Good afternoon.
I will be speaking in French.
Thank you for inviting me to appear to speak to you on behalf of the 665,000 members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE).
Of course we welcome Canada’s pay equity legislation, which we hope will have a significant impact on 23,000 to 25,000 of our members who work in federally regulated industries. These members work mainly in the private sector, such as airlines, telecommunications, ground transportation and ports. We also represent civilian employees at the RCMP.
At CUPE, we have four decades of experience with various pay equity regulatory regimes, and we believe that the federal government should be setting a high standard for the provinces to emulate.
Let me also mention that CUPE has successfully challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of pay equity legislation, particularly in Quebec. I was the lawyer representing CUPE in the class action Mr. Yussuff talked about and which lead to a Supreme Court judgment in May. As a result, if you have any questions about this, I would be pleased to answer them.
We completely agree with the remarks of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), and I will move to page 2 of my notes right away, so that there's no repetition.
From the outset, we have noticed a major shortcoming in the bill with respect to its compliance with constitutional obligations. It lacks an overall standard of non-discrimination applied to all of the elements of pay equity plans and their application. It will be very simple to implement it. Section 2 will just have to be amended by adding a few words to make permanent the obligation to ensure that no element of the pay equity plan shall discriminate on the basis of gender. In our written brief, we will recommend the wording to this effect.
Once again, we agree with the CLC's comments on the functioning of committees and the unanimity in the employee vote. From our experience, we can tell you about the challenge with that. All it would take is for one employer to convince a single member of the pay equity committee—such as a bargaining agent representing a predominantly male group—to adopt the position of the employer to stifle the voice of the women around the table. That's just one example. However, when there are multiple bargaining agents on a committee, it is essentially unrealistic to believe that decisions will be unanimous. So there needs to be a majority, not unanimous, vote.
I will now turn to the compensation comparison methods described in section 50 of the legislation. We can tell you right away that the method set out in the bill—the equal line method—will be inapplicable in most cases. We cannot understand in the slightest why the bill has not kept the comparison method recommended in the 2004 final report of the pay equity task force, generally known as the Bilson report. Our written brief will elaborate on this shortcoming, but it's important that you are now aware that it's quite a major problem.
As the CLC mentioned, the bill lacks clarity with respect to retroactive pay adjustments in the maintenance phase. It provides no guarantees, which may well affect its constitutionality. I hope that you have taken note of this.
Finally, the pay equity legislation being proposed would give the pay equity commissioner a significant degree of responsibility. So that the legislation is not a burden for businesses, the commissioner will need to have the resources necessary to support them, but also to quickly and effectively resolve workplace disputes. So the Human Rights Commission will need to receive a whole host of additional resources so that everything works out for everyone.
The dispute resolution mechanisms found in part 8 should not distinguish between the remedies provided to employees and those provided to bargaining agents. Bargaining agents—and unions, of course—must be able to exercise all the rights of their members on their behalf. The possibility of being represented by an association to exercise one's rights is part of the freedom of association, and this must be provided for in the act. Furthermore, the legislator recognizes that there may be reprisals after a complaint is filed, but is taking away the main buffer against those reprisals, the protection of the union. So please review the remedies provided for in part 8.
My final comment for today is on clause 451 of the bill, which amends the Canada Labour Code, relating to equal treatment by adding sections 182.1 to 182.4. I invite you to read the written brief that will be submitted by Friday, in which we recommend, among other things, that the interpretation—made by regulation—of employment status be supplemented with protection against discrimination on the basis of the date of hiring.
That concludes my remarks. Thank you very much. I am ready to answer any questions you may have.