Pay Equity Committee on April 18th, 2016

[Fiona Keith]

To date, most of the major complaints have emerged in the public sector.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you.

The next question, for the round of five minutes, goes to Mr. Sheehan.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much.

One of the questions we've been going around the horn on here, asking very similar questions, is that there are several notable pay equity disputes that have been going on. Canada Post, for instance, took 30 years to resolve. It is quite mind-blowing when you think about it.

If we have a federal pay equity regime, would it prevent such long, and I'll call them adversarial, disputes, in your opinion?

[Ian Fine]

I think that the answer would be a definite yes. Under the proactive model that we're advising be adopted you would not see that. There are no guarantees in life, of course, but we just can't imagine that there would be a scenario whereby a situation could evolve into years and years of protracted litigation under our proactive model.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

What was the reason for the 30 years? If your view...?

[Ian Fine]

Unfortunately, I don't have an easy answer to your question. It's an important and good question. I'm just not sure.

In pay equity cases there are a lot of experts involved. One of the first tasks in a pay equity exercise, whether it be under the complaints model or a proactive model, is gathering job information. That can sometimes be difficult for a whole host of reasons. First of all, it's within the control of the employer to provide that information. Also, there isn't a positive obligation under the Canadian Human Rights Act to provide that information.

I can also tell you that in many cases job information is not up-to-date. There may not be any job information in some situations, so it can be a very difficult task just in preparing all of the job descriptions for all of the jobs that are at issue. That's the first step.

Then once you have the job information—assuming it's up-to-date, relevant, and useful—you have to evaluate the job. It may seem on the face of it simple to say, “evaluate the job”, but it can be difficult depending on the environment. Also, where there's a lot of money at stake—as I said in my opening comments—it can make it even more difficult, particularly where you're looking at the potential of a large retroactive pay adjustment. That can make it even more difficult and challenging for employers, for sure.

A lot can happen in one of these complaints. Over the course of time you can have a member of a tribunal no longer able to be part of that panel, and then what to do about that? You can have situations where there are conflicts around the admissibility of evidence that can take the tribunal off track for a long period of time. There can be information that comes out in the middle of a case that then has to be examined and dealt with.

But largely due to the amount of money involved and the complexity of the issues, as I mentioned earlier, these cases can take on a life of their own and just go on forever.

I'm not sure, Ms. Keith, if you have anything to add.

[Fiona Keith]

No.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much.

Like my friend over here, I was on a city council and we had various things we dealt with. I've spent my life in business and economic development in the private and the public sectors. My most recent stint was working for the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, for the province. There are number of issues and things I've seen through both the private and the public sectors.

One of the things we are grappling with here is trying to create some federal pay equity regime that's proactive. Could you describe again the proactive regime benefits for employees and employers, because I think it's important to underline and highlight this?

[Ian Fine]

We've talked about timing, for one. It's a much shorter process. It doesn't involve the same costs to any of the parties. Also, it typically doesn't involve major retroactive payouts. I think it's a process that's much more palatable for everyone concerned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you. That's time.

I am going to go to Ms. Benson for three minutes for the last question, because we did start a few minutes late and we do have the room for an extra hour.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

I'll be quick.

If you don't mind, I'm actually going to follow up on a question my colleague raised. This might be more your personal opinion because of your expertise of dealing with it. Is there any value in having a different regime from the public sector for the private sector? Also, when we talk about stand-alone and when you supported the task force and their recommendations in 2004, that was for comprehensive pay equity legislation for all federally regulated employees, whether they be public or private. Could you give just a general comment on that?

[Ian Fine]

We believe quite strongly that there should be one process, one process for public employees and one for private sector employees as well. There shouldn't be two separate streams for implementing a human right at the federal level.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

That makes sense. That was my only question, so I'm good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you.

I want to thank the witnesses very much and everybody who was asking questions.

We're going to suspend for just a couple of minutes so that we can change panels and take whatever biological breaks you might need.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Okay. Thank you very much.

We're onto the second panel. We have two organizations on this panel. We have the Association of Canadian Financial Officers with Dany Richard and Stéphanie Rochon-Perras. We have the Canadian Labour Congress, Barbara Byers and Vicky Smallman.

