Evidence of meeting #187 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
November 7th, 2018 / 4:25 p.m.
Blake Richards Banff—Airdrie, CPC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate you all being here today and sharing your perspectives.
One of things we've heard—or I've certainly heard from a number of organizations and individuals out there—is about the size of this piece of legislation and the omnibus nature of it. There have been many people who have commented on the fact that there was very little time given for individuals and organizations like yourselves to take a look at this piece of legislation and prepare to comment on it here at a committee. This was something they found really problematic.
I want to give all of you an opportunity to comment on that particular aspect of this situation, although I'd be tempted to play favourites and start with Gavin Charles, who once.... I don't know if he's okay with my telling you this, but he's not indicating any opposition: He was once a parliamentary intern in my office. I'd be tempted to give him favouritism and let him start there, but I won't do that. I'll just go from left to right. Anyone who'd like to comment, please feel free to do so.
4:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
First, let me say that yes, there are many provisions in this bill that have some complexities, and we have examined almost every aspect of it. That does not faze us in terms of what the bill is trying to do overall.
We've been waiting for decades for proactive pay equity legislation. We have identified three very specific things that can be addressed to make this bill even better than it is currently. Similarly, we have Harry Arthurs' recommendations finally seeing the light, along with the recommendations to improve the Canada Labour Code, part III, which has not amended since 1960.
We lay out one area that the government can fix, and it's a regulation that would need to be brought forth, but at the end of the day, this is not the first time this House has had to deal with omnibus legislation. We've been coming here for quite some time and we're very happy to comment on whatever legislation the government brings forward. We think this legislation will enhance gender equality in the federal jurisdiction, but equally we think the labour provision will set a new standard for the federal government in trying to get the provinces to follow suit.
4:30 p.m.
Banff—Airdrie, CPC
Are there others who would like to...? I saw some heads nodding over here. Did you have a comment?
4:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Canada Without Poverty
Yes.
First of all, I'd say that Canada Without Poverty is really glad that the income tax amendments made it in. We're very pleased with that. In fact, the issues that we cover that are included in the BIA have received a whole heck of a lot of consultation, actually. We had plenty of time to engage, and we're happy that many of them have made it in.
4:30 p.m.
Banff—Airdrie, CPC
Are there any others who would like to comment, in particular on that? After all that for Gavin, he didn't even comment. Is there anyone else? Oh, I talked him into it.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
You can answer some questions, Gavin, about what it was like working in his office.
4:30 p.m.
Policy Officer, Canadian Council for International Co-operation
I could sing the praises of the parliamentary internship program, in which I worked with Mr. Richards as well as with Paul Dewar on the opposition benches.
Certainly the size of the bill means that we need to hear a large number of voices. The spectrum of voices that we have here today is testimony to that, in part. The more substantive point is that there are elements of the bill that I think everyone here supports, and bringing together a wide range of voices to speak to what is in the bill and what could be potentially improved in the bill is a positive step. That's what I'll say.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
We have the largest budget implementation act in Canadian history. The Speaker was forced yesterday to separate it out into chunks. I have deeply appreciated your testimony today. I hope it actually will have an impact. What the government has done is establish a legislative bulldozer. We'll have a few more hours of hearings from some very qualified witnesses such as you, and then we'll run into a day when, if amendments are not adopted, the whole package will be simply thrown back to the House of Commons as is.
Mr. Yussuff, Madam Smallman, Madam Desjardins, my question to you is this: What are the impacts if pay equity is not addressed in any way? Yesterday the finance minister refused to commit to any changes in this bill. As I said, the legislative bulldozer is in place. What happens if this bill is adopted without those changes?
4:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
Let me start.
I think the pay equity legislation, as it is contained in the bill, addresses many of the things we've been advocating for decades. Are there some areas for improvement? Absolutely, and we stated them very categorically before this committee. If they are not addressed in the way we have recommended, I think it could erode the principle of pay equity for women in the federal jurisdiction, and that would be unfortunate.
As one of my colleagues commented, we don't want the courts to be litigating something that's supposed to be a positive onus on employers to ensure—that this is the reality of how women are going to be treated in the federal jurisdiction. At the end of the day, I think our amendments will make it ironclad that women actually are going to be treated in the way that was intended by the legislation. We've been able to determine these areas. Of course, the court has litigated on at least one provision of it, and we see two specific areas in which the bill can be improved.
4:35 p.m.
Vicky Smallman Director, Women's & Human Rights, Canadian Labour Congress
If I could just add to that, I want to refer also to Madam Desjardins's comments about the regulatory process. If we pass this, we still have a lot of work we need to do in regulation, and we need to have a robust process that includes some tripartite mechanisms. We need to be able to close some of these loopholes in the regulations and to explain and clarify some of the grey areas. We are anxious to have this bill passed so that we can move on to that next stage, but to start us off on the right foot, it would be good to have it passed with the amendments we're proposing.
The other component I want to recognize is that the resources that are allocated to the pay equity commissioner and the commissioner's unit are also fundamental to this success. If we don't have the right tools at our disposal to implement and enforce the act, then the process will continue.
