<![CDATA[Turner Consulting Group - Blog]]>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 12:50:44 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[Dialogue in Polarizing Times]]>Sat, 01 Nov 2025 13:16:07 GMThttps://www.turnerconsultinggroup.ca/blog/dialogue-in-polarizing-timesOriginally published 10/25/2023
Contributed by Thamina Jaferi

As Islamic History Month comes to a close, I have been reflecting a lot on the current state of the world and the mass death, pain and suffering we are witnessing on a global scale, especially in the Middle East. Throughout history, colonialism, nationalism, patriotism, ethno-centrism, racism, classism, war, territorial disputes, politics and belief/value systems have been the cause for different groups of people to become polarized. 

When we live within our own “bubbles” of influence and only listen to voices of those who look and sound like us, it’s frighteningly easy to become cut off from those who are different than we are. When there is no ability to see a middle ground or common interests, or the humanity of others, the dangers of violence and civil unrest become more prevalent.

The alarming rise of hate incidents indicative of racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism and other forms of discrimination around the world and here in Canada is just one of the many nefarious byproducts of this polarization. The multicultural fabric, security and peace of Canada and many other countries is at risk as a result of allowing hatred to sow the seeds of division amongst communities who otherwise live harmoniously with each other. 
​
There are three things that we can implement to ensure that we are bridging divides between diverse communities with intersecting racial, ethnic, religious and secular identities in challenging times of polarization:

1. Resist the dehumanization and “othering” of people that are different than us
  • Human rights are for all people, and the law applies to us all, equally, not just a select few based on race, socioeconomics, religion or politics
  • Any death and any harm (oppression, discrimination, harassment, etc.) towards any human being matters, and each human life is inherently worthy of being protected as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Ontario Human Rights Code and all such provincial human rights legislation
  • Dehumanization of any group does not increase the safety of other groups as it only makes peace more challenging to foster
2. Understand the role that the media plays in “othering” and think critically about the news/media sources you are consuming
  • Think about the use of language in news/media to describe diverse groups and whether that contributes to their dehumanization
  • Is there one standard being used for some groups but not others.  What impact does that have?
  • Reflect on dynamics of power and privilege within societies, and whether different groups have the same access to resources and support. If they do not, what can be done to provide equity and equal access?
3. Listen to and honour the lived experiences of those who are different from you
  • A person’s experience may be drastically different to yours but it does not mean it is any less valid and deserving of respect
  • Peaceful co-existence and growth means we will have to sit with uncomfortable emotions and viewpoints that may not align with what we believe/experience
  • Freedom of conscience and expression are fundamental rights that can be exercised provided they do not promote hate towards individuals or groups
These tips, along with regulating our own emotions and addressing our biases, can go a long way in seeing our common humanity. At the end of the day, each human being wants the same things including love, belonging, safety, shelter, food, family, relationships, connection, freedom, employment, opportunities, self-determination, etc.

We all live on the same planet. Our well-being and safety are interconnected. We are all interdependent on one another and only through this realization can we make realistic and equitable progress towards peaceful co-existence. This will require personal growth for all of us in order to be able to see beyond our own individual interests, focus on commonalities, and work cooperatively towards building healthier and safer communities.

For more guidance on intercultural dialogue, please visit UNESCO’s e-Platform for Intercultural Dialogue which has various helpful resources on the topic of building peaceful and inclusive societies: https://www.unesco.org/interculturaldialogue/en/publications. 
]]><![CDATA[In Matters of Harassment and Discrimination: Context, context, context]]>Sat, 01 Nov 2025 12:57:32 GMThttps://www.turnerconsultinggroup.ca/blog/in-matters-of-harassment-and-discrimination-context-context-contextOriginally published 8/9/2018

When it comes to buying real estate, they say the three most important things are location, location, location. When considering matters of workplace discrimination and harassment, the three most important things are context, context, context.

