Finance Committee on Nov. 20th, 2018

[Lori Straznicky]

I won't comment on whether it would bring forth more complaints to the courts. What I would say is that it is not transferring an entire plan or taking away an employer's obligation to conduct certain steps in the exercise. It is confined to certain criteria related to a system that is already in place for determining the value of work.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

With that, we will call the question.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll turn to NDP-24.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This is a recommendation from CUPE and from the coalition. They want the compensation exemptions for precarious workers removed. As written, this paragraph allows for the exclusion of

the non-receipt of compensation—in the form of benefits that have monetary value—due to the temporary, casual or seasonal nature of a position;

They say that this new provision in this legislation would violate the determination of compensation within the current Canadian Human Rights Act in section 11 on equal wage guidelines.

The submission that the coalition made to this committee was that subsection 11(7) of the Canadian Human Rights Act defines that “wages means any form of remuneration payable for work performed” and there's no limit based upon an employee's job status.

Further, the 2004 task force recommended that all employees be included in the federal jurisdiction, including “part-time, casual, seasonal and temporary workers”.

The Supreme Court, in recent pay equity decisions, held that the government cannot pursue law reform strategies that lower the bar on pay equity in order to encourage employer compliance.

These groups ask, why does the new federal pay equity legislation reduce the entitlements that women employed in precarious jobs currently access under the Canadian Human Rights Act? They say that, given the changes to part III of the Canadian Labour Code regarding equal pay, the proposed pay equity act language is inconsistent. Their remedy is, as proposed here, to remove the exemption for precarious workers from the pay equity act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fergus, I believe you're up.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I feel that Ms. Malcolmson and I share the same objectives, but unfortunately, our interpretations differ.

As a Quebec MP, I am very sensitive to these matters because Quebec has been a pioneer in this area by passing its pay equity legislation.

Ms. Malcolmson, I feel that your reading of the provisions of this bill on precarious work is only a partial one. In fact, equal treatment is dealt with in clause 452 of the bill. This provision introduces amendments to the Canada Labour Code prohibiting differences in salary on the basis of employment situations, which responds directly to the concerns that you have just raised.

We all want this bill to apply to all employees, whether seasonal, casual, temporary, part-time or full-time. In a word, we want it to apply to everyone. As your concerns are dealt with later, in clause 452 of the bill, I do not think it is necessary to adopt the provisions that you are proposing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Malcolmson.

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

With thanks to my colleague, that's not the interpretation of the lawyers who have been adjudicating these matters more than anybody.

It's not the interpretation of CUPE, which has done significant interventions on behalf of their members. They say that the other changes to part III of the labour code regarding equal pay are inconsistent with this provision and that if you want to align them you would vote “yes” to this amendment, that is, by deleting lines 31 to 33 entirely to remove the compensation exemption for precarious workers in this pay equity act in order to align it with the Canadian Labour Code amendments.

I'll just say again that this is based on decades of work. This is not my work. I have the honour of being the voice for these organizations at the committee. The committee has been given this gift of their attempt, at very short notice—a 900-page bill with extremely limited debate in the House, extremely limited time at committee and very limited time for the labour groups—to do these detailed amendments, which they really did hope in good faith would perfect the legislation.

I promise you that there are no politics in this. This is a straight transmission from the people on the ground and their interpretation of the legislation. It's given as a gift to all of us, and I think it's a great disappointment to not have that advice taken up. They want this to work and the NDP wants this to work. That is the context in which these amendments are offered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The question's been called.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move to NDP-25.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Moving again to a set of amendments proposed by CUPE. They describe in their submission and their testimony to committee that the compensation comparison method described in this legislation will likely be inapplicable in most cases and should be replaced with a method called for in the 2004 task force report, also referred to as the Bilson report. They say that proposed section 50, providing an equal line method that requires that the.... This is really mechanical about regression lines. I'm going to trust that the committee members have read the submission. This is on page 4 of CUPE's written submission.

