Madam Speaker, it is evident that the member who has just spoken is rather ill informed because he has just quoted provisions that have been in legislation for over seven years, suggesting to the public that they are new provisions, some new burden.
I think he has also failed to point out to Canadians that the minister has taken the unusual step of giving an extra stage of debate on this bill, not curtailing debate, by having this discussion in the House before referring it to a committee where it will be subject to full, open discussion and consultation and will come back to the House for at least two more stages of debate. I do not know how much more open a process can be.
One of my proudest accomplishments during the last Parliament as a member was to be able to move in committee and have accepted in this Parliament amendments to the Financial Administration Act and the Public Service Employment Act that required the Public Service of Canada to live by the same rules with respect to employment equity that the act imposes on private sector employers.
It was done in this simple way, by embarrassing the government, by saying for over five years now you have had regulations imposed on the private sector that you refuse to live by. If we want to set an example as government, we have to be prepared to say that there is one set of rules for everybody. If it is good enough for the private sector it is good enough for the public sector.
The member should applaud what this bill does. It precisely says that there is no longer one legislation for the private sector and another for the public sector. We are all going to live by the same rules with respect to employment equity.
The legislation on employment equity has been in place since 1987.
Despite considerable progress, most aboriginal people, women, members of visible minorities and persons with disabilities who do have work continue to have low paying jobs. More specifically, employers and employees know they are not enjoying the many benefits of employment equity. In fact, diversity is a way to enhance the work environment and thus increase productivity.
By expanding the application of this legislation to the federal public service, we will provide many opportunities for persons with disabilities, members of visible minorities, aboriginal people and women.
Notwithstanding the howls from the Reform members who wished to hang on to the privileges that people just like them have enjoyed for a long time, this legislation is not about introducing bias. This legislation is about removing bias in hiring and retention of employees and in promotion. This is not about abandoning the merit principle. It is about reaffirming and fulfilling the merit principle.
For 75 years we have had in the Government of Canada the principle that you get hired on the basis of your ability and no other. Despite that we have a senior management category with less than 18 per cent women. There are the lower echelons of the lowest paid workers, 80 per cent women. Even within those lowest paid categories, guess who rises to the top in those lowest paid categories? It is not the 80 per cent of employees in those categories who are women, but mostly men.
There are numerous examples. We only have to look at the statistics of the number of referrals for employment in the public service last year; for example, 8.2 per cent referrals for positions. These were people who had already been screened as qualified. There were 8.1 per cent of a visible minority, but only 2.5 per cent of hirings were of a visible minority. There is a bias operating there and we have to take a great deal more time than we have today to look at why that is.
Let me touch some highlights. There are perceptions and attitudes: "I have always seen a certain kind of person succeed and fit well into management and therefore that is the kind of person I want to hire". These are not deliberately, consciously biased attitudes but they are attitudes that clearly influence who gets hired, who gets the opportunities to train, to get promoted, to get career development opportunities.
It affects the other side in terms of who applies. We apply for jobs where we see ourselves fitting in and succeeding. Unfortunately most women, most aboriginal people, most people with disabilities, most people from visible minority groups have not seen themselves being hired and progressing to the upper echelons in the public service.
The working environment creates an atmosphere in which one either flourishes or does not. Our working environment has not been conducive to people of different backgrounds being hired, being promoted, fitting in well and moving up the ranks.
We know that in a time of downsizing it is going to be extremely difficult to achieve some of our targets in the public service, to really move to a public service that is more representative of the taxpayers of Canada and of the people we serve. We all know that understanding our clients is an important part of being able to serve them well.
We have to make this effort notwithstanding hiring freezes, downsizing and so on. Twenty-five hundred people were hired in the public service last year. There were tens of thousands of promotions, movements, development appointments, and that is where we can certainly make some progress.
I mentioned this bill will be going to committee. We are not here to debate even approval in principle of the bill. The minister has chosen to forego that, to get that whole issue in front of a committee for examination of the bill, so it can save the time and money of duplicating effort to consider a bill and also to conduct a review of the existing act.
I want to make some suggestions to the committee as it receives this bill and considers it. I really have a hard time justifying to myself why the armed forces, the RCMP and CSIS are exempted from this legislation unless they are included later by order in council. I am sure there are private sector employers who have equally valid reasons to feel they should be exempted, but we have chosen not to do that. I urge the committee to look at that.
I urge the committee to look at defining compliance and to ensure that compliance is not simply depositing a report. I urge the committee to look at contracting, because we are now developing a shadow public service through contracting that has no obligation to pay attention to the merit principle or to employment equity or to a number of other government policies. Let me cite one case. I am aware of a man and a woman employed through a government agency to do exactly the same kind of work with exactly the same kind of qualifications. Earning a $100 difference, guess who was earning the lesser amount?
The purpose here is improving, giving everybody the opportunity to participate fully in the economic recovery this country is heading into. I want to point out that we are talking here not about privileges for minorities. We are talking about equal treatment. Unless the Reform Party cares to make the argument that inherently women, people of colour, people with disabilities, aboriginal peoples are less capable, then it can only accept the reason they have not progressed in the public service or in the private sector is some inherent preference for a different kind of candidate.
We are talking about the majority of Canadian workers and giving that majority who fit in one of these categories equal opportunity to succeed and to prosper in the Canada of the future.