Harassment is defined by the Ontario Human Rights Code as “a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” This definition makes it clear that the act itself needs to be considered in context, because it is not just the behaviour (a course of vexatious comment or conduct) but the context—that is, whether it is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome—that must be considered.

Yes, sometimes there are comments or behaviours that clearly would be deemed to be harassment or inappropriate for the workplace.

For most comment or behaviours, employees, managers, and those investigating complaints must consider the context.
As an employee, consider the context of your behaviour
​When we conduct training, we often find that participants are often looking for easy answers about what is or is not acceptable in the workplace. Some even ask for a list of what they can and cannot say.  But, unfortunately, it is not  so easy. In these training sessions I try to get participants to consider the context of their comments or behaviours to understand whether it would be considered harassment. I like to use one simple example—calling your partner “babe”. You may like to call your partner “babe” at home and when you're out socially. But consider the impression you would be giving if you work together as executives for the same company. Would you ever call your partner “babe” in the boardroom? You might reconsider using such a term of endearment while you’re both at work.

Context matters. In this case, you need to consider who is hearing your comment or witnessing your behaviour. Even if your partner doesn't mind being called "babe" in the boardroom, others around the boardroom table might. Further, this example makes it clear that the other person may welcome the interaction in one context, but not in another. 

Now let's take another context. Imagine your reaction if you’re at a social event and someone you don't know comes up to you and your partner and refers to your partner as “babe”. This term of endearment may not be a problem for your partner, but you certainly might object! Again, context matters; in this case who is making the comment.

Rashida Jones and Donald Glover have teamed up to produce a Time’s Up PSA on workplace sexual harassment. The video helps people to consider various types of behaviours at work. There are some things that are a definite “no,” such as giving your co-worker a full-body hug. But then there are things that need to be considered in context, such as asking a co-worker out. They ask viewers to once again think about the context: Do you have power over the person you are asking out? Are you their boss? Do you have influence on whether they get a raise or promotion?​
Managers must consider the larger context that impacts behaviours
​In addition, managers need to consider the individual in the context of the whole organization. Inappropriate workplace behaviours are often quickly dismissed as conduct by “bad apples”. But a manager needs to consider the context in which the behaviours occur—Is this really a bad apple or has the organization (or managers) supported or facilitated these behaviours? Managers also need to consider whether organizational policies and training are in place that communicate to employees what types of behaviours are unacceptable in the workplace.

In his Ted Talk, The Psychology of Evil, Professor Philip Zimbardo also reminds us that we need to consider the context within which behaviours occur and impact of the system on an individual’s behaviour. This is particularly important if organizations want to foster a workplace where harassment and inappropriate behaviours do not occur.
Picture
Organizations must consider context when investigating complaints
Context is also important when organizations launch an investigation into workplace discrimination and harassment.

Let’s take the case of Pierre Lebrun. Lebrun worked at OC Transpo, Ottawa’s public transit system, for over 10 years.

One day, he punched and was fired immediately. His union helped him to get his job back on the condition that he take an anger management course.

Picture
​However, in punishing this one act of workplace violence without considering the context, OC Transpo failed to address the real issue—Lebrun’s co-workers had in fact been harassing him for years by mocking his speech impediment.  

The organization also failed to consider that he had repeatedly told managers about this harassment. Unfortunately, they had not done anything to stop it.  
On April 6, 1999, Pierre Lebrun walked into his workplace and shot and killed four co-workers in just over five minutes. He then killed himself.

The inquiry into this incident explored the context in which the workplace violence had occurred. It found that low employee morale and poor management had plagued the organization for years.

While this example is extreme, it shows the danger of taking a narrow view of a person in a situation of harassment: we might end up framing the real victim of harassment as the aggressor and miss the bigger picture altogether.
Summary
What do individuals, managers, and organizations need to keep in mind regarding workplace harassment? Individuals need to consider the context of their behaviours. Just because they hear it on a radio, doesn't mean its appropriate language for the workplace. Just be because you wear it to a club (and look hot!) it might not be appropriate attire for work. Similarly, no matter what you think you see, know, or heard about a person or a situation, managers must do their due diligence to find out more.