I would invite each of you to have 10 minutes.

Have you decided just one of you is going to speak? Okay, so it's Ms. Byers. You can start with 10 minutes, and then we will go to the next one. Thank you.

[Barbara Byers, Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you very much on behalf of the 3.3 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress for this opportunity to present our views on pay equity to this committee.

As you know, the CLC brings together Canada's national and international unions, along with provincial and territorial federations of labour and district labour councils. Our members work in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy, in all occupations, in all parts of Canada.

We've appeared multiple times before parliamentary committees on the issue of pay equity since 2004, when the task force released its report and recommendations. It's starting to feel a little bit like the film Groundhog Day. That being said, we're glad to see Parliament strike this committee and we urge you to take this opportunity to finally and quickly set us on a path toward concrete action to end the gender wage gap.

Our message hasn't changed much in 12 years, but then, gender wage discrimination has not changed much in 12 years. The labour movement is calling for the timely implementation of pay equity, the pay equity task force recommendations. The committee's work must result in legislation, and we don't need another study. We're also calling for the repeal of the previous government's Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, PSECA. As the only legislation in the 12 years since the task force, PSECA represented the very opposite of what the task force recommended.

It's time to clean the slate and start over, this time implementing proactive legislation, using the task force recommendations and the experience of existing proactive provincial laws in Ontario, and especially Quebec, which has been recognized by the International Labour Organization, the ILO, as a model.

The recommendations of the task force on pay equity were the result of years of careful and comprehensive study and consultation, and were widely supported by labour and women's organizations. The work of the task force is the most significant and in-depth study on pay equity anywhere, and is recognized as such by the ILO.

In our brief intervention I'll be highlighting some of the key recommendations that the CLC singled out for support when the report was released in 2004.

Women's work has always been undervalued and underpaid. This discrimination is a violation of human dignity and is a major factor in women's poverty, financial dependency, and vulnerability. It results in smaller pensions and disability benefits, a loss of autonomy, and an erosion of one's ability to participate fully in society.

The task force recommended that:

...Parliament enact new stand-alone, proactive pay equity legislation in order that Canada can more effectively meet its international obligations and domestic commitments, and that such legislation be characterized as human rights legislation.

This recognition that pay equity is a fundamental human right acknowledges that we require systemic solutions to eliminate systemic discrimination. We know that women experience the wage gap differently, so the response must address other forms of persistent systemic discrimination in employment. Women living with disabilities, racialized women, indigenous women, experience greater wage discrimination and other barriers in the workplace and are overrepresented in part-time and other precarious work.

The task force recognized that Canadian workers who belong to other designated equity-seeking groups also experience wage discrimination and the CLC supports a proactive pay equity law expanded to cover racialized workers, indigenous workers, and workers living with disabilities.

The task force recommended that legislation place the onus on employers to correct discriminatory wage disparities. It would obligate employers to work with unions and employee groups by creating pay equity committees to prepare and monitor pay equity plans in all workplaces, including those covered by the federal contractors program. These committees should include a significant portion of women workers from predominantly female job classes, and the plans would cover all workers regardless of full-time, part-time, contract, or casual status. This includes contractors whose economic dependence on an employer makes it appropriate to treat them as an employee.

Pay equity is complex work and it must include a process that enables workers to feel empowered, to feel that the value of their jobs is being set through a fair process. Employers should be required to provide committee members with the information and data required to establish a plan and maintain pay equity results through vigorous, well-resourced, and proactive enforcement.

Contrast this with the complaints-driven system, in which you might solve a problem for a particular group, but it involves a costly and lengthy process that is hard on everyone and frankly does not bring about solutions for others in similar circumstances.

Although the previous government labelled PSECA as “proactive”, we're not convinced of that. PSECA does not place the responsibility for eliminating discriminatory wages on employers alone. It introduces market forces as a factor for consideration when valuing women's work in the public sector. It only targets certain employers, redefines a female-predominant group, and restricts the comparator groups, thus making it more difficult to establish where wage discrimination exists. This is not proactive pay equity legislation.

