Status of Women Committee on June 16th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

I'll call the meeting to order. I think we have a quorum in place.

Apparently the chair is going to be ten minutes late, so in the meantime I think we'll get started with our witnesses.

We have with us today the Treasury Board Secretariat, with Madame Laurendeau and Mr. Danagher.

I understand, Madame Laurendeau, that you are doing the presentation.

[Hélène Laurendeau, Assistant Secretary, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Yes indeed, Madame. I have some short opening remarks, and then Mr. Danagher and I will answer questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Go ahead, please.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to talk about the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. This is a piece of legislation that, as its preamble states, will proactively provide women in the public sector of Canada with equal pay for work of equal value.

Today, I will provide you with a brief overview of the underpinnings of the act and outline some of its features.

We all recognize, I believe, that the former pay equity system in the federal public service was reactive, lengthy, costly, and adversarial. Action has been haphazard, based totally on those who choose to file complaints. Further, complaints were filed without any previous discussion at the bargaining table.

The complaints-based system approach led to discussions that regularly turned into endless debate about methodologies, regression lines, and statistical reliability, debates that would not be recognizable to mainstream employees. With this reality and without hard deadlines, disputes often drag on for years and years.

The 15 to 20 years it can take to resolve complaints has taken its toll, generally speaking, on resources, on productive labour relations, and on our women employees. In one recent case, a union had to abandon its complaint because it had exhausted its internal resources.

This long and litigious nature was underscored by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its 2001 pay equity report. They found that pay equity cases represented less than 8% of all their cases, yet consumed about one half of its total spending on legal services.

In tackling these challenges over the years, the federal government has learned a lot, and the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act builds on this experience acquired through the years. As an employer, we have also learned from provincial proactive regimes, from the work of the pay equity task force, and from Canadian and international research.

Ontario, Manitoba, and Quebec have regimes that require a form of proactivity, a feature that is supported by most experts in this field. However, these regimes do not oblige employers and unions to actually address pay equity considerations every time wages are set.

The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act tackles this head-on by requiring employers and unions to do exactly that. The legislation sets out robust requirements for transparency, information sharing, and recourse, and for the regular conducting of equitable compensation assessments.

The act will not allow parties to bargain away this human right. Rather, it details parties' obligations for regularly determining how to attain and maintain that right. In so doing, the act recognizes the long and positive history of the achievement and protection of human rights through collective bargaining, which is itself a fundamental right.

Collective bargaining has a rich history of achievement in matters such as fair wages, hours of work, working conditions, including parental leave, and occupational health and safety. It is not surprising, then, that several Canadian studies, including ones done for the International Labour Organization and one for the Canadian Labour Congress women's symposium, have included recommendations to achieve pay equity through collective bargaining.

This role for collective bargaining in achieving pay equity also supports Canada's obligation to the ILO's 1951 equal remuneration convention number 100. Article 2 of that convention effectively requires members to incorporate equal pay for work of equal value in existing methods of determining remuneration.

Closer to home, in a 2005 response to this committee on the pay equity task force report, the Ministers of Justice and Labour felt that the relationship between pay equity and collective bargaining, as well as the obligations of employers and unions, needed to be part of what they referred to as the “backbone” of effective pay equity legislation. The new act provides this backbone.

The transparency and accountability requirements in the act include obligations to proactively inform employees of their rights under the act. These obligations are designed to reinforce accountability for results.

Further, both employers and unions need to jointly and transparently take their obligations under the act seriously. To this end, both the employer and the bargaining agent are subject to fines if they do not comply with this provision of the act, in the judgment of the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

The act also maintains the right of employees to lodge individual complaints through the PSLRB, an independent body with quasi-judicial status that currently administers the Public Service Labour Relations Act. This act contains many safeguards, including the union's right to unilaterally select binding arbitration to resolve bargaining disputes.

It is a critical feature of the act that boards of arbitration will henceforth be obliged to rule on equitable compensation matters. Looking into the near future, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act will come into force once the regulations are established through the Governor in Council. The regulations will be developed through a consultative process and will provide greater definition and clarity to the terms, obligations, and processes that are provided for in the act.

In conclusion, I want to state that the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act will not only protect the right of equal pay for work of equal value, but it is also the best way to achieve and maintain it for the future.

Thank you very much. Those are my opening remarks.

Mr. Danagher and I are ready to answer questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to our first round of questioning. Ms. Neville, please.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thanks to both of you for being here.

I have many questions. Some are from before, and some are on your representation, Ms. Laurendeau.

You commented at the beginning that it's sometimes difficult to read what's written for you, and I must confess that I'm having some difficulty understanding some of what's been written for you. I'll come back to that.

You talk about Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. From everything I know about those provinces, this legislation is not consistent with theirs. In the short time we have I'd like you to identify both the similarities and the differences.

We know there was no consultation prior to the implementation of this act and pay equity within the budget. You ended your comments by indicating that the regulations will be developed through a consultative process that will give greater definition and clarity to the terms. I'd like to know a little more about that.

There are a couple of points in here that I just don't understand, such as number 13, and particularly number 14. You cited in number 12 some studies that recommend pay equity through collective bargaining. Many studies and many of the presentations we've had here at the committee speak out against pay equity as part of the collective bargaining process. Were they considered when this matter was developed?

I have more, but I'll see how much time I have left.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

I will start with a very quick overview of the similarities among Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, and the current legislation. The key feature that is very common among those three regimes is having a proactive system, as opposed to a complaints-based one. The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act provides that we proactively establish and assess the value of work on a go-forward basis, as do Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. This is to make sure we do away with protracted litigation and do an assessment on a regular basis. In that sense, there are similarities among the three.

