Yes.
Evidence of meeting #185 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was women's.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #185 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was women's.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:30 a.m.
Banff—Airdrie, CPC
The CFIB put out a statement about those changes. They said that they are “deeply concerning for small businesses already dealing with the slew of punitive tax changes and increasing payroll costs”.
They went on to say the following:
Just after the new Ontario government got rid of many of these job-killing ideas, the feds come along and pull them into the Canada Labour Code.... There is nothing in this that will improve the innovation or productivity of a single Canadian workplace. Instead, it will bind the hands of entrepreneurs with reams of new red tape.
Do you concur with that statement, and if so, why?
9:30 a.m.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
Very much so, and the reason is that I don't think people understand that employers have a certain wage bill. We saw this play out with the minimum wage hike in Ontario, and I suspect we will see the same thing play out in Alberta. Employers have a certain wage bill. One of the features of this economy is that....
As I drove in this morning, I was hearing on Bloomberg that people in the U.S. were talking about the fact that it remains a mystery why, with such low rates of unemployment, employers simply will not raise wages. There's a lot of speculation on that and there are a lot of reasons, but it is a fact that in North America, wages are not increasing. Therefore, in this current environment, for whatever reason, if you increase wages or costs in one area of labour or wages—i.e., you raise the minimum wage—employers react by saying, “Okay, I now have to pay these people $14 an hour when I was paying them $10. I will do that. I will employ fewer of them. I will also cut back on what I'm paying other workers.”
They have to control their overall wage bill. I think that's what the CFIB is addressing, and I think that's what gets lost in this. I think there are a lot of good intentions here, but as an economist I'm honour bound to point out the unintended consequences. The unintended consequences of a lot of these well-intended policies will cost some people jobs. You can't create money where it doesn't exist in the first place.
I think that was very much the point I was trying to make in my opening presentation. We can't lose sight of the fact that social improvement will only happen in an economy that's prosperous and flourishing. If we ignore those basics, if we undertake policies that undercut those basics, it will not end well for anybody.
9:35 a.m.
Banff—Airdrie, CPC
Sure.
Let's take a look at this from a different angle. You wrote a paper in October of last year where you talked about the fact that business investment in Canada has fallen far behind other industrialized countries. The quote I have here from you is:
The persistent weakness of business investment in Canada has been aggravated by several recent government policies including increased tax rates on capital and mounting budget deficits and debt, both of which add to the uncertainty that entrepreneurs and investors feel about the future.
We're talking about the idea of being able to attract business investment, to be able to attract new opportunities here. Do you think these labour code changes will have an impact in that regard as well? Will that make it even harder to attract business here?
You also mentioned in your opening remarks about changes to the pipelines approval process. You talked about interprovincial trade barriers. All these things obviously tie together, but do you think these changes, changes like that, will make it harder to attract new business investment to Canada?
9:35 a.m.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
Very much so. We have to be aware of the competitive environment we're in. For years Canada had lower corporate income taxes than the U.S. We're now at a disadvantage in that.
Employers are motivated to look at their total costs. They're going to look at their tax bill, their hydro bill, their labour bill. More and more we're seeing that this disfavours Canada. I think the Bank of Canada has already talked about the fact that they're aware of firms.... You could point to firms in the oil patch openly saying they're transferring their operations to the U.S., simply because it's easier and less costly to operate there. We have to be aware that if we're going to increase the regulations and costs on firms in Canada, there's a competitor south of our border with open arms these days.
9:35 a.m.
Banff—Airdrie, CPC
The idea that it will weaken the opportunities for investment here.... What about existing businesses? People who would advocate for the changes would say it's just for federally regulated employers, but the CFIB claims there will be pressure on provincial governments to follow suit. Therefore, obviously the majority of workplaces would be regulated by the same kinds of rules. The comments were that they think it will harm the opportunity for existing businesses to make profits.
Would you have concerns about that as well and do you think that this kind of thing...? You talked about minimum wage increases, about other things. Obviously at some point there's the straw that breaks the camel's back. Do you think this is the kind of policy that could be the straw that breaks the camel's back? In other words, will it put some small business operations right out of business or ruin their ability to be able to make a profit?
9:35 a.m.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
I think the record shows that when one jurisdiction adopts certain policies it does increase the pressures on others. We've seen that with the increase in minimum wages, for example.
I think there are two hopeful reasons when looking at business investment these days. One is the successful resolution of the NAFTA negotiations, which removes a large cloud of uncertainty from the business environment in this country. The other is the change of governments in Ontario and Quebec. I would have had more concern six months ago about adopting these policies, given the governments in power in Ontario and Quebec at the time. We'll see. I think the Ford administration's willingness to roll back some of the labour legislation is positive for business investment in that province.
In Quebec we don't know yet. On paper it's quite encouraging that, instead of the usual coterie of academics and lawyers, half the cabinet in Quebec under the new CAQ government is made up of people who either operated a small business or were senior executives in a business. We probably haven't seen that in decades, such a cabinet that so clearly understands business concerns, but it's early days. We haven't seen that play out so it's too early to say in what direction the CAQ government will go, but I would be encouraged.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That will end that line of questioning.
We'll turn to Mr. Julian.
Keep in mind there are witnesses on video from Toronto, and I expect they're willing to answer questions as well. That's not directed to you, Mr. Julian, but to all the members.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'm actually going to go to Ms. Faraday, but I wanted to thank all witnesses. You're raising important points about this legislation.
