Evidence of meeting #59 for Science and Research in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was universities.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Nicole Giles  Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Strategic Partnerships, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Sami Khoury  Head, Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, Communications Security Establishment
Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère  Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, National and Cyber Security , Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Lesley Soper  Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Hilary Smyth
Samantha McDonald  Assistant Deputy Minister, Innovative Business Strategy and Research Development, Communications Security Establishment
Laura Neals  Director, Academic Staff Relations, Dalhousie University
Indira Naidoo-Harris  Associate Vice-President, Diversity & Human Rights, University of Guelph

4:40 p.m.

Head, Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, Communications Security Establishment

Sami Khoury

Thank you for the question. I'll start maybe with cybersecurity and then turn to my colleagues.

At the cyber centre, our priority is to stay ahead of the threats. We are constantly doing research on the latest threats we are seeing, not just against the government but also around the world, and that is also informed through our foreign intelligence missions. We want to make sure we provide the best advice and guidance to Canadians and the best tools and indicators of compromise so that they can protect themselves from the latest threats. That also involves capability, so it's not just about the threat. We have a number of events where we are pushing the limits of the capability developments we are deploying to protect the government. We have state-of-the-art capabilities, of which we're extremely proud.

As far as research goes and the areas of research in which we are investing, I'll turn to my colleague.

4:40 p.m.

Samantha McDonald Assistant Deputy Minister, Innovative Business Strategy and Research Development, Communications Security Establishment

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.

Research is certainly needed to support CSE's—

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield

Unfortunately, the clock is working against us. These minute-and-a-half sessions are really tight. It's pretty much one question and one answer.

Thank you for that.

Thank you to all the panellists—

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

I have a point of order, Chair, on the witnesses.

In the study we are undertaking right now, we all agreed that the study description included that the committee hear from the director of CSIS. As much as I greatly respect the individuals and officials who are in the room from CSIS, they are not the director, and we cannot continue our study until we hear from the director.

The clerk has identified that, for whatever reason, scheduling problems have arisen. We've seen this with the government, when it hides witnesses and hides what's actually taking place.

I'm going to move a motion. I would like to move that pursuant to Standing Order—

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield

You can't move it on a point of order.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

I will raise this at the next round.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield

You can raise it, but not on a point of order and not now.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

We have the witnesses here. We'll have the next witness panel that's here, and we're going to be discussing—

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield

Okay.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here. Thank you for the testimony. We got a wide range of questions and answers from our security establishments, but if there is anything we didn't get to—because I had to cut you off a bit—and you can submit the additional information in writing to the clerk, we'll make sure it's included.

Also, you mentioned a couple of presentations that were made. I checked with the analysts, and they said they could find those, but it might help us to move along if those links are also included.

We're going to suspend briefly to let our witnesses leave, and then we're going to resume with our second panel of witnesses.

If you're on Zoom, please stay connected. We're going to do our best to get back up and running so that we can finish before six o'clock, which is our cut-off time.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield

Welcome back.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(i) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, December 5, 2022, the committee commences its study on the long-term impacts of pay gaps experienced by different genders and equity-seeking groups among faculty at Canadian universities.

It's now my pleasure to welcome, in person, Laura Neals, director of academic staff relations at Dalhousie University. From the University of Guelph, we have Indira Naidoo-Harris, associate vice-president of diversity and human rights, by video conference.

You each have five minutes for your remarks, and then we will get to our round of questions on this study.

We will start off with Ms. Neals.

4:50 p.m.

Laura Neals Director, Academic Staff Relations, Dalhousie University

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I will speak quite briefly about Dalhousie's experience with pay equity. Of course, if you have specific questions, I'm happy to answer.

In 2015, Dalhousie released the “Belong” report. The report focused on how to build an inclusive university and offered a number of recommendations, including undertaking an institutional pay equity analysis.

In 2017, in advance of a new round of collective bargaining, the university began this pay equity work. The analysis focused on faculty salaries and was done in partnership with our faculty union, the Dalhousie Faculty Association. Thought was given as to how the analysis could be conducted, recognizing that salary is dictated by position but also by experience and expertise. Ultimately, the comparison was done using faculty members' ranks, y-value and full-time salary rate.