There are other important features, such as how we value work and the threshold for female predominance, that are similar in the three models.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Yours is quite different from what I know Manitoba's to be, in terms of female-dominated occupations. You are raising the bar, not lowering it.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

Actually, according to our information, Manitoba has a threshold of 70%, which is the same as that in the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. Ontario has one at 60%—and 70% for males—and the one in Quebec is at 60%. So there are similarities, and they are in the same range. It's a feature of a proactive regime, the idea being that proactivity does not make gender predominance a hard and fast cut-off, but makes it the basis of analysis.

One of the things I would like to go back to and mention is that there are differences in the way we apply proactivity in the Equitable Compensation Act compared with those three models, and it's the marrying of collective bargaining with the equitable compensation assessment. That feature is unique to the Equitable Compensation Act, that's for sure.

With respect to the issue of how regulations will be developed, I might turn to my colleague to give you an overview of how we're planning to develop the regulations. But one of the things we want to make sure occurs is that we actually have consultations on the regulations themselves.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Could I just ask why you are prepared to do consultations on the regulations—which is a positive thing—but had no consultations prior to the development of the legislation?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

There are a couple of things that need to be said. We built significantly on the vast body of work that had been done in the previous three years. The main body of work was the Bilson task force and the analysis that was done after the release of its report. On the need to go further with consultation, we felt we had enough information to come up with legislation that had the underpinnings, but we felt at need from the implementation standpoint to actually broaden the net a little bit, having stated through the legislation what would be the process on a go-forward basis. There was a need to actually consult broadly on how those mechanical aspects of the regulations would be drafted.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

You have about half a minute left.

[Dan Danagher, Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Your third question was on alternative analyses of merging collective bargaining and pay equity. Honestly, in our research, we did not come across academic assessments that concluded that. We understood that people had testified they didn't like it, so we designed the system to ensure there were safeguards around it. I think the concern or slogan that we've heard is “bargaining away pay equity”. What the act is trying to do is to ensure that everybody at the table has a proactive obligation to take it seriously, so we're trying to ensure that does not occur.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Okay, thank you.

We'll now move on to Madame Demers, please, for seven minutes.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Laurendeau, Mr. Danagher, thank you for being here this morning. I was astonished by your testimony, Ms. Laurendeau. When you testified before the Senate Committee on Human Rights last May 25, you stated that the ministers responsible at the time had written to Parliament to say that they would not be following the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force. But ministers Irwin Cotler and Joe Fontana formally testified to the Committee on the Status of Women in November 2005 and formally promised to introduce a pay equity bill in the spring of 2006.

We know that the government has changed, but, at the time, they indicated that the bill would essentially follow the direction suggested by the Pay Equity Task Force chaired by Ms. Bilson. I find it strange that you now tell us that they wrote a letter saying that they would not be introducing the bill when they had testified before us that they would. If they wanted to introduce a bill in the spring of 2006, I assume that they would have some draft legislation already put together in November 2005, and that officials from the departments of Labour or Justice would have already begun to develop the bill. You do not promise to introduce a bill in two or three months if you have not already started the process.

I would like to hear your comments, Ms. Laurendeau.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

Certainly, since the Bilson task force report appeared, a number of activities have taken place. There have been similar activities at different times and with different governments. Certainly also, as per the reply given to the committee in 2005, the intention was expressed to move towards a bill at a time in the future that was more or less set. But I could not tell you if a precise date had been established. The reply also indicated that the bill was supposed to bring the collective bargaining process and the pay equity program together.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

But does that not contradict your statement that those people had written to Parliament to say that they would not be following the recommendations of the task force?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

I do not remember saying that they had written to Parliament. I was probably relying on the committee's reply in 2005. I am relying on it in this case as well. I stick by that reply, to the effect that they were going to make sure to ease the tensions between pay equity and collective bargaining.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Various witnesses have told us that, unfortunately, unions or employees' groups were not consulted as this bill was being developed. We also do not know who will be consulted when the regulations are developed.

Could you tell us if the intention is to consult specific groups or individuals? If so, even though the process may not what they were expecting or hoping for, the regulations could at least remove some irritants.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

With regard to the regulations, we certainly want to make sure to clarify key elements of the implementation process. Certainly also—and I will ask my colleague to give you more details about this—we intend to hold broader consultations than we were able to when the bill was being developed.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Why was the development process so limited in terms of consultations?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

We contributed to the Budget Implementation Act. It restricts the way in which policies are developed, for almost all these matters. That said—and I am serious when I say this—I do not mean that there was no consultation process.

Once more, we continued to base ourselves on all the aspects of research that had been used by the Bilson task force. It had done a very thorough analysis that allowed us to develop a fairly precise idea of what would be needed for a pay equity program. Among other things, that included the need to put in place a proactive plan as well as an effective and appropriate mechanism that would allow it to be maintained.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Does it often happen that a bill of this importance is included as part of a budget? I ask the question because I have only been here for five years.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

Budget acts are generally quite extensive. I cannot tell you if some kinds of bills are included more than others. In other areas, it has happened that other budget acts have included fundamental reforms related to other policies. As to whether it is normal or not, I can say that the budget is just one vehicle. It is a legislative process with its own constraints. A budget bill is rarely just a dozen or so pages. They are always quite big and contain provisions that can be important for a government's activities.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Would it be possible to get a copy of the draft legislation prepared in 2005 that Mr. Cotler and Mr. Fontana promised to introduce in 2006?

Would it also be possible for you to provide the list of witnesses that you intend to meet during the consultation on developing the regulations once the bill is passed?