Evidence of meeting #189 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.
First of all, the 60 days is deemed to be adequate for this process because during that time the committee must take into account the recommendations and comments that come from employees. Ninety days is just extending the process. Sixty days is quite ample. I would vote no.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
That's not what our labour partners and experts believed.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I would like to emphasize that, in Quebec, the period is 60 days too. We should certainly use the best practices currently in existence, which would be to do as Quebec is doing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Ready for the question on NDP-26?
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we go to NDP-27.
Ms. Malcolmson.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
This is a proposal from the coalition to improve the pay equity compliance and adjustment timelines. In 2004, almost 15 years ago, the task force recommended proactive pay equity legal obligations. It is interpreted that as the new pay equity act stands, women will wait over 10 years to receive a pay equity remedy: one year for regulation development, three years for pay equity plan development, and eight years for compensation and remedies to be paid out in the case of workplaces with less than 99 employees. The submission was that such lengthy timelines do not demonstrate reasonable diligence on the part of the government to introduce proactive pay equity.
We've been waiting a long time, and this feels like women are being asked to wait, once again, for their human rights to be fulfilled. A 2018 Supreme Court decision was referenced, in which Justice Abella stated that a six-year legislatively delayed act as to pay equity, with a two-year grace period, was close to the line for unreasonable delay, and these timelines are interpreted as significantly longer.
In terms of the introduction of federal legislation, this is not a situation in which further considerable research and analysis is required. We've been talking about this, as a country, for 42 years. There is extensive policy experience to draw on elsewhere for inspiration, and section 11 of the Canadian Human Right Act, obligating equal pay for work of equal value, has existed since 1976.
The submission was that the lengthy proposed timelines are unnecessary. We heard this from labour partners as well. The recommendation is that there be a two-year amendment, and that is what is reflected in our amendment NDP-27.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
No one wants women to unjustly wait too long to receive pay equity, but we have to recognize that we are currently in a transition.
My sincere thanks to Ms. Malcolmson for emphasizing that she supports the pay equity bill. All national unions have also come out in favour of this bill. It is a leap in the right direction, not a step, a leap.
Let me repeat that the best practices in this area are the ones that Québec uses. The transition period was four years in the province and the bill proposes a period of three years. We are accelerating the process in a reasonable way. That also corresponds to the recommendation from the Bilson task force after they discussed it with everyone involved in the private sector. I feel that it is a reasonable transition period. It is even shorter than the one we had in Quebec. For that reason, it would be reasonable to keep the transition period at three years.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
With respect to my colleague, labour has indicated clearly that they are glad to see this legislation tabled. The special committee asked that it be tabled a year and a half ago. We're certainly not ahead of the game so far as the timing of this government and its legislative priorities are concerned, but I feel confident saying that none of these labour organizations or pay equity advocates would have spent the extremely detailed time they did in proposing amendments and getting them on the record if they didn't want to see those amendments taken up.
The Canadian Labour Congress, for example, has said, yes, it's good that we finally have this legislation in front of us. They said amendments are required if this act is to fulfill the objective of closing the gender pay gap and redressing discrimination in compensation for women. You can find lines like that in every submission that you received. Please, as a government, do not take the overall goodwill and congratulations for finally bringing this forward to say that it is 100% good as is.
Labour continues to be on the front line of all kinds of social justice, environmental and sexual violence issues. They would not have spent their time on these submissions, given all the other work that's in front of them, if they did not want to see them taken up.
Here is, again, another example of “let's make this happen faster”. This is one way, given how late the federal government is to the game, that we can surely shorten this timeline. This is a recommendation I am bringing forward on behalf of the Equal Pay Coalition.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
This is a remedy proposed by CUPE. Their overall advice is that women could be waiting until 2027 for a full remedy if the timelines remain as they are. They say their members have been waiting for decades for proactive federal pay equity legislation, but they urge the government to speed up this process and ensure that women's equality rights are no longer denied.
Their remedy in this amendment is to amend proposed section 61 to reduce the implementation phase to 18 months, and to limit the phase-in of increases to cases where the overall adjustments represent more than 2% of the employer's payroll. Then they have in their submission a number of remedies within that, but that is the overall objective: do not make women wait again. As the Canadian Labour Congress says in its very effective campaign, women are done waiting.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Once again, Mr. Chair, we all agree on the objectives. The difference is in the adaptation period. The legislation gives employers three years to establish a pay equity plan. At the end of those three years, all employers have to make adjustment payments. They must be at least 1% of the payroll. Quebec is certainly ahead of Ontario by far. This is a step in the right direction.
The adaptation period is the only point on which we do not agree. It is better than the current situation. It is even better than the provinces have already established. Quebec was certainly a pioneer in this area. In my opinion, what we are proposing is reasonable.
I stand with women. I believe that we must not let them wait any longer. They have already been waiting for decades. However, we must proceed in a reasonable way and consider the current situation. In that sense, I think we have found the proper compromise, which will change the current situation for women enormously.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I would submit, again, as CUPE has, that waiting until 2027 for a full remedy does not constitute a compromise in the view of the women's movement or the labour movement. This feels like more delay, and the amendment as proposed, I think, would actually represent the compromise between the needs of women who have been waiting a long time and employers.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The question is on NDP-28.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I'm speeding this up a little bit, because I haven't won a single vote yet, or the labour submissions haven't won a single vote yet. These amendments are proposed by the Canadian Labour Congress. I'll just leave them as they stand.
Liberal
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
My comments will be similar to those I made on the last amendments. I am comfortable with those proposals, because they are similar to those suggested by Quebec.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The question is on NDP-29.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we go to NDP-30.
Ms. Malcolmson, go ahead.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Again, just for the sake of expedience, these are recommendations that are proposed by the Canadian Labour Congress to accelerate the timeline. The committee heard their testimony, and I commend the amendment to committee members.
November 20th, 2018 / 10:40 a.m.
Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.
For clarification on this, I actually think this amendment would make this unworkable, because the increase identified in the proposed subsection is correctly linked to the updated pay equity plan, so it cannot be paid before the plan is updated. I think this amendment is actually erroneous, so I'll be voting no.