Status of Women Committee on May 14th, 2014

[Alison Hale]

Asking a statistician about projections is one of those things where, when we do a projection, we have to look at what our your assumptions are and if they are valid. I really couldn't speculate on what it would look like.

[The Chair, NDP, Hélène LeBlanc]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank our guests, Ms. Hale and Mr. Nault.

We will suspend the sitting for a few minutes, so that our other guests can settle in.

[The Chair, NDP, Hélène LeBlanc]

Good afternoon, everyone. We are resuming the meeting.

I want to welcome Robyn Benson, National President, Executive Office, Public Service Alliance of Canada, as well as Seema Lamba, Human Rights Program Officer, Membership Programs Branch.

Ladies, you have 10 minutes for your presentation.

[Robyn Benson, National President, Executive Office, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Good afternoon, and thank you to the committee for inviting the PSAC to appear here today. I will speak briefly on several key issues that affect both women in the public service and women in general.

Women have made gains in the federal public service but there are still gaps in their representation. One of the reasons for these gains is the federal Employment Equity Act. Federal departments and agencies are required to have an employment equity plan that not only addresses representation gaps but also barriers to women in the workplace. These employers are also subject to employment equity audits by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The problem is that the Treasury Board Secretariat is dropping its central oversight role and is turning it over to individual departments and agencies. This makes it more difficult to monitor what's happening. The secretariat's annual report now contains the bare minimum instead of an in-depth analysis.

There is also a significant gap in the data available with respect to the breakdown of racialized women, aboriginal women, women with disabilities, and women from the LGBT community. These women experience additional barriers and challenges in employment. We believe the government's 20,000 job cuts may be disproportionately affecting these groups of women. However, the lack of data makes it difficult to analyze the impact of the cuts.

In 2009 Treasury Board began a review of all its existing human resources policies affecting federal public service workers. This isn't a positive development. Right now these policies spell out in detail the employer's obligations and they're mandatory: deputy heads and managers must comply with them. Some of the policies cover workplace day care centres, duty to accommodate, employment equity, and telework. The policy review will replace over 60 specific policies with one or two broad ones. They will eliminate many of the current obligations.

The accommodation, employment equity, and child care policies address fundamental human rights. If they're reduced to a few lines hidden in an omnibus policy we believe they will be ineffective. Even now, inconsistencies in practice exist.

It's clear the government is using the policy review to step back from its obligations that have supported women in their work and careers. This will have a direct impact on women's prosperity.

One immediate concern is the workplace child care policy, which was first implemented in 1991. The policy led to the creation of a dozen workplace child care centres across the country. They were given start-up budgets; rent subsidies; and non-profit, bilingual services geared to meet accessibility needs. On-site child care works for both parents and employers and contributes to recruiting and retaining employees, particularly women. Now Treasury Board has pulled its rental subsidy at two local workplace centres. The Tupper Tots Day Care Center was forced to move, and the relocation affected 50 children. Negotiations are continuing for the Tunney's day care.

Making child care more expensive and less convenient goes directly against initiatives aimed at increasing women's prosperity and participation in leadership roles. In the larger context, more than 70% of mothers in Canada are employed working women. Although the gender gap has narrowed significantly for leaders, this is not the case for women with young children. Without available and affordable child care women take time off work. This has the potential to slow opportunities for advancement, including for senior leadership positions.

Women who withdraw from the workplace are also financially penalized in salary increases, seniority benefits, and their pensions. Expensive child care costs can take up a large part of a woman's earnings. In contrast, province-wide affordable child care in Quebec has balanced the scales. The affect on women has been significant. It has contributed to a marked increase in women’s participation in the workforce.

Many child care services operate along regular business hours, creating an additional barrier. As a recent PSAC human rights complaint shows, irregular child care is all but non-existent in Canada. That makes it difficult for women with children to devote themselves to leadership. Women who can't work irregular hours due to child care restrictions are much less likely to occupy management and higher paying positions. Ultimately, the lack of available child care and the lack of affordable child care hold women back.

We believe that unionized workplaces make the difference for women. Women with collective agreements have a lower pay gap with men. They have access to benefits such as flexible work arrangements; paid leave for family related responsibilities, medical or personal needs; sick and vacation leave; paid maternity and parental leave; duty to accommodate; and provisions to help balance work and family care. These benefits haven't come easily. They've been gained through hard bargaining, strikes, and through the courts. All these provisions help make workplaces women friendly and family friendly, and they help women become leaders by reducing work-life conflict.