The task force proposed the establishment of a separate pay equity commission to assist employees, employers, and unions to provide education on pay equity issues to resolve disagreements. This commission should have the power to look at economic dependence and have the power to develop criteria for making this determination. The CLC believes the commission could play an important role in holding employers accountable and ensuring transparency in enforcement.

After 12 years, working women deserve nothing less than proactive pay equity legislation. This committee's work must result in the tabling of a bill in short order. So much time, effort, and resources went into the task force consultation and report. We can't let it languish in the archives any longer.

Let us also be mindful that women have been waiting for longer than 12 years. We've been waiting for decades and decades, and while we wait, the debt owed to those who are caught in the wage gap continues to mount. These are women with children to raise, women who deserve a dignified retirement, and many are women who face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination both in the workplace and in the community.

Of course we realize that a new federal proactive pay equity law will not be a panacea for Canada's gender wage gap. It won't address the overrepresentation of women in part-time and precarious work, a situation exacerbated by their assuming the burden of providing care for children or ailing and aging relatives. It's only one step towards changing broader societal attitudes that are at the root of undervaluing women's work. While the committee isn't tasked with establishing a national child care system—which, by the way, we consider to be shovel-ready infrastructure—improving access to home care, or addressing the barriers to recruiting and retaining women in sectors that are traditionally dominated by men, the labour movement will continue to push solutions for these issues as well.

In conclusion, I want to offer a brief reflection on the impact of action and the lack of action. When I speak about pay equity, I often use the phrase “justice delayed is justice denied”, so I want to remember the groups of workers who had to wait decades for complaints to work their way through the courts, such as the Bell Canada workers whose case took 15 years, and by the time the settlement was reached, almost 16% of those workers had died and many more were frail and nearing end of life. Imagine for a moment their quality of life if they hadn't had to wait. Imagine the boost to the economy if that money had been in their bank accounts the whole time.

I don't want to use that phrase in yet another call for the implementation of the task force recommendations. I look forward to my next appearance before a House committee, next time testifying in support of a new proactive pay equity law.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you very much.

We have Mr. Richard and Ms. Rochon-Perras. I understand you'll be splitting your time for the next 10 minutes.

Go ahead.

[Dany Richard, Executive Vice-President, Association of Canadian Financial Officers]

That is correct. Thank you.

Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee, and Madam Clerk and committee staff, thank you for the opportunity to come before you today on behalf of the Association of Canadian Financial Officers.

My name is Dany Richard. I'm the executive vice-president of ACFO. I'm joined by Stéphanie Rochon-Perras, one of our ACFO labour relations advisers.

ACFO represents the accountants and financial professionals who make up most of the FI group in the federal public service. Our membership is proud to provide the strong financial stewardship and sound business advice that a modern and professional public service requires.

Our membership is also female predominant. We are currently in the midst of our second pay equity complaint under the transitional provisions outlined in the budget implementation act 2009. It is in this context that we are here today to share our thoughts on the pay equity legislative regime. Our view is that the current complaint-based process is unsatisfactory in tackling pay inequity. It takes too long, it costs too much, it's too adversarial, and it only compounds the issue of gender-based wage and systemic discrimination.

We are also of the opinion that the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act should be repealed for reasons that are widely known and are briefly outlined in our written submission.

Overall, ACFO supports the implementation of a proactive pay equity regime as recommended by the 2004 task force. We endorse the framework established under the Quebec Pay Equity Act as a model for a proactive federal pay equity regime.

We propose nine recommendations in our written submission, but in our time here today we'd like to focus specifically on one recommendation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

The written submission hasn't been given to the committee members yet because we are still working on the translation. It was only in English. As soon as it's translated, we will distribute that to the committee members.

[Dany Richard]

Noted, thank you.

We'd like to focus on one specific recommendation, which is access to a variety of dispute resolution mechanisms.

At ACFO, we have a 25-year track record of success with alternative dispute resolution models. We were early pioneers of interest-based bargaining. We believe at our core that collaboration and being proactive are the keys to reaching settlements that benefit everyone. At the end of the day, achieving and maintaining equal pay for work of equal value is fundamental to employers, employees, and bargaining agents. We can all agree that employees should not endure or be subject to gender wage gaps and systemic discrimination. We firmly believe that what is needed is a holistic, collaborative, and non-adversarial approach.

