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.
11:40 a.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
I'll figure out a way to come back to it.
May 14th, 2009 / 11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much for being here again to discuss an issue which may, one day—perhaps soon—be resolved if we are given the means and the tools that enable us to do that. Along the same lines as what my colleague, Ms. Neville, was saying, I would like quote you what the government said about the former system. It said at the time that: “The current complaint-based pay equity system has resulted in a lengthy, costly and contentious process which does not reflect the realities of the Canadian labour market”.
I would like to know how the new system improves that, if it does, and if it would have been easier to implement a system like the one in Ontario and Quebec. There was nothing preventing us from doing that here.
I am going to ask the “killer question”. Why did the government not rely on the many recommendations that your organization made repeatedly? Do you know the reason? Is the new legislation, as currently drafted, not inconsistent with the Government of Canada's international obligations and commitments?
11:45 a.m.
Professor, School of Industrial Relations, University of Montreal, As an Individual
You have asked a lot of questions. You are really asking how exactly this model does not jibe with the realities of the labour market. My interpretation of that statement is that the labour market, unfortunately, is still characterized by extensive discrimination against women in terms of wages, and in other areas as well. As a result, a complaint-based process will certainly not resolve such an extensive and persistent problem. If we were talking about a one-time issue in a specific workplace that was limited in time, it might be possible to use the complaint-based method. However, as we all know, this is something that is very common in workplaces, and it is also a problem that has been around for a long time and that we have been unsuccessful in addressing. This model simply is not suited to dealing with the realities of the labour market. I don't know whether that answers your question.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
The government is introducing a new concept in this legislation. Previously the term used was “pay equity”, but it has introduced the concept of equitable compensation. People do not seem to be familiar with this new concept. It is completely unheard of in Canadian laws and even international laws.
How should we interpret this new concept? The term “pay equity” is no longer used. It has been replaced by this unknown concept.
11:45 a.m.
Professor, School of Industrial Relations, University of Montreal, As an Individual
That is actually a reflection of the whole problem with this legislation. It is not aimed at eliminating wage discrimination. Indeed, if you read the entire text from cover to cover, you will see that nowhere does it mention wage discrimination and nowhere is there any comparison between female and male jobs. What is discrimination, really? Any form of discrimination is always based on a comparison between two groups. But this Act, in terms of its structure and the language it uses, does not even refer to that problem.
11:45 a.m.
Human Rights Director, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada
This new legislation will in no way shorten the process. It puts women in a position where they have to negotiate pay equity at the bargaining table. That is the major problem. Unions may be put in a position where they will have to choose between pay equity and, possibly, specific benefits. How can the two be reconciled? This is a very regressive piece of legislation. I see nothing positive in it to enhance the achievement of pay equity.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
11:45 a.m.
Human Rights Director, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada
That's a good question. I have no idea, because the answers with respect to pay equity are in the study that was carried out only four year ago.
11:50 a.m.
Human Rights Director, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada
There is no other one.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
11:50 a.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
I want to go back to this idea of, you know.... In some respects, we're lucky that this doesn't refer to pay equity, because it's not. We should be really clear that it is not. It's probably more about inequitable.
On the question of individual women having the resources to be able to fight a case all the way through against their employer.... This is not about the employer and the union sitting down and figuring out where the inequities are. This is about an individual person, or a group of women, having to take that on. That's not easily done. How many women, in any of the cases that we've quoted this morning, would have been able to stick with it? That's one thing.
The other thing is that the offensive part of this—there are many offensive parts—is the comparisons to the market. Isn't the market what got us into this problem in the first place? The market doesn't look at the value of a job. They say, if this group of workers over here is being paid poorly, then why would we pay this group of workers who do similar jobs over here any better? We're going to go out and say workers in the federal sector have this wage rate. The comparison is not with men and the value of comparable jobs done by men. The comparison is with women in the private sector—non-union, in all likelihood—who are paid less. Shouldn't the solution be bringing up those other women's wages rather than driving everybody else's down?
