Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond today to the tabling of Bill C-64, an Act respecting employment equity. This bill is important for federally regulated work places. It revokes the current Employment Equity Act adopted eight years ago.
Despite the very laudable intentions behind this first Act, it was harshly criticized by informed observers. The present government is now trying to correct some deficiencies. We certainly intend to help it improve its performance.
During the election campaign, the Liberal Party made three promises on employment equity. First, it promised to extend the scope of the law to federal boards and agencies. It also promised to empower the Canadian Human Rights Commission to conduct legal inquiries on issues related to employment equity. Finally, it promised to require firms that are awarded federal government contracts to comply with employment equity provisions.
So what were we presented with yesterday in this House, Madam Speaker? We were presented with a bill that in effect extends the law to the federal public service, its boards and agencies. It seems that this was the government's first objective. Bravo! The Bloc Quebecois applauds any initiative to ensure equal access to employment for all, including native people, the disabled, women and members of visible minorities.
The Bloc Quebecois also supports the principle of legislation forcing employers to comply with the principle of equal opportunity. Since in our opinion the government must set an example for the private sector, any new legislation had to extend the application of employment equity measures to its own departments. I might add, Madam Speaker, that it was high time.
Bill C-64 also empowers the Canadian Human Rights Commission to determine whether the provisions of the legislation are being complied with and to investigate the enforcement of the law. It also establishes an employment equity tribunal when circumstances warrant it. That is all very good, Madam Speaker.
It appears, however, that the government's third promise, concerning the application of the law to all government contractors, will not be kept. I will return to this point a little later in my speech. As you might expect, we appreciate the government's effort, but everything is not perfect either.
A committee will review the bill, but I would like to raise a few points that struck me. First of all, as I just said, I am disappointed with the lack of provisions concerning government contractors. The bill in no way extends the law to this category of employers, and this is regrettable.
Indeed, at the very beginning of the act, a "private sector employer" is defined as "any person who employs one hundred or more employees". You can understand my disappointment, as well as that of many observers. Why does that act not apply to other private sector employers who win contracts for which they are paid with public money? Should we not ensure that taxpayers' money be used in places where employment equity is valued and respected? I believe so, but this government seems to think otherwise. We will get back to this issue in committee.
I also wonder about the delays in tabling these legislative amendments. Why did the government wait for more than one year after the swearing-in of the new team to amend the act? It is certainly not because of the deficit, since this bill, unlike others, has virtually no financial impact on public money. This legislation is primarily one of a moral nature; it could have been introduced early, to emphasize the importance of the social justice which we seek to establish.
This delay is also unfortunate because, in the current context, the new legislation will definitely not help achieve employment equity. Just think of the hiring freeze, of the fact that employees cannot move on to the next salary step, and the massive reductions in the federal public service. This is unfortunate and we deplore this situation. In spite of its laudable objectives, the new legislative policy will not give results before many years, thus once again hurting the same categories of people.
Previous employment equity policies have had a very limited impact. For example, over a period of six years, the number of promotions for full-time employees in all private sectors of activity improved a mere three per cent in the case of women, 0.49 per cent for aboriginal people, 1.11 per cent for handicapped people, and 3.82 per cent for members of visible minorities. These are, in my opinion, very poor results, considering that the act has already been in effect for eight years.
The figures are not much better when it comes to recruiting. Indeed, the situation improved by 2.4 per cent for women, 1.30 per cent for aboriginal people, 0.98 per cent for handicapped people, and 2.91 per cent for members of visible minorities.
As for the public service, in 1986, Treasury Board adopted a policy reflecting the spirit of this legislation, but as far as representation in management positions is concerned, aboriginal people still represent only 1.1 per cent of the total number of public servants; persons with disabilities, 2.1 per cent; members of visible minorities, 2.1 per cent; and women, 15.8 per cent. The situation is clearly not any better in the federal Public Service than it is in the private sector, hence our conclusion that the measures that have been in place so far have not improved the participation of members of designated groups.
According to the statistics, very few members of these groups are in senior management positions and women still work mostly in office jobs, sales and services. So the situation is far from ideal, as the minister pointed out earlier.
I think we will have to examine the available information very carefully to determine why previous policies did not work.
In concluding, the Bloc Quebecois welcomes a bill that broadens the application of employment equity measures to include the entire public service. However, we believe the bill could be significantly improved so as to obtain better results and meet the objectives of this legislation. We will gladly make suggestions to the government during consideration of the bill in committee.