Evidence of meeting #5 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 model.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Ian Fine  Executive Director, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Fiona Keith  Counsel, Human Rights Protection Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Piero Narducci  Acting Director General, Human Rights Promotion Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Barbara Byers  Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress
Dany Richard  Executive Vice-President, Association of Canadian Financial Officers
Stéphanie Rochon-Perras  Labour Relations Advisor, Association of Canadian Financial Officers
Vicky Smallman  National Director, Women's and Human Rights, Canadian Labour Congress
Annick Desjardins  Executive Assistant, National President's Office, Canadian Union of Public Employees
Debi Daviau  President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
Robyn Benson  National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Debora De Angelis  National Coordinator for Strategic Campaigns, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada
Helen Berry  Classification and Equal Pay Specialist, Public Service Alliance of Canada

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld

I call the meeting to order.

Thank you very much, everybody, for being here. I think the other members are on their way.

We're pleased we have a long meeting today. We have three separate panels coming in, the first one being representatives of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Mr. Fine will be speaking, and Ms. Keith and Mr. Narducci will be there to answer questions, should there be questions for them.

Without further ado, I will give the floor to Mr. Fine.

5:30 p.m.

Ian Fine Executive Director, Canadian Human Rights Commission

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Honourable members, good evening.

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Human Rights Commission to take part in this discussion about pay equity in the federal jurisdiction.

Our chief commissioner Marie-Claude Landry sends her regrets for not being here today.

I would like to introduce my colleagues. Mr. Piero Narducci is acting director general of the promotion branch of the commission, and Ms. Fiona Keith is senior counsel with the commission. Both have considerable experience in pay equity matters.

Today I will focus my remarks on the work of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, our role in equal pay for work of equal value, and why we believe a proactive model is the best way to achieve pay equity in Canada.

Before I go into my comments on pay equity, let me take a moment to tell you about the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The commission is Canada's human rights watchdog and operates at arm's length from the government. We are here to bring attention to human rights issues and promote the values of equality, dignity, and respect that are so important in Canada. We do this through our work in research, policy development, outreach, and education.

We are also here to bring a voice to important human rights issues. When we believe that the human rights of an individual or a group are being threatened, we speak out. We believe we have an obligation to speak out on behalf of Canada's most vulnerable people.

Over the course of the last year, our chief commissioner has travelled around the country and met with over 100 stakeholder groups. She heard them. They told her that even more needs to be done to promote Canada's vision of an inclusive society. And above all, we need to ensure that everything we do is focused on helping people, by putting people first.

The commission serves a protection function by administering the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Each year we receive and review up to 2,000 discrimination complaints based on 11 grounds of discrimination such as race, age, sex, and disability. Some of these complaints are given priority if the alleged discrimination appears to be systemic in nature, since such complaints could involve practices or actions likely to affect many people. Some complaints that are time-sensitive or involve someone in a particularly vulnerable situation are also given priority.

Most of the complaints will be referred to mediation. Should mediation fail to resolve the complaint, the commission may launch an investigation. However, in some situations, when warranted, the commission may refer the complaint directly to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, a separate and independent organization. Should the commission refer a complaint to the tribunal, we may participate in the case to represent the public interest.

The recent ruling involving first nations child welfare services is one example. A second example is the commission's participation in discrimination cases involving caregiving, and in particular the obligation of employers to accommodate these needs.

We have other powers under the act, mostly under section 20, to help bring attention to human rights issues, including the authority to submit special reports to Parliament. This was the case in 2001 when the commission presented a special report to Parliament on pay equity, called “Time for Action”, where we advocated for legislative change to ensure that pay equity is applied systematically and not on a case-by-case basis. Then, as now, we were motivated by the need to help Parliament navigate these important and sometimes complex pay equity issues.

This brings me to the commission's role in bringing about equal pay for work of equal value.

The principle of non-discrimination in wages is a well-established part of international human rights law. The right to pay equity was embedded in the Canadian Human Rights Act when it was created in 1977. This means that pay equity is legally protected as a fundamental right.

The commission's responsibility for pay equity is founded in section 11 of the act, which indicates that:

It is a discriminatory practice for an employer to establish or maintain differences in wages between male and female employees employed in the same establishment who are performing work of equal value.