Because in matters of harassment and discrimination, context is key.
]]><![CDATA[Racist Ableism]]>Sat, 01 Nov 2025 12:54:50 GMThttps://www.turnerconsultinggroup.ca/blog/racist-ableismPicture
Originally published 9/24/2022

My sister has worked for a municipal government in the Greater Toronto Area for over 20 years. During that time, she has developed a serious citrus allergy. This allergy causes a severe allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis. For my sister, the allergy is life threatening and requires immediate medical treatment.

​Because allergies and scent sensitivities are considered a disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code, employers have a duty to accommodate my sister, short of undue hardship.

My sister provided her employer with the necessary medical documentation so that they would understand the seriousness of her allergy and be able to accommodate her. In response, her employer notified others on her floor about the allergy and asked them not to bring anything into the building containing citrus.

In the same building where my sister works, there is an employee with an allergy to bananas. To accommodate this employee, signs are posted throughout the building reminding employees and visitors alike not to bring bananas into the building. This is typically the minimum that an employer would do to protect employees with scent sensitivities or allergies.

​So, while the employer posted signs on each floor reminding people not to bring bananas into the building, the organization would not post signs reminding people not to bring citrus to work—not even signs on the floor where my sister works.​
​
Although people on her floor know about her allergy and were asked not to bring in anything with citrus, people have continued doing so. They drink teas with citrus and bring them to meetings. They bring oranges to work and eat them at their desks. The cleaners use cleaning solutions containing citrus. My sister has even been taken out of the building by ambulance four times because of her allergic reaction to the mere scent of citrus in her workplace. The last time it happened, her manager told her to stay home because “there is nothing more we can do for you.” Despite the obvious risk this allergy poses to my sister’s life, the employer has refused to post signs notifying everyone working in the building not to bring citrus to work.

There is only one difference between the employee with the banana allergy and my sister: that person is White, and my sister is Black. This is how racism and ableism interact. While the employer managed to put up signs for a White employee with a fruit allergy, that turned out to be too much effort for a Black employee. In fact, my sister’s employer would rather let her to die than put these simple measures in place—the very same measures they have already implemented for another employee.

This expression of racism is something we see frequently when we conduct Employment Equity Audits. In some organizations, White employees have described receiving accommodation for a disability (e.g., computer equipment, time off for medical procedures) or family responsibilities (e.g., time off to care for a dying family member, time off to accompany a family member to a medical appointment). Yet, racialized employees have shared with us that they were unable to get the same accommodations. White employees are given the support they need, while racialized employees face suspicion and are considered an inconvenience.

The result is the systemic undermining of racialized people with disabilities. When racialized people don’t receive the accommodation they need to be able to perform their best at work, they are routinely fired for performance issues. They, and their race, are seen as the issue, not the racist ableism that they experience at work.

For this reason, when examining ableism and how it impacts the work experiences of employees with disabilities, employers need to recognize that not all people with disabilities have the same experience—as I’ve shown here, racism interplays with ableism to further negatively impact the experiences of racialized people with disabilities.
​
Following a strongly worded letter that I wrote on my sister’s behalf, she has since returned to work and the appropriate accommodations put in place. It seems that her employer needed a reminder of their legal duty to provide accommodation for my sister’s disability, and that failure to provide that accommodation, because of her race, was an additional violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code. ​

]]><![CDATA[Bias-free Hiring Versus Hiring for Diversity: You can't have one without the other]]>Sat, 01 Nov 2025 12:51:25 GMThttps://www.turnerconsultinggroup.ca/blog/bias-free-hiring-versus-hiring-for-diversity-you-cant-have-one-without-the-otherPicture
Originally published 4/11/2021

Much of my work involves conducting Equity Audits. That is, I review employment policies and practices through an equity lens and make recommendations for change. One component of an Equity Audit is a review of an organization’s hiring and selection policies and practices. The goal is to remove barriers to the hiring of candidates from diverse backgrounds, communities, and identities so that they can be fairly assessed based on their job-related skills and abilities. The term used in human resources circles is “bias-free hiring.”

