Government Operations Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Would you say it's best bottom up or top down or a mix of the two?

[Prof. Margot Young]

I think it really depends on what you're talking about, how you effect change in particular contexts. When you talk about cabinet composition, it's clearly top down. You need a prime minister who's committed to putting women into positions of power.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

So it's top down, yes.

[Prof. Margot Young]

I would say it's contextually configured, and I think we get more incremental change by asking for more than incremental change. That was the first aspect.

The second thing you talked about, the character and the class of emerging ministries, as ministries that we have emerging sensitivities to, or recognition of, as engaging in important societal issues. I'm not so sure that Status of Women rightfully fits into that group. I think we've had ministers responsible for the status of women at federal and provincial levels off and on for some time now, but I'm not sure what the import of that observation is. What difference would it make if these were emerging ministries or not? Is that to get away from their characterization as junior ministries?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Let me get to my next point, which I think is more in the wheelhouse.

The Auditor General issued a report two years ago concerning gender-based analysis plus, which said that it was not being used consistently in cabinet memos.

As a member of the public accounts committee whose vice-chair is a woman—if that makes any difference and it really doesn't—I know that it was the recommendation of our committee that GBA+ be made mandatory, which I believe is the case now. GBA+ is a tremendous instrument, as you well know, Professor, to help in developing policy that makes sense for all social groups and to make sure that we're developing the best possible policy.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether this makes a difference, whether these emerging ministries are using GBA+, and whether that is going to result in better government social policy for Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Again unfortunately, Professor, please make it a very short answer, and I apologize for the brevity but we're running into a time crunch here.

[Prof. Margot Young]

No problem. I think this is a different issue from the one about how we characterize the set of amendments currently before us, and of course gender-based analysis is an important component of sound policy-making. I will add only, since I think I don't have any more time, that it's really important to do a gender-based analysis, but it's also really important to change policy that responds to that analysis and its results afterwards. So I would point to you issues like employment insurance legislation, child care, and pay equity as programs that should respond on a higher priority to what gender-based analysis tells us is the outcome of certain standard legislative arrangements as they exist.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we won't have time for a full round of five-minute questions, but we will have time for two five-minute interventions. We'll go first to Mr. Shipley for five minutes please.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Young, for coming. I was involved a number of years ago in terms of pay equity with a municipality. Am I correct that a key principle of pay equity is equal pay for equal work of equal value?

[Prof. Margot Young]

Equal pay for work of equal value. There's a difference between pay equity and equal pay, and what pay equity gets to is looking to a more contextualized substantive analysis of the value, the character of work, as opposed to simply the form of job title.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

So it's inclusive of those three. Quite honestly, I think what you're saying is this bill doesn't have anything to do with gender equity, but as mentioned by my colleague and as we know, this is very much for the government about pay, about gender equality. That's what their discussion has been all about. Does anything in the current law add responsibilities or powers to the current ministers of state who are by this legislation to be listed as full ministers with full salaries? Are there added responsibilities because, as we know, full ministers have deputy ministers, they have departmental budgets, they have additional responsibilities. Do you see anything in this legislation that supports that for the ministers of state?

[Prof. Margot Young]

No, I don't I don't think the legislation speaks to that. But I don't want that comment to then be used to imply that this is a piece of legislation that instantiates pay inequity because it's paying equally across unequal jobs. I don't think that's really one of the best uses to put our virtues and support of equality in favour of.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Let me take a situation then. You have a company, it might be a small business, it might be a large business company. So there's a president and a vice-president. In the example used in the House it wouldn't matter if you were the president or the vice-president, or someone else, you actually have the same pay even though your responsibilities in terms of that company are different. Would it make sense to be fair that the vice-president be paid the same salary as the president of the company because of the added responsibilities of the president?

[Prof. Margot Young]

I can't answer that question, I think that's too decontextualized and I think that the discourse of pay equity, the value of pay equity, is not concerned about bringing people's pay down. It's concerned about people who are paid unequally in a way in which they would complain about. So to take this conversation we're having about gender equity and turn it into a conversation that we're overpaying this particular category of ministers, I'm not sure that's the right conversation to be had about this bill.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I'm just asking about responsibilities in terms of what a position does. So I'll take your comments to the next. Is there anything in the current law that prevents or prohibits the prime minister from appointing a gender-equal cabinet?

[Prof. Margot Young]

No.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Help me then understand if there isn't that need why is it important now to bring legislation to enforce it if it's not about gender equality? The opportunities are already there. In fact, in terms of the one comment about emerging ministers, I'm not so sure the former minister of health who now has the state of secretary to indigenous affairs is an emerging minister. She already was one.

[Prof. Margot Young]

I am not sure that I fully understand your question. If you are saying something other than what I am saying—which is that this bill is not about moving us forward in terms of gender equity—I am not sure what that is. But if what you are saying is that this bill is not about gender equity in any substantive way, I totally agree with you.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

No, it's all about gender equity. That's what the government has been talking about ever since these discussions happened, and it happened in the budgets that have come forward.

I don't know where my time is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

That's a good segue. You're out of time, unfortunately.

Thank you.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Unfortunately, the last speaker I have on my speakers list, Monsieur Drouin, is no longer with us.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I took over his part.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Madam Ratansi, go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you, Professor, for being here.

I was as confused as you were about why we are even talking about gender equity. These are changes to specific sections of the Salaries Act. I am reading from the press release, which says:

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the Honourable Bardish Chagger, today introduced legislation to amend the Salaries Act and equalize the status of the government's ministerial team.

Basically, we are creating one tier, a commitment to one tier. There is nothing in the news release that talks about gender equity. There are ministers of science, small business and tourism, sport and persons with disabilities, and the status of women. All these are going to be equalized, because we want to ensure that there are not two tiers.

You have been brought here to talk about gender equity. I would have loved to have you at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women when I was the chair and we looked at violence against women and economic security for women, ensuring that women have the best ability, because we know that, despite all our incremental efforts, women still earn 71 cents to a dollar. As a professional accountant, it was my duty to ensure that we looked at gender budgeting, etc. I would have loved to have you in 2006, when I was the chair. Unfortunately, that's not what we are doing.

I thank you for being here, but I don't think we have the relevance to our study for Bill C-24, to amend the Salaries Act and make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act, which would mean equalizing these ministers and ensuring that they get equal salary.

If you have any additional points to make.... They would not be regarding this bill, because it is irrelevant to what you are saying. There is nothing that says it is a gender-balanced bill; there is no indication that it has anything to do with gender equality. I think we are talking at cross-purposes and probably confusing our study.