These harmful forms of bias may include sex discrimination, sexual harassment, bullying, retaliation, sexual assault, and family discrimination. These challenges result in lower levels of representation in leadership, pay inequity, and higher levels of discrimination and harassment, which are often exacerbated by the rural and remote work conditions required in the natural resource sectors.

3.1. Sex Discrimination

Legal barriers once prevented women from working in Canadian mining. In Ontario, these legal barriers remained until 1978, when women were allowed to work in underground mining operations [7]. Even once legislators removed these barriers, company policies and cultural norms have prevented women from working in all areas of mining. In the 1988 case of Wiens [8], the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that Inco Metals Company had discriminated against the complainant, Laurene Wiens. Furthermore, the Human Rights Tribunal found Wiens was discriminated against because of her sex. Inco’s policy was to prohibit any women of childbearing potential from working in certain areas of the plant due to the risk to unborn fetuses from nickel carbonyl gas. Previous research has found that this gas may affect the development of animal fetuses. As a result, many engineering controls have been put in place to minimize exposure of the gas to all workers. Despite the well-managed risks, Inco’s policy singled out women of childbearing potential. The Tribunal concluded that the potential for a woman to become pregnant has no effect on her job and that a more reasonable policy would be to move women who are pregnant or trying to become pregnant from working in that processing area. The courts resolved this case seven years after the complainant filed their case. Lastly, the complainant was supported by her union through the complaint process.

3.2. Sexual Harassment and Bullying

In many jurisdictions, severe discrimination may be labelled as harassment. Additionally, many Canadian legislation recognizes that if discrimination is reoccurring, it may also be considered bullying. In 2020, the Saskatchewan Labour Arbitration Board ruled in favour of dismissing a grievance in Unifor, Local 922 v Nutrien Ltd. [55]. In this case, a unionized worker, Nathan Hedlin, had been harassing and bullying a female dry attendant, Mary Wells. The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, as Hedlin had undergone training on Nutrien’s Respect in the Workplace policy, and his behaviours were not in alignment with Nutrien’s Core Values and Code of Conduct, to which Hedlin had also been trained.

The arbitration case outlines how the male harasser, Hedlin, bullied his co-worker, Wells—potentially the first female dry attendant at this mine site—for over two years. The unionized dry attendant position is responsible for taking care of the mine changerooms—commonly called the “dry” in mining—which are typically divided into separate spaces by gender, by employment type (union and management), and sometimes spaces for external visitors. The changerooms typically contain lockers, showers, and toilets.

The first incident involved the message of a sexual slur being left at Wells’ work area. Despite an investigation of 50 employees, no one was found to be at fault.

Following this incident, Wells permanently moved into the dry attendant role. Management at the site then changed the procedure, intending to avoid uncomfortable situations for Wells where men may be nude or changing. The new procedure and signage instructed workers to use the visitors’ dry if the dry attendant was cleaning the main dry. A few months later, Hedlin, ignoring the signs, stripped down to his socks and underwear in front of Wells. This violation of procedure was reported to management, and they suspended Hedlin for three shifts.

The next month, Hedlin brought to work a sexually explicit t-shirt, wrote his locker number on it, and put it in the laundry for the female dry attendant to find. The female dry attendant “realized whose [shirt] it was and was very upset and almost embarrassed. I felt as though this was a direct and personal blow to me” [55] (sec. 11). Following the t-shirt incident, management terminated Hedlin’s employment. Hedlin, with the support of the union, grieved his dismissal but was ultimately unsuccessful in getting his job back.

While common in Canada, the union—to which Wells and Hedlin belonged—was obligated to support both its members through the arbitration process. Unions can, therefore, play an important role in resolving bullying complaints. The Unifor, Local 922 case took 1.5 years to resolve from the time that management dismissed Hedlin until the arbitrator dismissed the grievance. As the labour arbitration case primarily focused on the question of whether the employer was justified in terminating Hedlin, the arbitration did not consider further justice for Wells. As such, the focus of the arbitration was not whether Wells’ human rights were violated, and she was not awarded damages for her hardships. However, if Nutrien’s collective agreement included a non-discrimination clause and Wells brought forward a grievance, perhaps the arbitration could have considered retribution and justice for Wells.