​​Yes, bias-free hiring is a misnomer because it is impossible for any human being, no matter how self-aware or open minded, to be free from bias. Bias is automatically introduced once people become involved in the process. However, there are ways to structure the hiring process to minimize the impact of bias and to support candidates to do their best in the interview.
A bias-free hiring process is one that doesn’t pose any barriers to candidates based on their identity or any factors that don’t relate to their ability to do the job. Some of these barriers include:
  • Failure to provide accommodation to the candidate
  • Making judgements about candidates based on their name and address
  • Asking gender and culturally biased questions, such as, “Tell me why you’re the best person for the job”
  • Inflating the level of education needed for the job, and
  • Requiring a police records check for all positions.
Bias-free hiring, however, is different from hiring for diversity. Bias-free hiring focuses on fairly assessing all candidates based on job-related skills and abilities, while hiring for diversity focuses on deliberately hiring more candidates from diverse backgrounds.

But you can’t hire for diversity without first creating a fair and equitable hiring process. If your organization’s hiring practices continue to be influenced by nepotism and favouritism, subjectivity, hiring for “fit”, and so on, then as your organization focuses on hiring candidates from diverse backgrounds, communities, and identities they are likely to be seen as having been hired because of who they know or some other factor not related to their ability to do the job. They will be set up for failure. First, they may not have the skills, experience, and knowledge to be effective in the job. Secondly, their colleagues, supervisors, and subordinates are likely to see them as being hired to fill a “diversity quota,” and may not support them to be successful in their role.

There is disagreement about whether bias-free hiring alone will diversify the workforce. I contend that there are many fully qualified candidates from diverse backgrounds available for many jobs. Many are underemployed, unemployed, or fully employed but seeking a job with better opportunities or at a more welcoming and inclusive organization. If a hiring process is free of bias, it certainly would help hire candidates from diverse backgrounds.

But we know that competitions can never be completely bias-free. Research shows that given equally qualified men and women, men are more likely to be offered the job. Likewise, given an equally qualified Black person and White person, research shows that the White person is more likely to be offered the job. In many cases, a man or White person will be hired over a better-qualified woman or Black person.

In addition, in many organizations, the gaps in representation are so great that they will never be closed simply through a bias-free hiring process. As such, organizations need to proactively hire for diversity by using one of the following approaches: 

Selection among equally qualified candidates
This is the mildest form of employment equity and occurs when someone from a diverse background, community, or identity is chosen from a pool of equally qualified candidates (e.g., they score within 10% of the highest-scoring candidate). In this case, when several candidates are equally qualified, the candidate from a diverse background, community, or identity is hired.

Selection among comparable candidates
A slightly stronger form of employment equity occurs when someone from a diverse background, community, or identity is roughly comparable to other candidates (e.g., their overall score is lower, but they are still fully qualified for the position). This still results in the hiring of a qualified person for the position.

Although the Canadian labour market is becoming increasingly diverse, there is a growing gap between those who are employed in a position commensurate with their skills and qualifications as well as a growing gap between the diversity of employees and that of the communities they serve. Closing these gaps means that organizations not only need to implement good human resources policies and practices that help create a bias-free hiring process, but they also need to understand the value of having a more diverse workforce.

​The leaders of organizations also need to ask themselves, if their hiring process excludes Indigenous peoples, racialized people, persons with disabilities, those who identify as LGBTQ2S+, and in some occupations women, are they truly hiring the best person for the job? And what are they missing when their employees don’t reflect the diversity of the community they serve?
]]><![CDATA[Boys on Boxes: Examining Systemic and Structural Racism]]>Sat, 01 Nov 2025 12:39:03 GMThttps://www.turnerconsultinggroup.ca/blog/boys-on-boxes-examining-systemic-and-structural-racismOriginally published 7/28/20

The killing of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement have sparked protests around the world and made the term “systemic racism” go mainstream. From reporters at major news outlets to the leaders of large corporations and non-profits, everyone is making proclamations against system racism and vowing to eradicate it.
 
