Mr. Fragiskatos.
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.
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.
9:45 a.m.
London North Centre, Lib.
Respectfully, I believe we have it right. The rebuttal that I offered previously does not come from thin air. As legislators, we have an obligation to review legislation before commenting at committee. I've done that. I know my colleagues here have done that. I'll allow this comment to apply to every single amendment that I'll be rebutting today.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
All those in favour of NDP-18?
(Amendment negatived)
We're now on NDP-19, and I might say on this one that if NDP-19 is adopted, NDP-20 cannot be moved due to the conflict of lines. If you want to take a minute and think about that, which one you want to go with, go ahead.
Ms. Malcolmson.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you for identifying that, Chair. My preference would be to withdraw NDP-19 and to go with NDP-20 in that case.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Chair.
This is an amendment that arises from the coalition again. This is all in relation to pay equity committees. I'll talk first about part (a) and (c) of the amendment on page 31 of this amendment package.
As described to the committee in testimony, the section to develop a pay equity committee they said is very weak. It's a very weak and limited obligation to create a committee. The current language does not deliver on a significant obligation to ensure that employees' voices are heard.
The act requiring the employer to establish a pay equity committee is what we want, but the language that says, “make all reasonable efforts to establish a pay equity” is not what we want. That is the effect of this amendment. The pay equity committee is a fundamental cornerstone to establishing a pay equity plan in the work. There are numerous sections with the very weak language of “reasonable efforts” and that raises—the witnesses said—the question of why the committees are not mandatory.
That's one big piece, and the effect of that first section would be simply to strike the words “make all reasonable efforts to”. Just say, you are to establish a pay equity committee, because it's such a fundamental part of the working of the legislation and to achieve the results that we hope and that collaboration between the employers and the employees.
The second chunk of effect of this is captured in parts (b), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of our amendment. That references the witnesses' concern at the lack of access to a pay equity committee. They described it as most egregious for non-unionized employees. The requirement for a pay equity committee is voluntary in a workplace. Sorry, I didn't say that well.
This is the question of whether to establish a committee. The voluntary standard as written in the legislation right now, they said, significantly disenfranchises non-union employees.
Those are probably the two summaries. One is to remove the “reasonable efforts” and the other is to not have the pay equity committee be voluntary and particularly to recognize that having a voluntary standard would disenfranchise non-union employees.
Thank you, Chair.
9:50 a.m.
London North Centre, Lib.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I represent the constituency of London North Centre, and I meet regularly with entrepreneurs in the riding and women entrepreneurs. I know all MPs do this or ought to. The motion ought to be rejected because it would remove flexibilities provided to small businesses and the possibility to obtain variances in extenuating circumstances.
Indeed, the act from a small business perspective is quite important and helpful because it takes into consideration the needs of small businesses by providing a streamlined process for developing pay equity plans in workplaces with 10 to 99 employees and with no unionized employees. Requiring them to develop a pay equity plan through a pay equity committee would indeed I believe add burden to these employers.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I'll flag again that this is federal legislation affecting federally regulated employers. Some of the small business impacts are just not a reality at that very small scale. For non-union employees, the potential for protection within this legislation is significant. That is a major part of the female workforce.
The status of women committee just did an almost year-long study on economic justice for women. What have been the barriers in the workplace that have meant that so many women over their lifetimes do not get access to pay equity and do not get access to the benefits of full-time or unionized employment? Particularly precarious workers tend to have lower earnings their whole lives and tend to retire in poverty.
The disenfranchisement of non-union employees and the not having committees mandatory, both led to strong recommendations from the labour partners—all of them. I urge the government members to take the advice of their labour partners and vote yes to this amendment.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any further discussion? I again remind members that officials are in the room if there needs to be clarification from their point of view.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll turn to amendment NDP-21.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Chair.
This is another amendment proposed by the equal pay coalition. They described proposed section 21, regarding voting in the pay equity committees, this way, that the votes must be unanimous or else they forfeit the right to vote, and then the employer's decision prevails. They described this as a very “concerning and peculiar” requirement, particularly given the complexities of some enterprises and the number of bargaining units or groups of employees involved. They said that this section fails to fulfill the 2004 task force recommendations on employee participation.
The task force recommended “that the new federal pay equity legislation provide that all employees, whether unionized or not, have the right to participate in pay equity implementation and maintenance”. As they said in their testimony to you, the task force also recommended “that where employer and employee representatives on the pay equity committee disagree, the dispute is submitted to the proposed Canadian Pay Equity Commission...to assist the parties to resolve the dispute”. Failing that, the commission would make a decision.
In the Quebec legislation, there's no requirement for unanimity. A majority agreement is required. They recommended that there should be an amendment to bring this in line with Quebec's approach.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Ms. Malcolmson, thank you for this amendment.
Could I ask the officials for clarification on this section, please, and what the amendment attempts to do?
9:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
The provision right now requires that employee representatives on a committee have to decide amongst themselves unanimously before they can put forward a vote. The purpose of the section would be to ensure that smaller bargaining agents who would represent employees within that workplace where there are multiple bargaining agents, or representatives of non-unionized employees in a workplace who are on that committee, would have an equal voice on the committee where, if the requirement was to have a majority vote, that voice might not be heard.
Additionally, the Bilson task force noted that providing a majority decision amongst employees may lead to a situation where the interest of those smaller units of employees is ignored. The objective of unanimity would encourage collaboration amongst those employee representatives on the committee.
Finally, to the dispute resolution, if there is a disagreement between the employee representatives and the employer representatives when it comes to the vote, there is recourse to the pay equity commissioner for resolution of those disputes.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Just to follow up on the dispute resolution, thank you for those points and clarification.
Because legislation applies to federally regulated industries or workplaces, would that apply to both union and non-union folks, or would there have to be a bargaining agent in place already?
9:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
The dispute resolution process would apply within the pay equity committee structure. The employee and the employer representatives on the committee would have dispute resolution available between them.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Is that obviously set forth within the legislation?
9:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Yes, it is.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you.
With that explanation from the officials, I'll be voting against the NDP amendment put forward by Ms. Malcolmson.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I'll also ask the pay equity experts if they agree with the interpretation of the coalition that proposed subsection 20(1) means that the decisions of the groups who represent employees must be unanimous, and if they are not unanimous, they forfeit the right to vote and the employer's decision prevails?
9:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Is the question on how I interpret proposed subsection 20(1)?
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
On proposed subsection 20(1), the interpretation of the pay equity coalition witnesses was that a decision of the groups that represent employees must be unanimous. If it's not unanimous, then the employees forfeit the right to vote and the employer's decision prevails.
9:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
That's what the legislation says at proposed subsection 20(1).