The big picture is that the legislation as written in this form is not consistent with the robust transparency needed for effective pay equity committees and plans. The Bilson report, the 2004 task force report, clearly recommended the job-to-curve comparison method and provided a well-reasoned rationale. They think this was a drafting error. Given that the task force recommended this methodology and two years ago a pay equity special committee reaffirmed this section of the task force recommendations, they think it was an oversight that the job-to-curve comparison method was not accommodated.

Again, this is the remedy proposed by CUPE, that the regression line method is specified instead. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Do the officials want to add anything on any drafting errors?

No, okay.

Ms. Rudd.

[Kim Rudd, Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleague for bringing this forward.

As I read the significant number of points within this amendment a couple of things came out, and I'm going to call on the officials to clarify or to help put some context to this.

As I understand it there were two new methods—the equal average and the equal line—both to measure pay equity gaps and create what we'll call systemic equality in wages. I wonder if you can explain a little about those two methods, why they're here, and let's just leave it at that.

[Lori Straznicky]

Mr. Chair, I may invite a colleague from the Treasury Board Secretariat to take that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Stuart, go ahead.

[Richard Stuart, Executive Director, Expenditure Analysis and Compensation Planning, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

The rationale, as you explained, of the amendments proposed, I believe is mostly pertaining to the equal line method. They want to modify the way it applies. Particularly, it is focused on the notion of crossed regression lines.

By applying the amendment, it would undermine the ability to address those situations. Those situations can occur for an employer, for instance, if there are some classes of female-predominant jobs, where a portion of the regression line is paid above the average of men in a section. It could happen, for instance, in more professional categories. Let's suppose that an employer has lawyers who are female-predominant. It could make the line stand above that of men.

We couldn't apply the principle of equalizing lines in those situations perfectly. It's a special situation that's going to need to be addressed through regulations, because the only way to adjust the lines would require reducing compensation in female-predominant jobs for the portion where they stand above that of men.

It's a special situation. The principle of the legislation will need to be respected, but will need special provisions.

[Kim Rudd]

Thank you.

I think the member would agree—I think we would all agree—that we certainly don't want to see the number coming under the line, or being reduced from above the line to under the line. I take your point in terms of special considerations.

I thank you for your comments. Based on that, I'll be voting no to this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion?

Ms. Malcolmson.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I would also ask the witness a question.

Proposed section 50 provides for an equal line method that requires the compensation associated with a predominantly female job class to be increased only if the lines of regression do not cross.

However, CUPE said that in their experience with pay equity, at least at the provincial level, the regression lines do cross most of the time. They were concerned that although proposed section 52 provides for rules for the comparison of compensation prescribed by regulation in the case of crossed regression lines, because those rules are not available at this time for their analysis, it would result in a lack of transparency needed for effective pay equity committees and plans.

What's your sense of that?

[Richard Stuart]

Most definitely the intention is not to be transparent. The reason why this was not addressed at this stage is that it can be technically complicated.

Crossed lines is a situation that can occur in various environments, as you pointed out. It's probably not that common at the start of a process, but it might become more prevalent in situations of maintenance, because very slight changes might make the lines cross.

The regulations will adhere to the principles of the legislation and make sure that all of those female-predominant jobs in the portion of the lines where the female-predominant line is below the amount of a male-predominant line will be addressed appropriately.

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

Is there any downside to now replacing the curve-to-curve comparison method with the job-to-curve comparison method that was recommended by our labour partners?

[Richard Stuart]

It's not in the spirit of the legislation. It's not a job-to-line or job-to-curve....

The spirit of the legislation is to align averages. You have an equal average or equal line, so on average it is equal.

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

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All those in favour of NDP-25?

(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We move to NDP-26.

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

This is back to the recommendation of the coalition. This is an amendment that it recommended, so that the timeline for the employer's review of the pay equity plan be extended to 90 days, to enable employees full access and opportunity to review the plan once completed. It speaks for itself, more employee access, more transparency, and 90 days instead of 60.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Rudd.