Yet, while many in high-profile positions claim to know what systemic racism is, they fail to understand that the solutions, too, must be systemic. Being nicer to each other does not change the policies and practices that keep Black people from being hired. Hiring more racialized police officers does not change policing practices that target Black and Indigenous people. Being more inclusive at the leadership table also won’t automatically change policies that fail to test for COVID-19 in the hardest-hit parts of the city.
Systemic racism means that we can all be nicer to each other, hire people from diverse backgrounds, and create more inclusive workplaces and simultaneously reproduce racial inequality within organizations and society. Duke University sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva calls this phenomenon “racism without racists,” whereby systemic racism persists within organizations without overt displays of racially discriminatory behaviour from employees themselves. Racial inequality can be reproduced by nice people who effectively implement organizational policies that are racist.
 
The pictures of the boys on boxes can help us explore this issue further. We’ve all seen the pictures, the one where the picture on the left represents equality and the one on the right represents equity.

The pictures were designed by Craig Froehle in 2012 to illustrate a point he was making in an argument with a conservative activist.   In his blog post chronicling the history of his illustration, Froehle says he created the picture to illustrate the difference between equal opportunity and equality of outcomes (i.e., fairness or equity). Using some stock photos and clip art, he put together the two pictures in about a half-hour and then posted them on Google+.
The first frame of the picture shows that treating everyone the same may not result in equal outcomes. And, in fact, treating everyone the same can only work if everyone needs the same thing.
 
The second frame of the picture depicts “equity.” Each boy has the number of boxes he needs to see the baseball game. The tallest boy doesn’t get a box because he doesn’t need one. His box has been given to the shortest boy, who can now see the game.
 
When used in training, this image helps participants recognize that accommodation may be needed in the form of policy changes or providing an employee with specialized equipment to help them do their job. They see the boxes as representing these policy changes or accommodations and the boys as representing groups of employees rather than individuals. 

However, the second picture has one significant drawback — the gaze of the observer remains on the boys themselves. The conversation centres on the shortest boy and his deficiencies, which society must accommodate if this boy is to see the baseball game. As such, the solution to the boy’s shortness is to give him a box.

Take education as an example. If the implication is that the shortest boy needs additional educational resources because of a deficit inherent to him, his family, or his community, society is saying that the shortest boy is less academically capable or comes from a culture that does not value education. The assumption is that there is nothing inherently wrong with a system that produces unequal educational outcomes. Even when the system produces inequality generation after generation, society continues to focus on the flaws “inherent” in individuals and communities, not the broken system itself.

However, the more one reflects on this picture, the more one is prompted to ask questions like:​
  •  ​What are the values of society that gave each boy a box in the first place? What values establish the redistribution of the boxes as the appropriate approach to achieve equity?
  • What happens when the organization or community runs out of boxes?
  • ​What is the narrative that gets created and reproduced about the short, middle, and tall boys and their community?
  • What is said about the shortest boy in the first picture when he “has a box like everyone else” yet still can’t see the baseball game?
  • How does the tallest boy feel about having to give up his box, even when he doesn’t need it?
​
​Broadening the discussion to the fence, which is often overlooked when discussing the picture. Changing our gaze from the boys to the fence helps us ask different questions:
​
​​​​What is the purpose of the fence? Could a different type of fence serve the same purpose?

Who designed and built the fence? Who benefits from it? Who is most familiar with the fence?
​
Discussing systems rather than people allows us to look for other solutions — systemic solutions — such as a chain-linked fence. This type of solution does not require individual accommodation, but it does allow all the boys to see the baseball game regardless of their height. ​
But in reality, the boys don’t start with a level playing field. Even the picture with the chain-linked fence limits the conversation, and the question  "Why  can't the boys watch the baseball game from the stands?" is asked. 

