Evidence of meeting #2 for Pay Equity in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was discrimination.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I wish I had more time for both.
Thank you.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Ms. Bilson, did you feel that the criteria for work of equal value were adequately defined in your committee?
6:10 p.m.
Former Chair, Pay Equity Task Force and, Interim Dean and Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual
Well, it is very complicated. There is a whole industry of people who look at what constitutes equal value. I think it is very hard to come up with a snappy definition, because there is so much difference among different kinds of jobs, pay practices, compensation systems, and that sort of thing.
I think it is possible—and our report suggests that—to recognize a range of methodologies that will produce that. I think there is nothing objectionable about that term.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld
Thank you very much.
I am very sorry, but because of the votes we have only three minutes left for Ms. Benson.
March 21st, 2016 / 6:10 p.m.
NDP
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Thank you, Marie-Thérèse and Beth, for being here today and helping us. I am sorry that, many years later, after your great report, it would appear we are still studying and still talking about pay equity.
I am quite excited about the fact of this committee. It is my hope that we will move forward, finally, and put something into place.
I have a quick question that was brought up when we were commenting on the legislation that wasn't proclaimed. Maybe I can start with you, Beth. Could you underline again why it is important that pay equity not be put on a bargaining table? One reason you commented on is that those who are experiencing the most impact would be those who are non-unionized, in contract positions, or at the lower end. Even within a bargaining environment, why is it important that it be apart, that it be separate, like occupational health and safety, and not on the bargaining table with other things?
6:15 p.m.
Former Chair, Pay Equity Task Force and, Interim Dean and Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual
As your colleague just intimated, that's a rather large topic. I think our conclusion was that it's important that what's essentially a human rights value, which is the value of treating employees equally, not be part of a collective bargaining deal.
I think collective bargaining is an admirable institution, but it has its own dynamics. The focus of the parties can be on a variety of things in an effort to reach agreement. Like health and safety, I think it's not something that should be subject to the storms of the bargaining table. I think it's something that should be dealt with by people who have some training and who can look dispassionately at the system and try to come up with a solution that's acceptable to all of the parties.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld
Thank you very much, Professor Bilson and Professor Chicha.
Unfortunately, the lights have just started, which means that the bells are ringing for the votes and we have to get back to Centre Block to vote. I apologize tremendously for the shortened meeting, but thank you very much. I really appreciate it.
As for the committee, since we don't have time at this meeting to go over the work plan that was prepared by the analysts and so we don't lose an hour, at the next meeting—if I have consensus—we would spend the second hour working on the work plan. If it's the consensus of the committee, we could bring in the Canadian Human Rights Commission for the first hour. That way, we don't lose that hour. The clerk has already suggested it to them, and it looks like they would be available. Is there consensus?
Mr. Albas.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I don't think there's any issue with that.
Here's what I would like to know. Because the analysts have sent a number of briefings and reports and I have questions on some of the briefing documents that actually would have contributed to my questioning today had we had more time, is there an opportunity, Madam Chair, for us to meet with our analysts and ask questions on the briefing notes they've established? It may be helpful, just so we all have a baseline level of knowledge before we start going out to witnesses.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld
Would you prefer that to having the Human Rights Commission come to the next meeting?
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
To me, that would be more ideal. Again, I'm not going to be the tail that wags the dog.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I like that recommendation, Madam Chair. I do think there's a lot of information here. A lot of people spent a lot of time on this, and I wouldn't mind digging into it a bit.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld
Okay. The consensus of the committee is that at the next meeting we will hear for one hour from the analysts and have one hour to study the proposed work plan.
6:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Yes.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
I think it would be nice to have these two witnesses back again. I feel that we didn't have adequate time to really explore their important work.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld
Okay. We can add that to the work plan. Thank you very much.
To make sure we get to the votes, the meeting is adjourned.