Pay Equity Committee on April 18th, 2016

[Vicky Smallman]

They haven't.

[Barbara Byers]

I think what we're saying here is, let's lead the way federally. There is the most extensive pay equity review that's been done, leading to the task force in 2004. It has the recommendations. Let's get on with the work that's there.

If we'd acted on it in 2004—guess what?—there would be a whole bunch of women, predominantly, who would have had a significant difference in their lives and their financial situations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you very much. That's it for time.

We will go to Ms. Benson for seven minutes.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you.

Barb and Vicky, I just want to thank you for your presentation.

I think I am supportive of the fact that we don't reinvent the wheel from 2004. We've heard from lots of witnesses about how extensive that was and the number of people involved. Also, we have three other models taking place that we can actually, if they found improvements, build on.

I want to give you an opportunity, and Dany and Stéphanie, as well. Sometimes, I think, we get bogged down. I think it's very clear that this is not going to end all the gap in wages. I totally understand that, but I don't want that to be a barrier for us to move forward in a fairly significant way, to at least start to attack it.

I'm just giving you an opportunity to talk about why it's important to move forward on this piece. The 2004 report did talk about cross-discriminations in other groups. Why is it important to make this step, now, in this area, even though it's not going to solve the world's problems? I guess that is what I'm saying.

[Barbara Byers]

For every woman who's still making 73¢ on the dollar, and that cuts across all sorts of occupations, that's important. We've said that this isn't going to deal with the equally large problems we have around access to affordable, accessible child care. It's the whole question of precarious work, all of those sorts of things.

What we do know is in a unionized environment the wage gap is a lot smaller. We know that because unions have been negotiating for things. But that doesn't mean, quite clearly because of some of the settlements in both Bell Canada and the federal public service before, that there isn't a wage gap there, and certainly for those people who don't have the benefit of a union contract it's that much more difficult.

This is comprehensive in what needs to be done. We shouldn't be scared off by, oh well, it was recommended in 2004, so why move ahead on it in 2016?

[Vicky Smallman]

While negotiations have gotten some unionized workers so far, it doesn't address the systemic issues when you compare job categories and so on. That's why we had this big study that took quite some time. You all have, I'm sure, gotten those copies of the 500-page tome to read.

It's also not an issue that is unique to Canada. The gender wage gap is a global problem. It's been well studied, and the consensus internationally is that one of the best tools that you can employ as a government is a proactive pay equity law.

Quebec's law is held up as a model, so it's not like we have to reinvent the wheel. We have a good model that we can build on, and you'll hear from some of our colleagues later about what it's like to work under that model.

Let's just move on, at least with this one piece. We can go on to fixing child care afterwards, and I'm looking forward to working on that as well.

[Barbara Byers]

Can I just add one thing, Sheri?

How often have you heard in an office or workplace that our office couldn't survive without Jane and the work she does? But somehow that never gets reflected in Jane's paycheque.

I remember hearing a woman a long time ago say she knew about the discrimination, she saw it every time she got a paycheque. That's what it's about. It's about gender wage discrimination against women in all sorts of occupations.

[Stéphanie Rochon-Perras]

On a narrower issue, the need for a new pay equity model now is because of the current transitional provisions under the budget implementation act. Despite receiving royal assent, PSECA is not yet in force. The current complaints fall under the transitional provisions. Under these provisions, complaints are filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and referred to the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. Also under the transitional provisions, complainants like ACFO who file under the transitional provisions are restricted on the remedies available to them. The power of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board is restricted to lump sum payments for monetary awards. This restricts the complainants' right to be whole because these base salaries cannot be adjusted to prevent new wage gaps going forward.

A proactive pay equity regime should ensure that current and future complainants provide for a more comprehensive and human right-based resolution.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

I like the comment that what we're talking about here is federally regulated employees, both public and private sector. This is our sandbox as the federal government, so we need to lead the way. We have our own research. I think the reference to the provincial models is that we can take pieces of legislation from other jurisdictions that would reflect the reality. I think it's also important that we talk about both public sector and private sector employees. We are not talking about separate legislation for separate groups but all the ones that are regulated.

[Barbara Byers]

I want to come back to the theme that we also heard while we were listening to the previous witnesses about this needing to be proactive. I want to put you in the position. What if you as legislators all had to have an individual complaint if you thought you weren't being paid fairly in comparison to the others who did similar work or work of equal value? The complaint-based doesn't work for people. The other part of it is that people don't have the resources. Those women at Bell Canada, the women in the federal public sector, couldn't have sustained a complaint for 15 years at Bell or nine years in the federal public sector. That's the reality. Complaint-based doesn't work for individuals and it doesn't work for the whole as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you. That's the time.