We must instead shift to talking about structural racism and the social conditions that put these boys outside of the stadium itself.  Structural racism “encompasses the entire system of white supremacy, diffused and infused in all aspects of society, including our history, culture, politics, economics and our entire social fabric” (Lawrence & Kelecher, 2004).
Rather than simply looking at the policies and practices within an organization that produce and maintain racial inequality, we need to look at the social structures that work together to maintain racial inequality. These include the news media, entertainment media, cultural institutions, educational institutions, labour market, health care, child welfare, policing, and the criminal justice system. All these social structures build on the historical legacy of racism on which Canada was founded and that is embedded within our present-day policies and institutions.

This approach requires that organizations get used to holding uncomfortable conversations about systemic racism and to engaging in still deeper conversations about structural racism. We can’t talk about policing without discussing how the mental health system has failed Canadians, in particular racialized people. We can’t talk about poor outcomes for Black students in the education system without discussing the role of police both in public schools and on the campuses of our post-secondary institutions. We can’t talk about the overrepresentation of Black and Indigenous people in the child welfare system without talking about how the health care and education systems over-report them to child welfare, as well as addressing how society maintains Black and Indigenous people in poverty, uses issues of poverty to apprehend children, and then pays White families to foster these children.
 
These are complex and interrelated issues that leaders of all institutions must grapple with. If they are struggling to discuss and understand systemic racism, they need to buckle up for much deeper conversations. 
]]><![CDATA[The Case for EDI]]>Sat, 01 Nov 2025 12:24:33 GMThttps://www.turnerconsultinggroup.ca/blog/the-case-for-ediOriginally published 7/31/2023

​Just as it has in the United States, the concept of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) has become a political target in Canada.
​
Over the past few years, we’ve seen the rise of the “anti-wokeism” campaign in an effort to undermine the workplace EDI efforts undertaken by many organizations across the country. These efforts recently culminated in the right-wing’s use of the suicide of a school principal to bully and target an EDI consultant.
 Over the past few weeks, hundreds of tweets and several newspaper articles and opinion pieces have commented on this incident. One opinion piece in the Financial Post [1] referred to EDI as: 
  • “Perils of wokeism”
  • “Lavish expenditures”
  • “Ideological trysts”
  • “Radical political agendas”
  • Waste of “limited resources on extraneous social initiatives and supressing the free speech we should require from our educational institutions.”

The opinion piece shares the false narrative that EDI “is finally encountering a massive backlash.”

This narrative is not true. EDI is encountering a massive backlash from a small group of people.
 
The facts and our experience tell a very different story from the one being spun by opponents of EDI.
​
At every organization where we have conducted an Equity Audit, employees have consistently expressed to us that they welcome their employer’s efforts to create a more fair and equitable workplace. Employees want an employer that values them and what they can contribute to the workplace. They want a workplace where they feel welcomed and heard. They want a workplace where they are hired and can advance based on their skills and abilities rather than who they know or their personal characteristics. They want their leaders to understand the oppressive systems, practices, and attitudes that continue to impact certain groups of employees and the organization’s service users.

​When we conduct focus groups with employees, we repeatedly hear the following:
  • Women are sexually harassed and sexually assaulted in the workplace; women in leadership positions being undermined; and women at all career stages face limited career opportunities because they become pregnant or because people assume that they may become pregnant
  • The opportunity for women to advance—even in organizations with predominantly female employees—is limited simply because they are women
  • 2SLGBTQ+ employees face homophobic and transphobic comments from colleagues
  • Employees who are Indigenous, identify as 2SLGBTQ+, or who have a non-evident disability feel unsafe sharing their identities at work
  • Racialized employees experience overt racism and microaggressions: they are called the N-word, told not to bring their cultural foods to work, isolated and excluded in the workplace, unable to advance despite being more qualified than their colleagues, and sent death threats for getting a job that someone else was expected to get
  • Indigenous employees experience overt anti-Indigenous racism: staff openly make racist comments about Indigenous peoples, staff refuse to engage in training about anti-Indigenous racism, and Indigenous employees encounter limited opportunities for hiring and advancement in the organization.
  • Employees with disabilities are unable to receive even simple accommodations to enable them to engage fully in work and the workplace, have their careers derailed when their disability becomes known, and are forced to go on disability leave when they cannot receive the needed accommodation.

