Evidence of meeting #184 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was proposed.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Manuel Dussault  Senior Director, Framework Policy, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Justin Brown  Director, Financial Stability, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Peter Fragiskatos  London North Centre, Lib.
Yuki Bourdeau  Senior Advisor, Capital Markets Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Eleanor Ryan  Director General, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Jean-François Girard  Director, Consumer Affairs, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Brigitte Goulard  Deputy Commissionner, Financial Consumer Agency of Canada
Kim Rudd  Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.
Mark Schaan  Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Ian Wright  Director, Financial Crimes Governance and Operations, Department of Finance
Darryl C. Patterson  Director, Corporate, Insolvency and Competition Policy Directorate, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Martin Simard  Director, Copyright and Trademark Policy, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Andrea Flewelling  Senior Policy Advisor, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Patrick Blanar  Senior Policy Analyst, Patent Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Dale MacMillan  Vice-President, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer, National Research Council of Canada
Christopher Johnstone  Director General, National Programs and Business Services, National Research Council of Canada
Eric Grant  Director, Community Lands Development, Lands and Environmental Management, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Leane Walsh  Director, Fiscal Policy and Investment Readiness, Economic Policy Development, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Susan Waters  Director General, Lands and Environmental Management Branch, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Michèle Govier  Senior Director, Trade Rules, International Trade and Finance Branch, Department of Finance
Katharine Funtek  Executive Director, Trade Controls Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Bev Shipley  Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC
Nicole Giles  Director, International Trade and Finance, Assistant Deputy Minister's Office, Department of Finance
Deirdre Kent  Director General, International Assistance Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Mark Lusignan  Director General, Grants and contributions Management, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (International Trade)
Michelle Kaminski  Director, Office of Innovative Finance, Grants and Contributions Management, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Chantal Larocque  Deputy Director, Development Finance, Grants and Contributions Financial Policy, Foreign Affairs Canada
Danielle Bélanger  Director, Gender-Based Analysis Plus and Strategic Policy, Policy and External Relations Directorate, Status of Women Canada
Alison McDermott  General Director, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Derek Armstrong  Executive Director, Results Division, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Lori Straznicky  Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Don Graham  Senior Advisor to the Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Bruce Kennedy  Manager, Pay Equity Task Team, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Richard Stuart  Executive Director, Expenditure Analysis and Compensation Planning, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Colin Spencer James  Senior Director, Social Development Policy, Strategic and Service Policy Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Andrew Brown  Director General, Employment Insurance Policy Directorate, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Barbara Moran  Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Rutha Astravas  Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Special Benefits Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
Charles Philippe Rochon  Senior Policy Analyst, Labour Standards and Wage Earner Protection Program, Workplace Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development

7:45 p.m.

General Director, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Alison McDermott

What that's really allowing for is the government may choose and may opt to include in the budget documents themselves that GBA+ analysis, that analysis of impacts. It may be published in an annex or as a stand-alone document as part of the budget. If the government does not do that, it's obligated to within those days, I think it's 30 days, to make it available and table it in both houses, because the budget itself is tabled.

It's just a way of saying that if that requirement is already met through the budget itself, it wouldn't be separately required.

7:45 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Thank you.

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay.

All in, all done. Thank you very much, folks.

We turn to division 14, pay equity.

I believe you're remaining, Ms. McDermott, for this one.

All right, I believe we have a full delegation for this one. We have with us from Treasury Board Ms. McDermott, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Stuart; Ms. Straznicky and Mr. Kennedy with ESDC; Mr. Bernard and Ms. Gagné from PSPC.

Welcome, all. Who's the lead?

Ms. Straznicky, go ahead.

7:45 p.m.

Lori Straznicky Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Thank you.

Division 14 introduces new, proactive pay equity legislation. It repeals the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and it amends both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. The legislation and proposed amendments are intended to create a proactive pay equity regime that ensures equal compensation for work of equal value for employees in female-predominant jobs in federally regulated workplaces.

In terms of how the act applies, the pay equity act will apply to all federally regulated employers with 10 or more employees, including the federal private sector, the federal public service, and the Prime Minister and ministers' offices. In addition, the regime will apply to parliamentary workplaces through amendments to the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. Individuals and workplaces with fewer than 10 employees would remain covered under the current regime of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In terms of the key elements and the process, the pay equity act establishes requirements for all employers with 10 or more employees. However, the requirements are different for small employers—those with 10 to 99 employees—and large employers, which have 100 employees or more. Regardless of their size, all employers will be required to develop a single pay equity plan within three years from the coming into force of the legislation, or from becoming subject to the act.

That plan would set out a number of pieces of information, including job classes that have been identified in the workplace; gender predominance of job classes; value of work of job classes that have been assessed based on skill, responsibilities, effort and working conditions; compensation associated with each job class, using a total compensation approach; and results of comparison of the compensation of female- and male-predominant job classes of similar value, using an equal line or equal average model. It will identify those female-predominant job classes that require an increase in compensation, it will set out when those increases are due, and it will provide information on the dispute resolution procedures available to employees.

Plans are to be developed by joint committees for large employers, or those with unionized employees irrespective of their size. These joint committees would have both employer and employee representatives. Two-thirds would be employee representatives, and 50% of them would be women. For small employers or those with no unionized employees, the plan would be developed by an employer-led process. Regardless of the size or the way the plan is developed, all employees will be given an opportunity to comment on the plan before it's finalized.