We'll move to Ms. Dzerowicz for seven minutes.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

I'm going to go quickly because I'd like to leave any remaining time for Ms. Sidhu

I have two sets of questions. The first set is for the Canadian Labour Congress, First, thanks to both of you for your wonderful presentations.

First, you've already mentioned, Ms. Smallman, that the Quebec model could be held up as something for us to look at. Please be specific if you can. We do have three provinces with pay equity legislation. Could you point out things you might specifically like or not like or are worried about in any of this legislation?

Also, if we at the federal level were to put in proactive federal pay equity legislation, is there anything you think we have to be cognizant of in making sure that we're complementary with what already exists in the provinces?

The second part is a completely different set of questions for the Association of Canadian Financial Officers. What is the pay equity deficit within the ACFO? Have you done any studies of what the cost would be if we brought in the pay equity legislation to equal levels. You talked quite a bit about the approach that you wanted us to consider, but I wonder whether you looked at the methodology you chose to get to the pay equity level. Those are my sets of questions.

[Vicky Smallman]

On the provincial models, it's been quite recognized by the International Labour Organization and others that Quebec has served as a kind of model. You will hear later tonight from some of the others who are testifying about the specifics of operating under that model. I don't have the specifics myself. In Ontario, the complaints we hear from our affiliates have to do with maintenance and enforcement. There are some gaps there and some issues that need to be resolved. Somebody referenced Manitoba earlier, because it applies only to the public sector. That is a gap, right? You need to raise the bar for everybody and for all workers, because wage discrimination exists everywhere.

The federal contractors are probably going to be the stickiest little bit. That's where you're going to look at some of the impacts of the changing workplace. Often employees are disguised in some of these arrangements. So you'll be needing to look at that. I think that Quebec, if you're going to look at any of them, is probably the top one to consider. As for the specifics, I think you'll hear them from others today.

[Stéphanie Rochon-Perras]

A preliminary comparison of the current wages being paid to the FI group was done, using male comparator groups. It demonstrated that the FI job class are paid between 2% and 16% less wages than are paid to the male comparator groups. The percentages are distributed between different classification levels. Currently, the FI group has four classifications levels, so the wage gap depends on each level.

With respect to methodology, could you restate your question?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

My second question was about cost. If we were to bring the 2% to 16% up, what would be the cost? Have you calculated that?

[Stéphanie Rochon-Perras]

I have not calculated that and I don't have the answer to that question, but I can certainly hold your question and get back to you in writing.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I would love that.

We had a whole presentation on methodologies. For example, if you have a man and a woman and they're deemed to be in different but similar jobs, there are different methodologies you can use to get to what would be equal pay for women's work. You have an approach to bringing together the employer, the employee, the unions, the advisers, all these people around the table. I'm wondering whether there's methodology that you would recommend. If you don't, that's okay. I just wanted to see whether or not there was something that you guys had in mind.

[Stéphanie Rochon-Perras]

I will take your question, but I can't speak to it myself as I'm not a classification pay equity expert, but I will certainly respond in written form.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and my thanks to the panel.

It was mentioned that the previous government model didn't go far enough. Can you specify which part of the legislation was not right?

[Barbara Byers]

Do I get to start with all of it?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

No, just give us the main points.

[Barbara Byers]

You're in a caretaker time with the legislation where the act isn't actually done. We think you have to wipe the slate clean. You have to start all over again. It doesn't do any of the things that the pay equity task force called on it to do. It's not proactive. It doesn't seem to us to deal with the involvement of unions. What I'm trying to say in a very bad way is that it's just not fixable. You'd be better off to go and take a look at the pay equity task force and try to implement it, because you can't fix what you have now.

[Vicky Smallman]

We can send you a copy of what we said in 2009 about what was wrong with it.

Essentially, we listed the elements of a proactive pay equity law and it fit none of those criteria. It removed pay equity as a human right and made it a subject for collective bargaining. It eliminated the role that unions play in representing members and bringing complaints forward, and it introduced the concept of market forces as a way of evaluating things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Unfortunately, that's time.

If you did wish to submit anything, be sure to submit it to the clerk and it will go to all committee members. You are invited to submit additional information as written briefs.

We will now go to Ms. Gladu for five minutes.