In 1986, following extensive consultations, the commission adopted the equal wage guidelines to assist in the interpretation of section 11. The guidelines address gender predominance, what work may be compared, how wage adjustments should be calculated, and what “reasonable factors” may justify wage differences that would otherwise be deemed discriminatory.

These guidelines have proven helpful to the parties and the tribunal in interpreting and applying the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. It is important for you to know that the process for receiving and addressing public sector pay equity complaints changed in 2009 when the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act was enacted but not proclaimed in force. As a result, a transitional arrangement was put in place. For the past seven years, as part of this transitional arrangement, public sector complaints have been rerouted to the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. As a result, the board has temporary jurisdiction to interpret and apply the pay equity provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, the board does not use the commission's guidelines.

Complaints from private sector employees under federal jurisdiction continue to be handled by the commission.

This brings me to my final point: our views on the best model to move forward. The commission has in the past described the challenges in dealing with pay equity complaints, including in the 2001 report to Parliament that I mentioned earlier. With the potential for significant financial remedies and the law providing very little guidance in relation to the obligations of the employer and employee associations, the process has often been very litigious. Uncertain outcomes lead to hardship for both employers and employees. Some complaints, for instance, have taken decades to be resolved.

As we indicated back in 2001, the commission continues to believe that a proactive model is the best way to bring about pay equity in Canadian society. Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba all have proactive models that outline steps and timetables for the achievement and maintenance of pay equity in the public and private sectors. The proactive model has the advantage of ensuring broad implementation, reducing the need for complaints, fostering management-union co-operation, reducing ambiguity, making nondiscriminatory wages a priority, and achieving pay equity at a clear point in time without the need for large retroactive pay awards.

In conclusion, equal pay for work of equal value is a human right, and human rights are about putting people first. The current regimes do not provide easy, consistent, or efficient access to pay equity for anyone, which is why we support a more proactive pay equity model.

My colleagues and I would be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld

Thank you very much.

We'll go to the first line of questioning, and we'll start with Mr. DeCourcey, for seven minutes.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Fine, thank you for your presentation.

Thank you all for being here today.

The first question I have maybe relates to the differences between the model that was in place under the human rights commission and tribunal model versus that of the Public Labour Relations and Employment Board transition model. What might be the difference between those two models, in your view, as well as what you might see as the difference between them and this proactive model that you touched on a little bit in your comments?

5:40 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Human Rights Commission

Ian Fine

At this point, then, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board is applying section 11 of our act, the section we used to apply through the complaints model. Since 2009, the PSLREB is applying section 11 of our act. That would change under the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. It would be a new regime. But for now the PSLREB is just dealing with section 11 of our act when it comes to public sector complaints.

I'm not sure if I'm answering your question.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

Would there be a difference between the PSECA, if that were fully implemented, and what you're talking about as a proactive model?

5:40 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Human Rights Commission

Ian Fine

Are you suggesting PSECA is a proactive model, or are you just asking for the differences between PSECA and what occurs under our legislation?

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

Yes, that is what I am asking.

5:40 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Human Rights Commission

Ian Fine

As we understand it, under PSECA, equitable compensation, as it's referred to under that legislation, would be dealt with through collective bargaining as opposed to, under our process, through complaints. That would be one difference.

We understand that under PSECA after collective bargaining, if there are still issues, then an employee could file a complaint with the PSLREB on his or her own, versus under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, employees can file complaints, unions can file complaints, and unions can help employees file complaints. That would be another difference between the two models, but largely the process under PSECA would be more in the realm of labour relations than the model under our act, which is more the human rights complaints model.

I'm not sure if there are other questions.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

I'd appreciate your view on how different means of resolving an issue, different models.... Is there a chance they could reach the same solution and/or, in your view, are there clear differences in the results that can be achieved through those two different models?

5:40 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Human Rights Commission

Ian Fine

We don't know.

Under PSECA, for example, there is a regulation-making power, and we don't know what those regulations would be in terms of how the process would unfold. Depending on how those regulations would be drafted, they could impact on the result.