3.3. Sex Discrimination and Retaliation

Due to the traditionally male-dominated nature of the mining industry or the engineering profession, it is common to have men-only events, as traditionally the workforce had been only men. In 2014, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled in McConaghie v. Systemgroup Consulting Inc. that Sheryl McConaghie had been discriminated against based on her sex, related to a men’s only event [56]. In this case, Systemgroup, McConaghie’s employer, had organized a customer appreciation “Men’s Day” in 2012, which targeted cis-gender, heterosexual men. Systemgroup advertised the event as “A Day for Men without Women and Children”, and participants were invited to “Bring your friends, bring your acquaintances, just don’t bring your wife!” [56] (para. 3). Furthermore, the event had entertainment for participants, including massages and “Hooters Girls.”

McConaghie raised her concerns with her employer and a senior leader about the inappropriateness of the event and her exclusion as a female employee. Shortly thereafter, Systemgroup fired McConaghie due to supposedly “poor performance” [56] (para. 6). The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that McConaghie was likely terminated due to speaking up about her rights, and she was awarded CAD 15,000 in “compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect” [56] (para. 239). The McConaghie case took two years from when the complaint initially occurred until resolution. McConaghie was not a unionized employee.

3.4. Sexual Assault at Work Camps

Despite the acknowledgement of instances of sexual assault at mine sites and work camps, sexual assaults are underreported in Canada [10,50,57,58]. As a result, there were very few criminal or human rights cases describing sexual assaults at Canadian mines or work camps found in CanLII.

One case which describes sexual assault at an Albertan work camp was a Worker’s Compensation case [59]. In this case, a male aggressor sexually assaulted the same female worker at a work camp twice within a month. The female worker reported the incidents to her management after the second occurrence, and they told her to “keep quiet and do her work” [59] (para. 33). The worker experienced retaliation rather than support from her employer following the incidents. Over the next year, the worker experienced stress and was diagnosed with PTSD due to the attacks. The worker chose not to file a criminal or human rights complaint but did seek workers’ compensation. Initially, Worker’s Compensation denied her compensation claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission later granted an appeal in 2019, six years after the sexual assault occurred. It is unclear from the records if the woman who was sexually assaulted was a unionized employee.

3.5. Family Status Discrimination

Family status claims hold particular interest to the mining industry and the execution phase of engineering construction projects, which often require working in remote or rural locations, living in fly-in-fly-out camps, and shift work. Additionally, the understanding of family status accommodations is continuing to evolve in Canadian courts. In the mining industry, caregivers often face limited availability and accessibility for childcare in the rural locations where they live, which meets the demands of a career in mining. When my children were young, I worked 10 h shifts, four days a week, while living in Saskatoon, a city of more than 250,000 people. The mine site that I worked at was located 75 km from my home. With the time connecting with my carpool to the site, I was usually away from home for 12 h per day. While my children were young, my partner had full responsibility for getting the children to and from childcare, as most childcare options did not accommodate my schedule.

A recent case relevant to the mining industry is the 2022 ruling in Gibraltar Mines Ltd. v. Harvey [60]. Many parents who work at mines or shift work can relate to this case, as they try to balance managing their work, often at remote or rural locations, and caregiving commitments. In this case, Lisa Harvey and her husband are both unionized tradespeople at the Gibraltar Mine, which is located 60 km from Williams Lake, and typically work the same 12 h shift. Before returning from her first parental leave in mid-2018, Harvey and her husband tried to negotiate changes to their shifts with Gibraltar to allow them to access available childcare options in their rural community. Their main challenge was that there were no available childcare options that accommodated their shifts, and the couple did not have access to reliable family support to bridge the gaps. The couple pursued avenues of self-accommodation, including taking vacation time to deliver the child to daycare or care for their child. Despite the couple’s attempts to reconcile their work commitments and childcare responsibilities, they were unable to do so and ultimately requested a family status accommodation from their employer.

In the 2022 Gibraltar decision, the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled the BC Human Rights Tribunal had used the incorrect interpretation of the two-part test for family discrimination and that the complaint should be dropped [60]. The argument from Gibraltar was that the two-part test is based on a change in employment circumstances, not a change in family responsibility. Nearly two years after the first hearing and four years since Lisa Harvey returned from parental leave, the judge ultimately agreed with Gibraltar’s argument and dismissed the case. Lisa Harvey was supported by her union to file the complaint.

3.6. Pay Inequity

Pay inequity in mining and engineering is well documented; however, many Canadian pay equity cases involve unionized workforces. The 2018 Supreme Court decision in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé des services sociaux was the first pay equity case to successfully uphold the charge of sex discrimination under Section 15 of the Charter for the benefit of women in Canada’s top court [61]. In the Alliance case, the concern was rooted in access to information to bring forward pay equity claims originating from the implementation of Quebec’s Pay Equity Act, which was enacted in 1996 [62]. As many women in mining and engineering are not unionized, access to pay information to initiate a claim would be challenging. Furthermore, Saskatchewan is one of the few jurisdictions in Canada that does not have pay equity legislation. Unless proactive pay equity legislation is enacted in provinces like Saskatchewan, there is little hope that gender pay gaps in mining and engineering will be closed.