Increases in compensation will be required to be made by employers within three to five years, depending on the size. Large employers would have up to three years to phase in increases, so long as the payments are at least 1% of their annual payroll. Small employers would have up to five years to phase in those payments, provided again that those payments are 1% of their annual payroll.

Employers would be required to review their plans at least every five years in order to identify and close any pay gaps that may have emerged. They would also be required to provide a short annual statement to the pay equity commissioner each year to ensure sufficient oversight. In terms of that oversight and enforcement and compliance with the pay equity act, a pay equity commissioner would be appointed by the Governor in Council to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The pay equity commissioner would administer and enforce the act through a range of compliance and enforcement tools that would include administrative monetary penalties. There would be an appeal mechanism for certain decisions or orders of the pay equity commissioner to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

There would be a creation of a pay equity unit that would consist of officers and employees of the Canadian Human Rights Commission that would support the pay equity commissioner in fulfilling her or his duties under the act. There would also be the creation of a pay equity division within the CHRC, which the pay equity commissioner would preside over in order to address complaints of discriminatory practice related to pay equity in federally regulated workplaces with fewer than 10 employees.

Finally, there would a provision for three additional members with knowledge and expertise in pay equity matters to be appointed to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

In terms of the amendments that would be made to the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, there would be the creation of a new part of the PESRA that would provide that the pay equity act applies to all parliamentary employers and employees in a manner that's tailored to respect parliamentary privilege.

Oversight would also be by the pay equity commissioner, who would have the authority to conduct compliance audits and investigations of parliamentary employers and issue compliance orders and notices of contravention to deal with complaints. However, the pay equity commissioner would need to provide notice to the Speaker before entering any place under the authority of parliamentary employers.

Sanctions for non-compliance with decisions or orders of the pay equity commissioner would be tabled in Parliament by the Speaker, and appeal for decisions or orders of the pay equity commissioner would be made to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.

At this time, if you have any questions we would be happy to answer them.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

We'll start with Mr. Massé.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Rémi Massé Liberal Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Please help me understand something. I was a public servant for 17 years and was subject to the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, as it applied at that time, before it was amended, of course.

The bill provides for the creation of the position of a pay equity commissioner, but practically speaking, what steps will departments have to take once the act comes into force to comply with it? I am trying to understand the difference between what existed before and what the new act will establish over and above certain elements that you mentioned and that are clear, such as creating the position of ethics commissioner and presenting plans and reports.

7:55 p.m.

Don Graham Senior Advisor to the Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

The obligation isn't so much on the department. The obligation would be on the core public administration in the case of the public service, and it would be to develop a pay equity plan. That would have to be developed, and then that would be developed jointly with the unions and be the basis for the pay equity adjustments that would follow.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Ms. Rudd.

7:55 p.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Kim Rudd

Thank you.

I remember dealing with this issue in child care about 25 years ago. I haven't checked in for some time, but I'm sure it's still going on.

I notice, in your remarks as well as in the overview, that organizations with fewer than 10 employees are exempt. Is that correct?

7:55 p.m.

Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Lori Straznicky

Yes, that's correct.

7:55 p.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Kim Rudd

I have two questions.

One, can they voluntarily go through the process? There are lots of small organizations out there that I think, indeed, would want to do that.

Also, do we know how many federally regulated organizations there are with fewer than 10 employees? Are there two and we had to mention them, or is there a significant number? I wouldn't think there would be many.

7:55 p.m.

Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Lori Straznicky

I'll answer the first question first, and then we do have statistics that I believe are responsive to the second one.

There is nothing in the legislation that would prohibit an employer from voluntarily undertaking a pay equity process and becoming pay equity compliant in the workplace. They would still remain under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but if they were to be pay equity compliant using the proactive regime, then—

7:55 p.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Kim Rudd

Do they have to report as the others do, or would it be a strictly internal thing to the organization?

7:55 p.m.

Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Lori Straznicky

No. If they were using the process to voluntarily bring their compensation practices to be providing equal pay for work of equal value, then the obligations under the act would not apply to them. They would still be exempted, or it wouldn't apply because they would be below the threshold.

Also, in terms of the statistics, in the federal jurisdiction, one to nine employees.... These stats are looking at the number of women, broken down by employer size. There are approximately 24,000 women working in workplaces with one to nine employees, and that makes up about 7% of the share of total female employment.

8 p.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Kim Rudd

So 24,000 women will not necessarily be able to participate in this, but their colleagues, because they have 11 employees, will.

8 p.m.

Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Lori Straznicky

The way it would work is that when we're given the number of women in these workplaces, until the process has been undertaken to identify which of the female-predominant job classes would need to be compared with male-predominant job classes of the same value, we won't know how many of those women will actually be affected and, therefore, entitled to an identified increase if there is a gap.

8 p.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Kim Rudd

If I understand you correctly, if they're in organizations with under 10 people, they may never find out.

8 p.m.

Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Lori Straznicky

If their employer does not voluntarily undertake the process...?

8 p.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Kim Rudd

Right.

8 p.m.

Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Lori Straznicky

That's right. The burden—

8 p.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Kim Rudd

Under this process, approximately 24,000 women would be outside the realm of accessing pay equity.

8 p.m.

Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

8 p.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Kim Rudd

But if their employer has 12 people, they would be in.

8 p.m.

Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Lori Straznicky

If they have 12 people, yes, they would be covered as a small employer under the act.

8 p.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Kim Rudd

I'm just wondering where the “10” threshold came from. Maybe it was arbitrary. Was there any statistical analysis done on why that threshold, or if there even should be a threshold?