Thank you.
I'll be making my short presentation in French, but I'll be ready to take your questions in English and answer as best I can in my second language. I'll try to be as precise as possible.
Thank you for the invitation and for agreeing to hear from CUPE.
My name is Annick Desjardins. I am the Executive Assistant of CUPE's National President's Office. I spent 13 years as a coordinator at the human rights department in our Quebec regional office. So is truly in my capacity as an expert in charge of wage equity litigation files that I have come here to try to provide some details and clarifications on our experience at CUPE, especially with the Quebec legislation.
On a national level, CUPE represents 635,000 members in Canada who are working in public services, but also at private companies. More than 18,000 of our members are in federally regulated industries, including about 10,000 in the airline industry. Aside from the airline industry at CUPE, the majority of our members working in federally regulated businesses are located in Quebec. That province has a statute on wage equity, but the legislation does not apply to those individuals because their businesses come under federal jurisdiction. Therefore, only this House has the jurisdiction to address their rights to wage equity.
As an organization, CUPE has extensive experience in pay equity, as well as in employment evaluation, which is a key element of any fair pay equity exercise. CUPE is familiar with both complaint-based systems and proactive systems, especially those of Ontario and Quebec, which apply to employers beyond the public sector. Of course, we have to mention our wage discrimination complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The complaint pertained to Air Canada's flight attendants. Despite many years before the courts on preliminary issues, the complaint fizzled out when the commission refused to take the matter before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
Therefore, like the commission we heard from earlier, the CLC and all the stakeholders you have heard from this evening, we absolutely feel that it is high time to adopt the recommendations of the federal pay equity task force. The task force carried out some absolutely amazing consultations across the country, met with experts and issued sound recommendations based on experience. Our experience at CUPE is very much in line with those recommendations.
As a prosecutor from Quebec, I can give you more details about our experiences with the Quebec legislation. I could answer any questions you may have on the issue. I handled complaint cases under the system that was in place before a proactive piece of legislation was adopted. So I am very familiar with both systems. I have also pursued cases under the Canadian Human Rights Act in federally regulated businesses.
Since the Quebec legislation came into force, CUPE has established about 300 pay equity programs in Quebec. We have a similar experience in Ontario, with about 600 pay equity programs. That work was done with employers on joint committees. I can tell you that, in Quebec, all those exercises have at least been useful because they have led to certain adjustments to female jobs.
I would like to say a quick word about a slightly more practical perspective on the proactive model versus the complaint-based model, which we could call an adversarial system. To make sure you understand why a proactive system is preferable—since you asked questions about this and you received some good answers—I will provide you with a concrete perspective. To achieve pay equity and bridge discriminatory wage gaps, a company's female and male jobs have to be compared on an objective basis. So jobs have to be evaluated using a neutral tool, which we generally refer to as “an evaluation plan”.
The evaluation plan is used to assign a score or a rating. It is basically a point value associated with jobs and not the individuals doing the jobs. The rating is tied to the actual job and not to its specific tasks.
Those jobs are evaluated based on objective factors and sub-factors. Among the major categories of factors considered are qualifications, responsibilities, efforts and work conditions. The evaluation itself still remains subjective, and the idea is to determine where the job should fall at each level of each factor.
In a proactive model, this is determined by consensus by a committee of employer and employee representatives. We share the information on tasks identified by the employer and well-known to employees because they are the ones doing the work. In fact, we come to an agreement on the value of jobs.
In a litigation model or a complaint-based model, the evaluation must be proven according to the rules of evidence in civil actions through testimony and through the cross-examination of ordinary witnesses familiar with the work, as well as expert witnesses who provide an evaluation based on their scientific knowledge of the issue. The content of tasks and the level to be assigned to each factor and sub-factor are the subject of endless testimony and cross-examination. That is why a decision may take 15 or even 30 years.
Once the jobs have been evaluated, wages and value have to be compared using reliable statistical methods. In a proactive model, the methods are laid out in the legislation, and they're simply applied by the committee. In a complaint-based model, the matter must come before the courts—with experts, second opinions, testimony and cross-examinations. Experts contradict each other based on their clients' interests. That is why the process is endless.
The complaint-based system is inefficient. We all want a proactive model to be adopted to put an end to this litigation parade that is costly for everyone and leads nowhere.
The key elements of a proactive system are part of the task force's recommendations, but I want to emphasize a few of them in particular. The coverage must be as broad as possible. In addition, the process must have rigorous oversight because, the more that is left to the discretion of the parties, the more disagreements there will be within the committee, and that may also lead to litigation.
I am being told that my time is up.
Thank you. I am ready to answer your questions.