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.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
It's more that there are differences between Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec—not massive but they are there. Could you cite some aspects that you think are promising and that might work at the federal level?
6 p.m.
Counsel, Human Rights Protection Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission
There's certainly much to be learned. Manitoba, of course, is restricted to the public service. I think what the commission would say is that there are possible hazards in having different regimes for the public service and the private sector. In light of the Bilson task force recommendations, we would say that this kind of approach should apply to all industrial sectors within federal jurisdiction.
In Ontario, one of the things that we've learned is that more attention needs to be paid to the maintenance phase. I believe that's one of the reasons why, in Quebec, subsequent to the initial adoption of the legislation and to Professor Bilson's issuing her report, there was a change to the Quebec legislation to impose a requirement on employers to do a self-audit every five years to ensure that they were maintaining pay equity.
I think those three changes would be advocated by the commission, in conjunction with the model proposed by the task force.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
How about Quebec? Is there anything there that you would pull out?
6:05 p.m.
Counsel, Human Rights Protection Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Quebec was...and if I misspoke I am sorry. I think Quebec learned from Ontario in imposing this five-year requirement on employers to do a self-audit.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Is it public-facing so that people can actually see where employers are at?
6:05 p.m.
Counsel, Human Rights Protection Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission
My understanding is that it is and there is also a limited right for employees to file complaints. But as in Ontario, there are limits on retroactive wage awards, which we have not seen under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The commission believes this has been one of the problems with implementing the legislation.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Say we move to a proactive model at the federal level, how do you envision this proactive model working with the Canadian Human Rights Commission? What would be the relationship?
6:05 p.m.
Counsel, Human Rights Protection Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Do you mean with the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, or both?
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I am going to say the commission and then I have another question on the act.
6:05 p.m.
Counsel, Human Rights Protection Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Machinery questions are largely questions for government to decide, so we defer to those governmental choices. As Mr. Fine explained, the commission has experience in implementing proactive legislation. The Employment Equity Act, which has been in force since 1996, has been overseen by the commission. We have auditors who go out regularly to audit federally regulated employers for employment equity purposes.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
6:05 p.m.
Counsel, Human Rights Protection Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Before I move to that, one option, if government decided, would be for the commission to play a role in pay equity compliance.
As to how it works with the Canadian Human Rights Act, as Mr. Fine explained, we adopt the recommendations of the pay equity task force, including the need for separate pay equity legislation, just as there is a separate Employment Equity Act. Then consideration has to be given by legislative drafters as to how those different pieces of legislation work together. That's largely a drafting question.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
You mentioned in your comments, Mr. Fine, that the right to pay equity was embedded in the Canadian Human Rights Act when it was created in 1977, so pay equity is protected as a fundamental right. It has been a long time since then. Does it need to be updated today with respect to pay equity. If so, what would that be?
6:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Human Rights Commission
I think we're back to the proactive model and our advice would be that it be replaced. Section 11 of our legislation, which is the pay equity complaint section, would be replaced by a proactive regime in whatever context, whether under a separate piece of legislation, or given to the Canadian Human Rights Commission or any other body. Our best advice to this committee would be that there should be another way to achieve pay equity other than the complaint structure under our legislation.
April 18th, 2016 / 6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you, and thank you to those showing up to be our witnesses.
As I've listened to multiple witnesses on different days, I'm starting to put together a picture in my mind of what the overall solution might look like. It seems to me that because there is some provincial jurisdiction and there are some existing provincial laws, step one would be for the justice minister to be working with the provinces to try to draft federal legislation. Then it seems to me that the Treasury Board would be the body to implement and enforce whatever legislation was put in place for the public sector employees, and the Minister of Labour would be in charge of implementing and enforcing outside of that.
Then I've noted that the complaint process seems difficult for an individual to access. It's a lot of money and a lot of time, and it's sort of tricky that way. It would be nice to have an independent commission to handle the initial complaints in a speedy-resolution way, and then anything that was more complex could be forwarded to the Human Rights Commission for the due diligence that you provide.
I'm interested to know if you can comment on what I'm thinking, and what you think about that.
6:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Human Rights Commission
It's an interesting model. I think much of what you just said makes sense, and I think all of the parties that you've said should be implicated in the process, working together to find a better way. I think that's what this is all about. We're all trying to work together. It's in everybody's best interest to find a better way.
Appearing here tonight we're talking about our legislation, so I think we can be objective about that when we say we feel there should be a different way of dealing with pay equity. Our legislation works fine in all other respects, with all other complaints and with all other grounds under the act where there aren't these kinds of issues. But with pay equity there are, and for all the reasons we've talked about this evening.
There's nothing you've said that I would want to disagree with. I don't know if my colleagues have anything to add.
6:10 p.m.
Counsel, Human Rights Protection Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission
I would just add one point, if I might. It's interesting that you refer to the potential role of Labour. As you may be aware, under the employment equity regime the commission has the compliance function, so we have, in simple words, the audit function, but Labour provides the support to employers.
I don't know if that's consistent with what you're saying, but that is something that is working quite well.
6:10 p.m.
Piero Narducci Acting Director General, Human Rights Promotion Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission
I would just add one minor component, which I think is important for all of us. As Ms. Keith mentioned, the structure you provided is what is used for employment equity right now. The legislation for pay equity internationally remains a human right, and as long as within the proposal you provide it remains a human right, I don't see very much of a concern on our part. But that is critical for our perspective.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Excellent.
My other question is where—from all the complaints you've seen, in both a union environment and the non-union environment—do you think the biggest opportunity is to close the pay equity gap?
6:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Human Rights Commission
I'm not sure.
If you can answer that question, go ahead.
6:10 p.m.
Counsel, Human Rights Protection Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission
I'm not sure that falls directly within our expertise. I know you heard from colleagues at Labour. The statistics overall indicate that the wage gap is larger in non-unionized environments, so certainly, that could be seen as an opportunity. On the other hand, unions are very helpful workplace partners in terms of implementing and maintaining pay equity, so that also presents an opportunity.
6:10 p.m.
Acting Director General, Human Rights Promotion Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Yes, I would just add, as you mentioned the wage gap, that pay equity is one factor of the wage gap. There are multiple factors. I agree with Ms. Keith about unionized environments being more beneficial in reducing the wage gap. But there are multiple factors there that need to be considered and that I would propose be considered.
