Evidence of meeting #21 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was model.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
If we take them at their word, we'll continue to make sure that this report is front and centre.
In terms of this committee, would you recommend that we push very hard and make such a recommendation in our report?
12:45 p.m.
Human Rights Director, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada
Absolutely. I would hope to see this committee move to recommend legislation to implement the report. That would be achieving pay equity for the women of Canada.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
So it's stand-alone, separate, apart from any other contrivance or encumbering piece of legislation. Okay.
Madame Chicha, I haven't had a chance to talk with you. You were ready to respond to my question about the larger benefits of pay equity in terms of families, community, and I wanted to give you a chance to do that.
12:45 p.m.
Professor, School of Industrial Relations, University of Montreal, As an Individual
I would like to address the question of the positive impact of pay equity on workplaces and on the market.
When I chaired the commission that developed the Quebec Pay Equity Act, the President of the Conseil du patronat du Québec came to meet us during our hearings. He told me that, as long as he had anything to do with it, this legislation would not pass. But the legislation did pass. When I bumped into him a few years ago, completely by accident, he said that he now realizes that many employers support the legislation and are in fact very happy with it.
When I give training sessions to corporate managers of human resources—I have given them in 300 or 400 different firms—they tell me that, thanks to this legislation, their compensation system is more coherent, their business is better managed and has a better reputation, and is thus better able to attract talented people with the right skills—something that is very highly valued in today's job market.
So, the impact is extremely positive in terms of their competitiveness.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Ms. Chicha.
I'm sorry, Ms. Mathyssen, your time is up.
Mr. Dechert.
May 14th, 2009 / 12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome, witnesses.
I want to go back to an issue raised by Ms. Mathyssen earlier.
Before I was elected to Parliament last year, I was a lawyer. I practised for 25 years. In fact, some of the cases you mentioned—the Bell Canada case, the Air Canada and Canada Post cases—were worked on by the firm that I practised with for 25 years, both for the employers and for the unions.
I can tell you, Ms. Pageau, that for many years, the number one client of that firm was public sector employee unions--number one in terms of billings--and the same fees were charged to the unions as to the employers.
You mentioned that these cases went on for years and years, at an enormous cost, I think you mentioned, Ms. Byers. I can tell you it's in the millions and tens of millions of dollars, both to the union members and the employers and the taxpayers.
Why would you want that money to go to the legal profession? The system here is good work for lawyers; I can tell you that from personal experience. Why would you want the money to go to them, rather than into the pockets of the women whom you represent, or stay in the pockets of the taxpayers?
And why would you want to delay the justice that you seek to have done for women? Isn't the old system of forcing women to litigate to get their rights later—10, 15, or 25 years down the road—a worse system than having it negotiated up front, even if it has to be done through some kind of a subcommittee process with the experts on these matters that all of you have in your unions? Isn't that a better way to handle it than having these things litigated over 25 years?
12:45 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
We don't want lawyers to get rich on women's bad wages. Let's be real clear.
12:45 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
We don't think you should get...or not you personally.
Well, you personally too, but....
12:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
We don't think lawyers should get rich on women being paid badly.
We do think that women need to get these payments faster. I haven't seen anything in this legislation that would mean that women are actually going to get these payments faster, because we seem to be missing some timelines.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Doesn't it move the examination of these issues to the beginning of the process rather than to the back end of the process?
12:45 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
No. I think if we're sitting in this room a year from now, we're not going to see any significant difference in it because of this law of yours.
12:50 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
Because it doesn't meet any of the standards.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
But you haven't met any of the standards on pay equity--nothing.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
It does require these things to be negotiated at the time of the bargaining of the contract.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Therefore, it puts the onus on everybody, including the union, to examine these issues and to make sure that women are treated fairly.
Isn't that the right way to go about it? If they go to court--
12:50 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
Again, if we had the equal—
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
And you've already used up your three minutes, I'm sorry.
We've finished with our third round, and I suggest every one of the panel be given a minute to wrap up.
It sounds to me, just putting together what I heard from everyone, as though the Conservatives have said they agree with the objective. So I don't get a sense that people are in disagreement with the objective. In my opinion, the disagreement with the process and how to get there is fundamental to what is happening. Everyone thinks there are different ways to get there.
You've made some extremely good points. I think the reason there's a difference in how to get there lies in the fundamental issue of understanding that pay equity is extremely different from same salary. In other words, even if you said that everyone in a particular place, even if they're men and women, will get the same salary, if it is in a category in which women have traditionally been the worker, then that is inherently undervalued. The whole issue of pay equity is that it began at the time when only men were in the workforce. When women came into the workforce, their jobs were valued as purely women's work. They were valued at a totally different rate. So secretaries were paid very differently and their work was valued lower than janitors' work because of an inherent gender discrimination at the time because women were not encouraged to be in the workforce.
To bring that together, to right that historic wrong, if you even say that all people will get the same salary as the women in the pool, it still doesn't bring up the value of the work that was traditionally done by women. That, I suppose, is what pay equity is about, and that is why it's defined as a right, because inherent in it is the issue of a traditional gender discrimination that undervalued the work traditionally done by women versus the work that was traditionally done by men.
I think everyone has made very good points and I would ask you, therefore, to do a one-minute wrap-up each, starting with Ms. Healy.
You didn't say a word, so I thought I'd give you a chance.