We already have a timeline built into the legislation. That means we have a lot of steps to take before some groups of employees actually have their wage discrimination addressed. We're anxious to get on with it.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Ms. Smallman, just to come back, Mr. Yussuff has just said that the constitutionality of the pay equity legislation might be in question. Women might be forced to go back to court. Do you share that point of view?
4:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
We're not saying that the bill itself is unconstitutional; we're saying that a specific section of the bill would need to be amended because the court has just recently ruled on a similar provision in the Quebec legislation. It's identical. I think it has problematic application if it's not changed.
Of course, we're very good at taking cues from the court when we are successful. We will be back in the courts, and it would be unfortunate for that to happen.
4:35 p.m.
Executive Assistant, National President's Office, Canadian Union of Public Employees
I just want to reiterate exactly what has just been said. I agree. Except for the issue of retroactive payments in the maintenance phase—which we feel corresponds quite clearly to the problem that was raised before the Supreme Court and that was considered unconstitutional in Quebec legislation—implementing the legislation over time will reveal the shortcomings in the legislation.
It is nevertheless important to know that, if the legislation is not appropriately applied and does not help correct wage discrimination, it may be unconstitutional in several respects. In Quebec, in 2004, another case was heard by the Superior Court. On that occasion, a whole other part of Quebec's legislation was declared unconstitutional. However, this became clear only as it was applied. We'll see.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
So the three of you are saying that it's essential that amendments be made to this bill.
4:35 p.m.
Executive Assistant, National President's Office, Canadian Union of Public Employees
Yes, of course.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, everyone. It's good to be here this afternoon with you.
My first question is for the Canadian Labour Congress with Mr. Yussuff.
In the province of Ontario, we've seen the Ford government attack the rights of middle-class Canadian workers and middle-class Canadian families. In the last few weeks, they have repealed many provisions that would benefit middle-class workers and their families, including sick leave, a minimum wage going up to $15 per hour, scheduling and so forth. Our government has decided to stand with middle-class families and middle-class workers, and in this piece of legislation, the budget implementation act, 2018, no. 2, we've introduced changes to the Canada Labour Code. They are the first such substantive changes since 1960, as I believe you referenced.
What more needs to be done? I know there is some stuff with regard to contract flipping and contract tendering. Can you provide some feedback on where we are and what else can be done, please, sir?
4:40 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
First I want to applaud Minister Hajdu for the work she did on the part III provisions of the Canada Labour Code. As you know, it's almost been 15 years since Harry Arthurs first tabled his report when he looked comprehensively at what could be done to improve part III of the Canada Labour Code and to see these provisions brought forward. These provisions represent the 21st century reality for workers in this country, and it's fundamental that we get them into law as quickly as we can.
They will, of course, be contrary to what's happening in Ontario right now, where the government is repealing the things that most recently were amended to improve the employment standards there. A huge swath of workers will now not have that basic protection in the Ontario employment standards.
On the provisions I referenced in regard to contract flipping, part of it that the government still needs to fix is part I of the code. We would require some regulatory changes to that section of the code in order to address workers that we are concerned about, of course, and that might not have protection in terms of what this this bill is proposing. I think we made that clear to the minister on Wednesday of this week. She has said publicly that she will table some amendments as soon as possible to ensure that this provision is fixed as quickly as possible.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you, sir.
With regard to the YWCA, the BIA introduces for the first time a department of women, gender and pay equity, which is something that people have advocated for and have been consulted on for a very long time. Frankly, being an economist, I think it's something that's good for the economy. We've seen that the labour force participation rate for women in Canada is now at its highest level ever on record, which is wonderful.
Look, legislation is never perfect. It could be made better. Better is possible. We know that. At the same time, this piece of legislation is ground-breaking—from my humble point of view—on pay equity and a full department. Can you comment on that, please?
4:40 p.m.
Manager, Policy & Strategic Communications, YWCA Canada
Thank you for the question.
YWCA Canada has been calling for a very long time—as have other women-serving organizations—for proactive pay equity legislation, so we were pleased to see this included in Bill C-86. Our colleagues on the panel have spoken about some of the things that need to be addressed to make it even better, but on the whole we are happy with the spirit of the legislation, because this is something that will impact the lives of many of the folks we serve every day across the country.
Our stipulation, from our understanding of the bill before us, is that there are some exemptions for folks who are in part-time, seasonal or contract work or in non-standard employment. For many of the people we serve every day across the country, this would not help them. It's really important, then, that we address this when we consider the legislation before us, because that exemption impacts primarily—and disproportionately—women. That is something to consider as your committee considers this bill.
On the whole, we are quite pleased with the introduction of a department for women and gender equality. We would encourage the committee to really put this forward in terms of resources in the upcoming budget 2019 to ensure that this department can do all of the great work that is set out in the bill itself.
This is a landmark moment. This is something that we should have in this country. YWCA Canada, with the over 330,000 people whom we serve across the country, is looking forward to seeing what impact this will make in a tangible way for women and girls and their families.
Thank you.