One of them, pay equity, is a proactive measure that addresses wage gaps based on gender and has a direct impact on women’s prosperity. It’s no accident that women in the federal public sector, especially those in administrative positions, are paid more than many women performing similar work in other sectors. PSAC has worked hard for decades to make the pay equity provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act a reality for our members.

But as you know, there has been another step back. In 2009, Bill C-10 enacted the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. In spite of its name, this law undermines pay equity. Pay equity was designed to redress the affects of the market on women’s pay. The new law does the reverse, and it restricts women’s capacity to claim and obtain pay equity. Unions are not allowed to encourage or work with their members to seek protection from pay equity violations. They can even be heavily fined for doing so. Pay equity is a way to overcome obstacles to women’s prosperity. The new law is just another barrier for women to overcome.

In these three areas, we're making the following recommendations: first, safeguard employment equity and other policies that support women; second, fully fund a national child care program; and third, scrap the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and replace it with a real, proactive pay equity law. We need to stop attempts to destroy what women have achieved and take these necessary steps forward.

I thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and we'll certainly be very pleased to answer any questions that you have. It should be noted that we'll be sending the committee a more detailed written submission very soon. It's currently in translation. As soon as it comes out, we will send it.

[The Chair, NDP, Hélène LeBlanc]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Ambler, you have the floor for seven minutes.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Madame Chair.

Thank you for being here and for your presentation.

There's been a lot of talk in this study about mentorship and women advancing economically if they have mentors or champions in their field. Does PSAC, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, support any type of mentorship among its members, formal or informal? Do you agree this is important, and then do you agree that it's important whether or not you do it?

[Robyn Benson]

I'll start, and certainly Seema can continue if need be.

We agree with mentorship. Certainly, from a union perspective with our members, we mentor our leadership. We have courses. We provide education, etc. When I was in the workplace, mentorship for leadership roles was rarely seen and more specifically, for women.

Many years ago a committee was going to be struck to promote and mentor women into leadership. It certainly didn't promote what one would have thought it would, so I'm not sure they continue to have it in the workplace, but I would suggest we should be looking at it.

Seema.

[Seema Lamba, Human Rights Program Officer, Membership Programs Branch, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

The federal public sector actually has champions and committees for three of the four equity groups: aboriginals, persons with disabilities, and racialized or visible minorities, as they're called.

One of the things we are recommending in our more detailed submissions is that there should be champions and committees for women as well, although that's not ideal, and we have some criticisms of that system. A champion would be a deputy head, and then they would have committees of different people within different departments and they could connect with their workers. That's where the discussions about mentorship should happen.

Secondly, employment equity also plays a factor in this. When you look at employment equity, you look at the barriers that are facing the equity groups, like women, and then you enact an initiative that would remove that barrier. One of them could be the fact that there are cultural biases and attitudinal biases that come in, such that men are picked over women to be promoted and given more opportunities. You could try to remove that by having a specific initiative around mentorship.

[Robyn Benson]

I'll just add something, because as I said, many years ago there was a committee. It received a lot of lip service, but there was nothing concrete. As Seema said, there are three committees currently, so the fourth would bode well for the Treasury Board.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

The three would be aboriginal, people with disabilities, and—

[Robyn Benson]

—racially visible.

[Seema Lamba]

Or visible minorities, as they're called.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

—visible minorities. And what was the fourth one you mentioned?

[Robyn Benson]

It would be women.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Okay. I have it.

[Seema Lamba]

There are only four equity groups under the Employment Equity Act.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you.

Stats Canada just told us that when all factors are controlled for in full-time work, women earn 90% of what men earn.

I believe you have about 180,000 members.

[Robyn Benson]

Yes.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

How many are women versus how many men? Is it about even?

[Robyn Benson]

No, for PSAC and with respect to our Treasury Board and agencies, we're 60% women.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Among your members, is there a wage gap between men and women, and if so, to what do you attribute the difference?

[Robyn Benson]

In some areas there is not a wage gap, because we won a pay equity complaint. It took many years—I think it was 15 years or more—and we won it through the courts. So certainly as I said in my remarks, there are some areas, the administrative areas, in which those individuals would make more than other sectors would, due in part to the pay equity win.

Seema, do you want to add to that?

[Seema Lamba]

I was going to give you some statistics. If you look at the Treasury Board's annual employment equity report, they actually have a table that describes it by wage.

I did a really quick comparison. I think something like 44% of women make less than, maybe, $59,999, compared to the percentage of all employees who make less than that, which is something like 30 or 34. So there are some differences overall. It's very difficult for us to determine the numbers for our membership itself.

I can actually give you some general numbers for women as to how many are unionized and how many aren't, if you're interested.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Who aren't what...?

[Seema Lamba]

That's for women who are unionized and women who are not unionized—