To be clear, we're not saying.... We do believe that in dealing with any human right, it's obviously always a good thing to have all parties working collaboratively to resolve the issue. For example, under the proactive models in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba, there is a provision for management and unions to ensure maintenance of pay equity, so after the actual pay equity exercise has been implemented there's an ongoing responsibility on the parties—union and management—to ensure there are no inequities going forward. We do believe it is important for the parties to work together. Our view is that it would be better, in implementing pay equity, that there be a separate exercise.

We have a bit of concern about what can happen through the collective bargaining process. As you know, collective bargaining is, by its very nature, subject to trade-offs and negotiation, and we're just not sure that it's the best process to deal with the human right of pay equity. There should be a separate exercise with that.

I don't know if my colleagues have anything to add.

April 18th, 2016 / 5:45 p.m.

Fiona Keith Counsel, Human Rights Protection Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission

No.

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

Building on what are six broad, overarching guidelines for the proactive model you're talking about, do you have more detail on what that model should look like? Should it exist within the commission? Should it exist separate from the commission? Could you make some comments to that effect?

5:45 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Human Rights Commission

Ian Fine

It's the will of Parliament, of course...who should be dealing with it.

We do have experience, as you may know, under the Employment Equity Act, which is a proactive model. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has the mandate to audit employers for compliance with the Employment Equity Act and the provisions in that act. It is a proactive regime. There are requirements for employers to ensure that they remove barriers to employment for the four designated groups, for example, and there are certain steps they have to follow. So we do have experience dealing with a proactive model.

On the other hand, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which is an independent body to which we refer our human rights complaints, under the Employment Equity Act they create expert panels dealing with employment equity. I query whether or not an institution like the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal could have the mandate to deal with specialized pay equity matters as well. We're not so sure about that. As I say, at the end of the day it's the will of Parliament. We're always happy to take on additional work, if it makes sense to do that, and we do have experience dealing with pay equity, for certain.

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

Great.

If I could push you a little bit further, what would your dream method or model look like, perhaps?

5:45 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Human Rights Commission

Ian Fine

I'll begin, and I'll defer to my colleagues if they have more detail.

In my view, it would be a melding of the models that are out there right now. We know there are these three models—Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba—that have now been working for quite some time. It would make sense, in our view, that we take the best of all of those models and learn from their experience.

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld

Okay. That's the time.

Our next questioner is Mr. Albas. You have seven minutes.

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here, and for the work they do as servants to the public.

I would like to start with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It's about 195 full-time equivalents, is that correct?

5:45 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Human Rights Commission

Ian Fine

Right.

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Around $22 million to $23 million is allocated this year, previous years, and future years, is that correct?

5:45 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Human Rights Commission

Ian Fine

It's around that.

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Okay.

When we talk about proactive.... I used to be a municipal counsellor, and I always try to relate some of the things I see here—and tell me if I am on or off on this one. There are always people who say that we have to enforce our bylaws, so we need to hire more bylaw officers, and there would be a cost according to that.

Other people say, well, no, what you do is you.... To me, it seems to be very much the case. When you say “proactive”, to me that means you have bylaw officers or people who are regulators, with a piece of legislation, going out and actively checking, both through the public sector and through the federally regulated private sector. Is that what we are talking about?

5:45 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Human Rights Commission

Ian Fine

Yes. As I say, we would look to the models that are in existence in these provincial jurisdictions, where timelines are set out, time frames for compliance with the legislation. Then there are requirements about wage adjustments. It is all set out in the legislation, and everybody knows what they have to do.

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

We had representatives—I call them Service Canada, the HRDC. I think they have changed their name again. One of the things they said was, “Look at all these federally regulated industries, and each one is quite different.” I can imagine the challenge. It's very similar to a bylaw officer in a municipality. The more bylaws they have, the more diverse the range of functions they are expected to perform, and the more it costs, because you have to be able to do that.

Going back to proactive versus reactive.... When someone says “proactive”, to me it instantly says contrary to what is reactive. I guess what would be reactive here is that right now, if someone had an issue where they were discriminated against—not through the public service—if someone felt that there was a pay equity situation in their federally regulated workplace, they would go to the Human Rights Commission. Is that correct?

5:50 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Human Rights Commission

Ian Fine

That is correct.