Is it a “radical political agenda” to require that all employees be treated with dignity and respect? Or expect to come to work and not experience harassment and discrimination?

Is it an “ideological tryst” for organizations to ensure that they hire the best people for the job and support them to do their best work?

Is it “wokeism” to want the diversity of staff within an organization to reflect the diversity of the community? Is an organization “too woke” for recognizing and capitalizing on the talents of employees from diverse communities, backgrounds, and identities?

Rather than being a political tool, EDI initiatives are underpinned by legal, demographic, and business imperatives. EDI is not a lavish expenditure; instead, it is critical to the operation of all organizations in Canada.

Legal imperative
All organizations in Canada are required to comply with human rights and health and safety legislation to ensure that their workplaces are free from discrimination, harassment, and violence. Many jurisdictions also have legislation to proactively promote accessibility for persons with disabilities. EDI helps ensure that organizations are in compliance with these pieces of legislation and that workplaces are free from discrimination, harassment, and violence.
​
Demographic imperative
The facts tell us that baby boomers continue to age and retire, that they are leaving behind vacancies that are becoming increasingly hard to fill. In addition, as the economy grows and changes, organizations require more employees with different skills. People filling these positions increasingly come from groups that experience barriers in the workplace, namely women, racialized people, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, 2SLGBTQ+, and immigrants.

According to Statistics Canada: [2]
  • 51% of the Canadian population identifies as female
  • 27% of the Canadian population is racialized (visible minorities)
  • 22% of the Canadian population aged 15 and over lives with one or more disabilities
  • 6% of the Canadian population is Indigenous
  • 4% of the Canadian population aged 15 and over identifies as 2SLGBTQ+
  • 23% of the Canadian population was born outside of Canada

Organizations from the largest corporations to the smallest non-profits understand that the increasing diversity of the Canadian population has implications for their human resources practices, and who they hire and how they treat their employees impacts the experience of customers and service users. EDI helps organizations hire people from diverse communities, backgrounds, and identities; create equitable employment policies and practices; and foster inclusive workplaces.

Business imperative
Various studies also point to the positive business outcomes from EDI efforts, including:
  • Increased ability to attract top talent
  • Increased employee loyalty and retention
  • Increased creativity and innovation
  • Increased organizational performance
  • Increased profits
  • Decreased human rights complaints and grievances
  • Better employee performance
  • Improved service delivery
EDI is not a “radical political agenda.” Equity, diversity, and inclusion are outcomes that all organizations—whether in the public, private, or non-profit sector—should be concerned about and striving for.

Rather than a waste of “limited resources on extraneous social initiatives,” EDI initiatives will ensure that organizations have qualified, competent, and capable employees to fill their job vacancies, and that they get the best from these employees. Rather than a “peril of wokeism,” EDI is key to a healthy economy. It is a wise and necessary investment in our collective future.

​Download a summary of this blog post here: The Case for EDI

[1] Levitt, H. (2023, July 28). Employee's DEI experience a cautionary tale for companies on the perils of wokeism. Financial Post. financialpost.com/fp-work/employee-dei-experience-cautionary-tale-companies-wokeism 

[2] Statistics Canada. (2022). Canada at a glance, 2022. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/12-581-x/2022001/sec6-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. (2023). Census profile, 2021 Census of Population. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&DGUIDList=2021A000011124&GENDERList=1,2,3&STATISTICList=1,4&HEADERList=0&SearchText=Canada

​Statistics Canada. (2022). Immigration, place of birth, and citizenship – 2021 Census promotional material. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/census/census-engagement/community-supporter/immigration
]]>