On June 20, 1987, routine compliance reviews were launched to determine the extent contractors had implemented employment equity. The Federal Contractors' Bulletin (September 1988) outlined "lessons from the first year." According to the Bulletin, a majority of companies demonstrated a serious commitment to employment equity, but "the state of preparedness among contractors was found to be less than expected." The Bulletin does not provide statistics but simply states that "in a number of cases, the compliance review officer, expecting to examine an established program, found that little progress had been made."

Approximately 1100 companies have signed Certificates of Commitment out of which 569 have received government contracts, making them subject to compliance reviews. One hundred and eight companies have come under review through random selection. A news release issued by Employment and Immigration on March 21, 1989, stated that out of the 108 reviews, "only two companies have been found to be in non-compliance." Monique Vezina, Minister of State for Employment and Immigration, announced the imposition of sanctions against Freed and Freed International Ltd. (Winnipeg) for failure to implement employment equity.

The second case, Northern Alberta Dairy Pool (Edmonton), is under appeal (1). Sanctions can lead to eventual debarment from the suppliers source list and the loss of opportunities to compete for future government business. It is important to note that under the Contractors Program, the government's policy does not require a contractor to file an employment equity plan but only to commit to having such a plan.

When first introduced in 1985, the Employment Equity Act was called by the government a "landmark piece of legislation and a catalyst to change." Women's groups across the country called it "weak, ineffective and a betrayal of commitments and promises." The first employers' reports required under the legislation were available October, 1988, and they confirm many of the women's fears (2). Three hundred and seventy-one companies, or 97% or the employers covered by the Act, filed reports.

According to Monique Vezina, prosecution dossiers are being prepared for those employers who have not compiled. A survey of the reports shows that the legislation has had little impact on the hiring and promotion of the four target groups who make up more than half a million Canadian workers: women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and members of visible minority groups.

Hiring and promotion practices in some of the country's largest employers continue to favour white able-bodied men. Women, who comprise the largest category of the four target groups, lag behind. Reports from the five major banks, for example, show that 71 % of women employees make less than $27,499 while an average of 53% of men make more than $35,000. At Bell Canada, women are still favoured for clerical work: in 1987, 165 men and only three women were hired for skilled and semi-skilled jobs. The CN, which was ordered by the Human Rights Commission in 1984 to hire more women, hired 136 women in 1987 compared to 1,023 men. The CBC also shows a poor record. A majority of the women make less than $35,000 while most of the men make more and are more likely to be promoted. Only 2.1 % of employees are members of visible minorities, 0.6% are aboriginal and 1.9% are disabled.

This pattern holds true for most of the companies who reported. Members of visible minorities, aboriginal people and the disabled continue to be under-represented as employees. In upper and middle management positions they are virtually absent.. Cultural institutions such as the Canada Council and the Canadian Film Development Corporation have no native people as employees. Compilation and analysis of the data itself is laden with problems. Immigrant and visible minority women's groups, for example, point out that visible minorities cannot be viewed as a homogeneous group and that visible minority women must be treated separately.