I mean, why is it being done? Obviously I'm not privy to....
11:50 a.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
The fact is that this is an attack on women's economic equality. People say that there's not discrimination anymore. Well, women see the discrimination in their paycheques every time they take them home. They can see that discrimination, and it's for them and their families.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks very much to each of the presenters here this morning. It's certainly valuable for us to hear the input from the different areas.
We know that the government has introduced this new Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. Of course, that's what we're discussing this morning. I want to make it very clear that the Conservative government does respect the principle of equal pay for equal work.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Order, please. It's difficult to hear Ms. Davidson.
Go ahead. I can hear you now.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
As I was saying, the government does respect the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. That certainly is much respected by this government. That's the main reason why we took this action to update this outdated complaint-based pay equity regime.
We have heard from people that, in many cases, women waited 15 years or more. We've heard that from you this morning. We want to get away from that. We want to stop that.
This was the act that we felt was going to give improvements for women. We're looking for accountability. The employer and the union would both have accountability to see that this happens, instead of just the employer.
I agree; what woman has the resources to go through 25 years of divisive court action against their employer? This act is to get away from these types of things.
We've heard a lot of different comments here this morning, and Ms. Chicha, you've said that the existing model is inefficient and expensive. The complaint-based model is not going to work. We have introduced what we feel is a proactive model. Certainly the working group did recommend a proactive model.
Can you just make some comments on some of the statements I've made here this morning? Do you think this is going to make a more timely decision-making process? Is it going to make that possible for women so they are not going to have to go through such lengthy individual processes that are so costly to them?
11:55 a.m.
Professor, School of Industrial Relations, University of Montreal, As an Individual
As I understand it, you are asking me whether the model proposed in the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act will correct the problems associated with the complaint-based model, since it is considered to be a proactive model.
I have two comments. First of all, the starting point for the Federal Equity Task Force was that same realization—in other words, that the complaint-based model doesn't work. So, we agree on the fact that this model is ineffective. The government is proposing a proactive model. However, there are a number of differences—two major ones, I'd say—between a proactive model and what this legislation contains.
First of all, a proactive model is a detailed, specific model which eliminates one of the reasons for the time involved and the cost of dealing with these complaints, which is confusion about the terms and exactly what pay equity means. In a proactive model—Section 130 of the Quebec statute, for example, details all the different steps to be followed in order to, as much as possible, avoid disputes about interpretation and, therefore, delays and escalating costs. However, that does not seem to be the case with the current act, which sets out no specific criteria and, in certain cases, only creates confusion with respect to certain data. Therefore, this model may be considered proactive, but it does not attain the desired outcome, in the sense that it does not help to avoid the problems of interpretation or the confusion I described. There is a tremendous lack of clarity in this statute.
Second, a proactive model is not based on the collective bargaining process. This model is, however. In that respect, it will not improve things, because a fundamental right, by its very essence, is not negotiable.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
So you think that the inclusion of the union responsibility will slow things down? Is that what I'm hearing?
11:55 a.m.
Professor, School of Industrial Relations, University of Montreal, As an Individual
Wages are the responsibility of the employer. The person who pays the wages is the employer. Therefore, you cannot say that the union or the workers are responsible for the wages that are paid. In proactive legislation, that work is done jointly. Why is it done jointly? In order to ensure that it is objective, valid and reflects the workplace. However, joint work does not mean joint responsibility. Responsibility is something different.
11:55 a.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
I just want to add something.
I am completely...not “confused”, but to my mind, there's just no logical reason for this. We had a pay equity commission that spent two to three years hearing hundreds of presentations, with all sorts of other submissions and all of that sort of stuff. They came out with, quite frankly, a document that made people around the world say, “Man, these folks in Canada spent a lot of time studying. They know what needs to be done.”
Then you come out with a law that is just completely contrary to all of that. How would we ever suppose that this was actually going to move things ahead? We've already had the direction pointed for us; it's for all of us.