We discussed this when the officials came here earlier.
I just want to make the point that current provision in the law stems from a human rights complaint. The judge's decision on that complaint was that there had been systemic discrimination against women applying for non-traditional work. At the time, I believe it was at CN Rail. That situation was difficult to prove on an individual case, but collectively, in looking at the overall employment data of that company, it was clear that not only had women been underrepresented, but also that there were barriers that had, intentionally or unintentionally, discouraged women from working in those sectors.
I would argue that in many work environments, women have made great progress. There are women who have made breakthroughs in areas that are very non-traditional. Ms. Glover, for example, is an example of someone who has experience in an occupation that was, up until 10 or 15 years ago, very non-traditional—and still, the numbers of women in it are low compared to the overall hiring rate.
The purpose of the employment equity legislation was to oblige employers under federal jurisdiction, or those who take contracts at the federal level, to address systemic barriers to the hiring of women, people of colour, first nations people, and people with disabilities. I understand that this change does not affect employers under federal jurisdiction, but it would affect federal contractors, in that they would no longer be obliged to do the outreach and to report annually on what steps they have taken to comply with federal employment equity legislation as federal contractors.
Let's think about who some of these federal contractors are. They could be major aerospace companies, major auto companies, telecommunications companies, or IT companies—some of which may have an excellent record of hiring people from these four groups. But I would suggest that some still have a ways to go. Although some may have made progress, some, I would argue, would not have made progress if there had not been the requirement to report on an annual basis.
While I would argue some things have improved for some groups in some occupations, there is still a long way to go. I think it is a step back when it comes to the defence of human rights, equity, and fair representation of all people in the workplace to remove the requirement for mandatory compliance and reporting that exists today for federal contractors.
So we are opposed to this change.