4. Discussion

4.1. Proactive Solutions for Women in Engineering and Mining

The world of business and workplaces is shifting toward greater social awareness as it adopts new ways of working. A growing social awareness holds the potential to address the challenges that women and other underrepresented groups face in their workplaces. Commonly, organizations, such as professional regulators, corporations, associations, and governments across Canada, are responding to social pressures and making an organizational commitment to change [63]. In 2020, the Mining Association of Canada released a statement which acknowledged the industry’s values and the advancement of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) [64]. Additionally, since the global COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a marked shift in the mining industry to accelerate automation efforts and normalize remote work options [48]. As workplaces transition into post-pandemic ways of working, retaining remote work options will be critical to recruiting and retaining women, who still carry most of the caregiving duties in Canada. Additionally, the growing demand for organizations to advance EDI in Canada must be taken alongside meaningful actions toward Truth and Reconciliation.

Given the current motivation to incorporate social change in Canada, now is a good time to examine and implement proactive and practical solutions [65]. Proactive anti-discrimination legislation policies may be applied in practice to support retaining women and other underrepresented groups in the engineering profession and mining industry. Recognizing there is room for more research in this area, I wonder how anti-discrimination systems might be proactive in addressing challenges that women engineers or women in mining face and support retaining them in their professions and the resource sector.

4.2. Data, Analysis, and Reporting

Anti-discrimination policies afford a proactive approach to create accountability and transparency for important data. The key data relevant to EDI needs to include intersectional demographic data necessary for researchers or analysts to interrogate data by groups and sub-groups of people and highlight their differences in experiences and instances of inequity [66]. Once the data analysis is complete, leaders can set targets to close the gaps and take action. For example, current legislation supports reporting on the diversity of boards and senior leadership, thereby narrowing gender gaps in corporate leadership teams [45]. Setting targets is an important step that organizations can take to overcome biases and ensure better representation of those who are otherwise underrepresented. Additionally, a representative board or senior leadership team may be better able to advance EDI in the rest of the organization. However, a Norwegian study found that senior leadership-focused equity legislation does not seem to have an effect beyond senior leadership [67]. It seems that what gets measured gets managed in EDI as well, and that targets may need to be set throughout the organization.

Public reporting of advancement is also important to ensure accountability to close the gaps. Considering the MeToo movement, Rhodes and Baron [68] argue that discrimination-related data should be publicly reported to government agencies. We know from the implementation of human rights legislation that not all governments may adopt these measures. Instead, perhaps industry or professional associations should take the lead as they collect and report key data. Such an approach would support workers to make informed decisions about where they work and when to raise complaints. Similarly, public reporting may inspire organizations beyond governments or regulators to create policies and programmes to close the gaps. For example, the awareness of the challenges faced by women in mining has inspired the Mining Association of Canada (MAC) to develop a framework to advance EDI [69]. Similar to other frameworks developed by MAC, the EDI framework holds the potential to introduce accountability and transparency for more than 50 mining companies in Canada, while also standardizing a mechanism for comparing mining corporations’ EDI advancements or lack thereof. I am hopeful that MAC’s framework will have a similar impact on board diversity targets in raising awareness and creating accountable strategies.

Studies have shown that effective leaders focus on key metrics and a supportive environment to lead transformational change [70]. Additionally, proactive government policies—which engage leaders in advancing EDI—have been shown to be effective in gaining the support for EDI initiatives [57]. However, across Canada, what one jurisdiction considers proactive may differ from another and as such, companies, associations, and professional regulators can take the lead in adopting proactive practices. Furthermore, if an integrated approach to advancing EDI is adopted, leaders can then be held accountable through their organizational policies and programmes. The onus of shifting culture then also shifts from the marginalized few to those in positions of power [71].

4.3. Pay Equity Policies

Despite protections offered in the Charter, pay inequity remains a challenge across many sectors and professions in Canada. Recently, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) found that female engineers earn 11% less than male engineers [72]. Furthermore, engineering professional regulators collect annual pay data from members and publish information allowing members to calculate their pay. The pay calculations do not include demographic factors, such as gender or ethnicity, despite that many studies show these identity factors can affect one’s pay.

