Thank you very much for the opportunity.
I highlighted two studies. One is by Howard Ramos and Peter Li. It's called “Differences in Representation and Employment Income of Racialized University Professors”. That appeared in The Equity Myth in 2017. The second study I highlighted comes from the Canadian Association of University Teachers, or CAUT. Again, it draws from Statistics Canada data. A third study, I think, is very important. It is highlighted in the Employment Equity Act review task force briefs. Consistently, the Catalyst Canada advisory board highlights the same kinds of discrepancies.
These scholars did multiple regression analyses to try to rule out other possibilities. Is it age, seniority or, for example, human capital? Is it factors such as gender or race? How is it that racialized women, for example, or women with disabilities consistently have lower salaries?
May I point out that, in a royal commission report in 1984, Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella alluded to the same fact 40 years ago? The question is, why has it not changed?
Howard Ramos and Peter Li point out that we have to do other kinds of studies that are non-quantitative. Look at productivity. Are they more productive? Are they getting more research grants? Are they engaged in more prestigious services? Ramos did a study on that. Multiple studies show that racialized minorities outperform and out-innovate in many instances, but they are still underpaid. In fact, the 2021 census for Canada pointed out higher education and lower pay, or higher education and underemployment. This pattern has persisted.
What are the factors that account for this? The Conference Board of Canada as well as Li and Ramos say we cannot rule out discrimination as a factor in these kinds of things, because nothing else seems to make sense when you do regression analysis on the role of education, seniority, etc.