The y-value is a Dal-specific measure, enshrined in our collective agreement with the Dalhousie Faculty Association. For members of our teaching and research staff, a y-value is calculated to reflect the number of years of creditable service; other relevant experience, including traditional ways of knowing and non-traditional scholarship; and level of education. A faculty member's y-value dictates their minimum salary, and our y-value system helps to ensure that faculty members with comparable experience and education are paid comparable annual salaries.

The population included all current faculty. Faculty with post-retirement appointments, former deans, and faculty with salaries at or above maximum salary rates were removed from the population, as these salaries would skew the dataset. Pay equity variables were drawn from our self-identification records and included gender identification and expression, indigenous, racially visible, persons with a disability, and sexual orientation. Linear regression analysis was run on the data for each rank, with salary rate as the dependent variable, and y-value and gender and/or designated group status as independent variables.

We found statistically significant differences occurring in the regression comparing male and female faculty salary rates by y-value at the rank of full professor. Among our most senior faculty members, there were pay gaps for female professors. As a result, pay equity salary adjustments were calculated and awarded to 81 female full professors. Individual one-time adjustments ranged from approximately $1,500 to $12,000.

In September 2020, a second pay equity analysis was conducted on faculty to determine whether the salary adjustments provided had successfully resulted in closing the gaps between our male and female researchers. Our analysis revealed almost no difference between the regression lines for each rank, and we therefore concluded that the pay equity adjustments awarded in 2017 had the desired effect of closing the gaps. The analysis was repeated again in 2022, in advance of the bargaining on our latest collective agreement, and found no statistically significant gaps.

Dalhousie has a defined benefit pension plan based on the best three years of a faculty member's earnings. This structure helps to mitigate impact on retirement savings. If pay equity gaps are identified and remedied three years prior to retirement, the impact on pensions at Dal will be minimal.

That being said, our pay equity adjustments were made on a go-forward basis, and we can't discount the impact that this gap had on faculty members' lifetime earnings. Equity pay gaps at institutions with defined contribution pension plans and retirement savings plans will lead to a more significant impact on faculty retirement pay.

Moving forward, we have adopted the practice of conducting a faculty pay equity analysis in advance of bargaining on new collective agreements. This gives us and our union partners an opportunity to assess whether there are pay gaps that need to be addressed. Our y-value system was critical in the execution of this exercise. To that end, we have also revised our y-value system to ensure that it captures the diversity of experience and knowledge.

It's also important to note that this exercise was done in the Nova Scotia post-secondary context. Different provinces or sectors with different funding schemes or legislation would potentially have more nuanced challenges to overcome.

Thank you.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Ms. Naidoo-Harris for five minutes.

The floor is yours.

October 23rd, 2023 / 4:55 p.m.

Indira Naidoo-Harris Associate Vice-President, Diversity & Human Rights, University of Guelph

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for having me here today to participate in this very important discussion about the long-term impacts of pay gaps experienced by differing genders and equity-seeking groups among faculty at Canadian universities.

My name is Indira Naidoo-Harris. I'm the associate vice-president of diversity and human rights at the University of Guelph. I'm also a former Ontario MPP, as well as Ontario's first-ever minister of the status of women. I was also the minister for education and for early years and child care. Therefore, for me, gender pay inequity is not a new topic or a recently discovered problem; it's a decades-long, systemic inequality that continues to have harmful impacts on our society, economy and workforce.

Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge that the University of Guelph is situated on the treaty lands and territories of the Anishinabe, the Haudenosaunee and the Mississaugas of the Credit.

I'd like to start by giving you some details about my background to provide some context.

As minister of the status of women, I drove the women's economic empowerment strategy, which aimed to increase gender equity, challenge bias and eliminate barriers that women face at work and in their communities. As minister responsible for early years and child care, I worked to help remove one of the biggest barriers to gender pay equity in Ontario: accessible and affordable child care.

At the University of Guelph, I work with students, faculty, staff, and senior administration to foster a culture of inclusion by leading education, discussion and cultural change efforts in inclusivity, equity, accessibility and human rights. My work also includes ensuring fair and expeditious issue resolution within the university community. I sit on several advisory boards, including the university's gender equity advisory group.

Pay inequities at Canadian post-secondary institutions have been studied for decades. However, while the gap has, indeed, shrunk, it still rests at women earning close to 10% less than men for the same work. The Canadian Association of University Teachers says that this number is even starker for racialized faculty. This is unacceptable and has to change.

