Finance Committee on Nov. 20th, 2018

[Lori Straznicky]

Yes, when it comes to the proposed section 181 regulation-making authority, which the amendment speaks to, if the regulations were to be made and that authority were to be exercised through a process that would involve meaningful consultation with all stakeholders, it would allow the flexibility for employers such as in the example you gave, who would have coverage in federal and provincial jurisdiction, to receive an exemption from the federal act and perhaps a dispensation to comply with the provincial one.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Why is that flexibility important? What is the dispensation for? Why is the dispensation important?

[Lori Straznicky]

In the federal jurisdiction, there are some employers who would have a certain portion of their workforce who would be under federal jurisdiction and another portion could be under provincial jurisdiction. It would give the Governor in Council the flexibility to allow for one regime to cover that entire workforce.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

So it simplifies things by avoiding a situation in which some of their employees would be subject to federal legislation and others would be subject to provincial legislation.

[Lori Straznicky]

That would make sense, yes.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Okay, thank you.

I just have one more question. If the province has no pay equity legislation, will the exception still stand?

[Lori Straznicky]

Again, going back to how the regulations would be made, they would be made in a way that would have extensive and meaningful consultation on how it would be used. Certainly any regulations that would be brought in would ensure that employees were covered under a provincial legislation, if such a thing existed, or would remain covered under this act or the Canadian Human Rights Act.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On this particular amendment, I don't have any faith in the cabinet to perform its duties as related to the pay equity act, or anything really. We saw this morning that obviously many members don't feel that the Minister of Finance could come here and defend his fall economic statement either.

I'm generally a small, limited-government type of guy. It seems to me kind of pointless to write entire pay equity act provisions into the BIA and then provide the ability for the cabinet to provide exemptions to employers they so choose. It happens time and time again across other pieces of legislation being proposed by the government, to almost provide them with a “get out of jail” card. In case something happens, the cabinet will decide. That's as opposed to writing the legislation in such a way that either provincial legislation takes charge or federal legislation is paramount, and picking and choosing and writing the legislation in that manner.

It happens not too often, but there were some of the pay equity proposals by the NDP that we have supported. This one is one that I'm going to support.

Cabinet doesn't need more power. It has plenty of power as it is already. It doesn't know how to use it, and it abuses it sometimes. It makes bad decisions. I don't see why we should give them more power to provide exemptions to whomever they chose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Malcolmson.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

In the coalition submission, in fact I read the wrong section of their submission. Their concern in this section is that it allows the Governor in Council to make regulations, exempting with or without conditions any employer, any class and so on. They say it's a complete escape clause and a source of major concern and should be deleted.

My apologies for introducing another one of their arguments which I had already lost in earlier votes. It's certainly strong advice from the Ontario Equal Pay Coalition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you for that clarification.

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

May I have a recorded vote, please?

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 416 as amended agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

There are no amendments to clauses 417 to 424.

Do we have unanimous consent to group clauses 417 to 424 and vote on them as one rather than voting individually?

[An hon. member]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

There are no amendments on any of those sections, Peter, but we'll wait until you determine what you want to do.

We can do them individually, if you like.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Chair, can you repeat the numbers on the clauses?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It's clauses 417 to 424. There are no amendments proposed, but if anybody has any questions or anything for the officials, we can do them one by one.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Chair, can I clarify? On amendment NDP-34, are we still going to deal with that one?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes. That's in clause 425.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

It's coming up. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We have agreement to vote clauses 417 to 424 as one.

(Clauses 417 to 424 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 425)

We have amendment NDP-34.

Ms. Malcolmson.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

This is the final NDP amendment advancing the recommendations of both labour and the Equal Pay Coalition.

This is the submission of the Equal Pay Coalition, which the committee heard in verbal testimony and had an opportunity to ask them about. They are concerned that women could be losing out on other human rights protections if the legislation goes ahead as is.

Proposed subsection 425(1) amends the Canadian Human Rights Act so that women are not able to make a comprehensive claim relying on all the key elements of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Based on the language in the legislation now, women are restricted from using the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to combine a broad claim of systemic discrimination in compensation. This provision replicates a significant weakness in both the Ontario and Quebec human rights forums.

This is again an example of the only good thing about the government federally delaying for 42 years, in that it has the opportunity and the benefit of not replicating the mistakes made by the early adopters of pay equity legislation. This was identified by several of the witnesses.

It means that if this goes forward as is, women are required to go to two venues to fully redress systemic discrimination in compensation: one for pay equity and the other for human rights.

The submission of the Equal Pay Coalition is that the act should be amended so as not to restrict human rights claims. This is hearkening back to the speech that I made on the previous amendment in error. I was just ahead of the game. The recommendation of the coalition is that the new law must require a complete analysis of the overall pay structure between male and female job classes, elements should be compared and, most specifically, women should not be blocked from taking broad claims of systemic gender discrimination, inclusive of equal value claims, to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

They want this section of the act deleted and they want women to continue to be able to rely on sections 7 and 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act instead, when making equal pay for equal value claims.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Mr. Sorbara.