Alternatively, professional regulators could adopt a preventative anti-discrimination approach to pay equity, like the proactive pay equity legislation which exists in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia, and at the federal level. Likewise, industry associations, such as MAC, could facilitate proactive pay equity accountability through public reporting. Additionally, associations or regulators could aid in resolving pay inequities occurring due to gender, ethnicity, or other factors, like how a union might support its members. Furthermore, multi-national mining or engineering organizations can adopt proactive pay equity policies to ensure corporate pay equity policies are applied fairly across all locations, even those lacking proactive pay equity legislation. Instigating pay equity policies across all sites of business may even help to reverse the pay gap for women engineers in mining, allowing them to earn a premium for their skills [73].

4.4. Activate Allies

Alongside organizational policies and programmes to address systemic inequity, there is also a need for education and training for all individuals. Everyone is at a different level of their awareness of challenges faced by underrepresented groups and their motivation to use their relative power and privilege to lead transformational change. Additionally, to support the retention of individuals from underrepresented groups—those who may face disproportionately higher instances of discrimination and harassment in their workplaces—all employees have a role to play in ensuring their workplaces are inclusive. Inclusive workplaces are both psychologically safe and promote a sense of belonging.

I define workplace allyship as a practice of inclusion where—through listening, learning, and reflection on personal experiences and privileges—people actively support historically marginalized persons and communities in achieving their full potential [74]. As leaders carry more relative power in organizations, they can promote and support the necessary culture shifts by being trained to adopt allyship behaviours and establish a practice of allyship [75]. Therefore, awareness and skill-building for potential workplace allies will be a necessary component of any anti-discrimination policies.

Mining and engineering workplaces already have systems in place which can be leveraged to develop workplace allies. My previous research showed that the Canadian mining industry values and has extensive management systems which support workplace health and safety [9]. Much like mandatory safety training in mining and engineering to recognize hazards and intervene, bystander training would be an essential part of anti-discrimination skill-building. Aligning anti-discrimination efforts and EDI skill-building to create respectful workplaces and support the psychological safety of underrepresented groups, such as women in mining or engineering, will therefore be important.

The mining industry is already working collaboratively to adopt an approach to promote respectful workplaces, as evidenced by MAC’s recently revised health and safety protocol, which now incorporates psychological safety [69]. Additionally, anti-discrimination efforts can align with promoting mental health and well-being alongside EDI. A study of the Australian mining industry found a correlation between mental health, instances of sexism, and belonging [76]. In particular, the Australian study found a link between organizational and interpersonal sexism [76], which indicates that addressing one may impact the other. Rhodes and Baron [68] also argue that equity-focused legislation can further bolster companies to adopt anti-discrimination policies and ensure victims are supported through resolution. In the absence of consistent equity-focused legislation across all Canadian jurisdictions, organizations such as industry associations and professional regulators have an important role to play in creating an ecosystem that develops and promotes workplace allyship. Workplace allies will be required to champion the transformation of organizations to adopt and embed anti-discrimination policies.

5. Conclusions

Human rights laws in Canada are a critical element for “social engineering and transformation” [1] (p. 51), a necessity to address systemic inequities which persist in traditionally male-dominated workplaces. While human rights legislation has been effective in reducing overt discrimination in Canada, inequities persist in many avenues of our society for equity-deserving groups, including the workplace. Despite the differences in the scope and implementation of the Charter and human rights legislation in Canada, there have been many positive transformations impacting the lives of Canadians. Today, human rights legislation—including those embedded in the Canadian constitution—condones discrimination and offers paths to resolutions. However, recognizing human rights and realizing equitable access to these rights can be two different things in Canada. One’s location, persistence, and membership in a union are important factors in seeking justice.

Despite human rights legislation, those with marginalized identities continue to experience inequities in many Canadian workplaces. In traditionally male-dominated workplaces, women are disproportionately more likely to experience inequities and those without the backing of a union, such as engineering professionals, may have fewer resources to navigate through resolution processes. Like the intent of human rights legislation, professional and workplace policies also need to include anti-discrimination policies and programmes which proactively address subtle, individual inequities and embedded systemic inequities. Researchers can help design and test practical anti-discrimination measures within and for organizations. Anti-discrimination measures could include increasing public awareness, facilitating allyship skill-building, and holding leaders accountable for workplace culture through public reporting measures.

The value of proactively addressing systemic inequities extends beyond mining or engineering and may benefit other workplaces looking to retain a representative workforce. The next cultural transformation needs to include non-governmental organizations, such as professional regulators, industry associations, and individual corporations, to collaboratively develop and proactively adopt anti-discrimination measures, which create an ecosystem where all people can advance their careers without being hampered by discrimination.