Interestingly enough, according to the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, we're at a point in time now where women have made substantial gains in education. They are more likely than men to attend post-secondary institutions and to perform better academically, and they are often more engaged in campus life. However, as those women move through the academic pipeline, they wind up lagging behind and are under-represented in the senior ranks of academic faculty.

In fact, according to data released by StatsCan in January of this year, in Canada only 31.4% of women are full professors. In one study done by King's University College, it was determined that, across a decades-long career and retirement survey, there was a cumulative pay and pension gap of $454,000 at the associate level and $468,000 at the full professor level.

Now consider those numbers in tandem with the harsh impact that the pandemic has had on gender and racialized women in the workforce. For example, according to the United Nations, across every area women and girls were hit hardest by the pandemic, and McKinsey reported that women's jobs were close to 1.8 times more vulnerable during the COVID-19 crisis.

Considering that women are some of the world's most powerful consumers and also play a huge role in our communities, it's crucial for economic growth and for building sustainable and fair communities that we work out how to get this right.

In 2017, the University of Guelph underwent a faculty salary anomaly review, with a focus on gender equity. The review at the University of Guelph resulted in an across-the-board increase of $2,050 for every full-time faculty member who identified as a woman or as non-male. It affected more than 300 tenure-track and contract faculty with appointments of more than two years. This effort was part of a multi-phase gender equity initiative to bring community members together to discuss and shape gender equity at the institution. It involved research and identifying opportunities for change. The University of Guelph is currently undergoing a second salary anomaly review, and it will be interesting to see what effect COVID-19 has had on pay equity.

The pay equity gap that we are seeing today continues for a number of reasons: biases determining starting salaries and merit pay, differing rates of promotion, unconscious biases in the hiring process, and the effects of parental care and caregiving leaves.

When we evaluate female and racialized candidates and their experiences, we have to ask if we are looking at the biases in our metrics. Do we acknowledge that female and racialized candidates receive shorter and more vague reference letters, and aren't quoted or published as frequently as their male counterparts?

Regarding the wage gap—

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield

I'm afraid I have to ring the bell, but thank you very much for your presentation.

Hopefully, we can get to questions that will be able to get some of your other points out.

For now, we're going to start our six-minute round on this study.

We'll be starting off with Gerald Soroka from the Conservatives.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Gerald Soroka Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming today.

I'll pass my time to Corey Tochor.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

Thank you.

Witnesses, I apologize. I had a motion from our last panel that wasn't resolved, and I have the floor now. A notice of motion went out last week. The motion deals with David Vigneault's attendance, which is demanded by the very motion that established the study that we just wrapped up.

I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(i), and the motion initiating a study on Canadian research partnerships with entities connected to the People's Republic of China, the committee invites David Vigneault, Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to testify alone, as soon as possible, for one hour.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield

Thank you.

My apologies to the witnesses while we do a bit of committee business here.

When we started this study, we said that we were going to balance the time between the studies. Having said that, and looking around the room, I don't see any objections to having the director of CSIS come here.

We have several hands up.

We do have witnesses—one has travelled from Dalhousie to be with us—and I would like to get to those questions.

Regarding the director of CSIS, I see nodding of heads around the room, so we can try to make that happen as soon as we can. We are delaying this study—

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

Can we call the question on the motion, please?

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield

Do you want a recorded vote on it?

We do have hands up, but it looks like this might be the fastest way for us to deal with this.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Lena Metlege Diab Liberal Halifax West, NS

Can you please confirm what's going on here?

We have a witness. We have a study, and we have an agreement that dates back months ago that we don't interrupt the study—

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield

We're in the middle of a vote.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Lena Metlege Diab Liberal Halifax West, NS

I don't think the vote is in order.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield

I'm trying to get a sense to see if we want to go ahead and get the witness in. We could have had several minutes of debate on this, but it looked to me like the committee's will was to get the witness here.

5:05 p.m.

Bloc

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Point of order, Chair.

We're in the process of voting. There should not be any debate.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield

Right. I'd like to get back to the vote, please.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

As in our last meeting, when we we were talking about this topic, I made a call based on having a security panel put together for today. Given the amount of time we had to put that together, I said we would have the experts come in from CSIS who were available. Given this motion, we'll see when we can schedule in the director.

Back to questions, we're on the first round of questions.