Good evening.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC).
My presentation will be about the new pay equity legislation in division 14 of part 4 of Bill C-86.
Overall, PSAC is pleased with the proposed act. For decades, our union has been at the forefront of fighting for women’s right to equal pay for work of equal value.
While we have had successes, the time it took to get results through a complaint-based process often meant that the women who should have received the pay died before they saw a penny.
PSAC believes this act is a good step towards redressing existing pay inequities while at the same time creating a culture where pay equity can flourish and become the norm.
We are also pleased to see the provisions on appointing a pay equity commissioner. However, we caution that she must have sufficient resources to be able to fully implement the act.
But PSAC has two very important concerns to point out.
Let's start with section 2, according to which the purpose of the act is “to achieve pay equity through proactive means by redressing the systemic gender-based discrimination” in compensation. However, this laudable language is undermined by the following phrase: “while taking into account the diverse needs of employers”.
PSAC is concerned that the inclusion of this statement, may give employers significant legal weight to be able to challenge decisions of the commissioner.
They can argue that the needs of the employer are equal to the advancement of pay equity as they are both articulated in the purpose of the act.
Legal scholars and the Supreme Court of Canada have weighed in on the legal significance of the purpose clause in legislation.
We do not believe it was the government's intention to undermine the objectives of the new, proactive law. For this reason, PSAC recommends that the committee delete the following: “while taking into account the diverse needs of employers” from the purpose of the act.
While we recognize that responsibility to achieve pay equity resides with the employer, there are multiple provisions in the act allowing an employer to request flexibility, extensions and exemptions that will support the employer's diverse needs.
Our second concern has to do with section 20, which deals with decision-making on joint employer-employee pay equity committees. This provision requires all employee representatives on a committee to come to a unanimous decision or forfeit the employee-side vote, allowing the employer's decision to prevail.
In practice, this would give non-unionized employees a veto over the preferences of unionized employees, and vice-versa, while also giving bargaining agents vetoes over each other's proposals.
It is conceivable that this system would most significantly disadvantage representatives of female-predominant classes over those who may not have the same interest in having a robust pay equity plan.
Again, PSAC does not believe that this was the intention of the government in an act that is trying to redress systemic gender wage discrimination. PSAC asks the committee to amend section 20 by removing:
A decision of a group counts as a vote only if it is unanimous.
And replacing it with:
A decision of a group counts as a vote if a majority of the group agrees.
The following sentence will also need to be removed from the section:
If the members who represent employees cannot, as a group, reach a unanimous decision on a matter, that group forfeits its right to vote and the vote of the group of members who represents the employer prevails.
We believe these two amendments are essential to the effective implementation of the new law and we urge the committee to amend the bill accordingly.
PSAC looks forward to working with the government on the development of the regulations and assisting in any way we can with the expertise many of our staff and union members have in pay equity in the federal sector.
Ms. Berry and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.