The government is trying to ram this through very quickly. We still don't know how many clauses and subclauses are in this monster bill at 850 pages. It has more than seven independent bills inside it, and our best estimate is that less than nine seconds per clause or subclause is being allocated to study this. I think what I'm hearing from all witnesses is to hold on here. There are some major flaws in the legislation that need to be addressed, so the government shouldn't be trying to ram it through.
Ms. Faraday, I tried to keep up with the flaws you identified. Thank you very much for coming forward. They're very substantive, and I know you didn't have enough time to really review everything. I'm going to put to you two things.
First, you didn't mention the scissors clause that we found out about last night in the pay equity act that allows the minister to exempt any employer or class of employers from any provision of this act. Basically, the current minister, or a future government, could simply say all bank employees, all federal civil servants, are exempt from any provision of this act. I'm wondering if you could comment on that. Certainly, it was a surprise to me to learn that the government had put this in, allowing any government to simply cut out pay equity from whole industries.
Second, I would like you to come back to the issue of the purpose clause, and the concerns that you've raised about many women actually getting less protection with this bill than currently exists under Canadian human rights legislation. That's appalling if it's the case. That means there are major difficulties with this bill that need to be addressed.
9:40 a.m.
Co-Chair, Equal Pay Coalition
There are major difficulties. That first provision, the scissors clause, is proposed paragraph 181(1)(a), which does give cabinet the right to pass regulations that can exempt any employer, any employee, any position, or any groups of employers, employees or positions from the application of the act. They can, in fact, exempt anyone from the provisions, which is a very damaging thing in what is a fundamental human rights statute. It is basically saying we can decide that whole slots of the economy are not subject to human rights. That is obviously problematic.
We would say that the proposed paragraph needs to be taken out. That's just an escape clause for coverage under the legislation.
The other issue is of getting less protection than they currently have. One example is that the legislation defines compensation for part-time employees, temporary employees and temporary help employees as being separate from and lesser than full-time employees. Currently, under the Canadian Human Rights Act, they're entitled to the same protection. Under the labour standards provisions that are also introduced as part of this legislation, part-time, seasonal and temporary agency employees are to be treated the same as full-time and direct hires. However, the pay equity legislation defines them as separate and allows for lower compensation under the pay equity act, which is contrary to the current human rights legislation and contrary to the labour standards provisions later in the same bill.
The second part is that there are broad protections against gender discrimination and all forms of discrimination in employment under section 7 and section 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The pay equity act prevents women from having access to those provisions. It says that they're prohibited from raising claims under those provisions related to compensation, but the pay equity act doesn't address all of the different forms of discrimination that come up and that resonate in pay. They're effectively being denied the full coverage against discrimination that exists under the human rights code.
As I said as well, the ways in which women are getting less than they're entitled to are the ways in which this legislation has incorporated provisions that the Supreme Court and the courts in Quebec have found to be unconstitutional. That's just a no-brainer. Those need to come out. They've been ruled to be unconstitutional, so they should be changed.
One of those provisions is something that allows employers, particularly in non-union places, to unilaterally decide that they've done a pay equity process previously that complies with the legislation, and so it's sheltered. In Quebec, provisions in that line were found to be unconstitutional. There are provisions in this legislation that say, if there's discrimination that's found, you only get a remedy going forward, not for the years of discrimination that have existed. The Supreme Court said, just earlier this year, that is unconstitutional; your right to equality continues.
Again, the purpose clause that's in this legislation—
9:45 a.m.
Co-Chair, Equal Pay Coalition
—gives less protection than the Canadian Human Rights Act, because it makes the rights subject to the needs of employers. That is fundamentally unprecedented in Canada. That is counter to human rights principles.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Julian, you're nearly out of time. Please ask a quick question and have a quick answer.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'm not out of time yet, Mr. Chair. I've been timing myself, and I still have time for another question.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Is it your position that this bill has unconstitutional provisions, provisions that, if it were rammed through Parliament now in its current form, would mean it would be subject to the courts?
9:45 a.m.
Co-Chair, Equal Pay Coalition
We'd have to go through litigation all over again to win the rights that the Supreme Court has already given us.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
9:45 a.m.
Peter Fragiskatos London North Centre, Lib.
Thank you very much, and thank you all for being here today.
I want to focus the first part on pay equity. What we see here with Bill C-86 is the advancement of something quite important, something that we've been talking about doing as a country for a number of decades. While there are concerns that we've heard expressed, concerns that the bill isn't perfect, I don't think we live in a perfect world. What I want to put on the table is the fact that Bill C-86 and the pay equity provisions apply to federally regulated workplaces. However, there is a great deal to be said about the potential for this to go beyond, and now we can really begin a substantive conversation about pay equity in the wider society.
As part of that, I would like to get the view of those at the table on the existing reasons for a gap in pay between men and women. On the one hand, we can talk about structural barriers and the differences between men and women as well as false perceptions about what women can offer in the workplace and what men can offer.
Beyond that, though, there are other views. Mr. Cross, I don't mean to set this up as a straw-man argument, and I'll come back to you for your view, but your organization, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, has said, and I quote here from your website:
The reasons for the pay gap between men and women are not particularly new. Women tend to be clustered in fields that traditionally pay less than the ones that men choose, and in occupations that pay less as well. They are also a lot more likely than men to take “breaks” from work (a really poor word to express what happens when you are home with small children), which does not help their long-term earnings power either.
That's the end of the quote. I wonder if we could delve into that.
Ms. Decter, I'll go to you first, and then Ms. Doucet. Do you agree with that particular view? Should we focus instead on structural barriers as we open up a conversation in the wider society about how to decrease the gap in pay between men and women?
9:50 a.m.
Director, Community Initiatives, Canadian Women's Foundation
Do I agree with the quote you just read?