If I can use ACFO as an example, I see it this way. We believe strongly in the merits of our particular pay equity case. Our third-party expert, an expert Treasury Board has relied on in the past, also believes in the merit of our case. We wouldn't have brought it forward otherwise. If we're right, every day, week, month, and year that goes by compounds the issue of gender-based wage and systemic discrimination. Getting to a fair and just resolution sooner is the right thing to do for our members and for the government we are proud to serve.

As Prime Minister Trudeau himself said during the campaign, the “lost income potential because of the wage gap hurts Canadian families and hurts our economy.”

We need to strive for a legal framework that helps employers and employees jointly and effectively resolve pay inequity in the workplace. But eliminating a wage gap due to gender discrimination is only part of the solution. Unless the underpinnings of the pay system are addressed, systemic discrimination continues creating new wage gaps that widen over time. That's why a proactive model similar to the Quebec Pay Equity Act should be considered.

There's a misconception that pay equity is an historical problem. Our group is living proof that the problem persists today and will continue in the future. Overall, our view is that the principles of proactivity and collaboration must be the bedrock of any new model proposed for achieving pay equity.

With our time remaining, if it pleases the committee, I'd like to invite Stéphanie to speak to some of the specifics of our recommendation.

[Stéphanie Rochon-Perras, Labour Relations Advisor, Association of Canadian Financial Officers]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

We support a pay equity model with a proactive framework and a pre-emptive resolution mechanism, such as a requirement to create a pay equity committee in the workplace comprising bargaining agents, employees, employers, and experts and advisers. Joint accountability on pay equity through a pay equity committee is needed to oblige both parties to conduct their assessments in a collaborative and transparent manner. A requirement for ongoing information sharing needs to occur.

When disagreement occurs, a framework that provides and facilitates alternative dispute resolution mechanisms is also required. This would also create an avenue for parties to resolve their disagreements voluntarily through alternative means, such as mediation, conciliation, facilitated discussions, negotiations, and combined mediation-adjudication, for example.

It should be noted that the idea of informal conflict resolution in pay equity is not new. Conciliation and mediation services are available at the Canadian Human Rights Commission and in provincial jurisdictions. These have proven to be successful in preventing long, drawn-out, and costly litigation battles. The ACFO welcomes the use of an ADR model, both in the investigation and throughout the adjudication process.

Once a complaint is referred to a pay equity tribunal or body, we propose the additional availability of a dual-track system, with complex-track and fast-track mechanisms, depending on the nature of the case or issue in dispute and subject to strict procedural time limits in order to reduce the delays. A fast-track mechanism could also be a voluntary venue for final determination when other forms of ADR have led to an impasse.

Voluntarily choosing an expedited hearing in which a neutral third party could make a final and binding decision could also be an option. The nominee would be selected jointly through a roster of qualified and accredited pay equity experts or could even be assigned by the tribunal. Alternatively, only the portions of the dispute creating the impasse could be referred to the neutral third party.

There are many options here. The key is not closing the door on any of them prematurely. A fast-track mechanism that binds the parties and settles the complaint partially or fully would be optimal to counter the long, drawn-out litigation often seen in past and current complaints.

Our written submission contains more recommendations. We hope you’ll give them careful consideration as well, but we really wanted to stress the importance of the approach to dispute resolution.

Thank you for your time. We’re happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Mr. DeCourcey for seven minutes.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

To start out, thank you, everyone, for your comments here.

Having listened to testimony from the Human Rights Commission just prior to this, I want to pick up on some of the things they spoke about that were also reflected in the comments here.

In regard to one of the 2004 recommendations about the onus being placed on the employer to establish or achieve pay equity, I'm wondering if both of you could comment on what role bargaining agents and employees might play in that process as well, and also on the adjudication of what is an equal wage for work of equal value so that it is similar or parallel across sectors and different work types.

There was a comment made earlier about the role of bargaining in maintaining pay equity in the workplace. I wonder if you might comment on that and, once pay equity has been established, if you see any relevance to bargaining as maintaining pay equity in the workplace. Maybe that speaks to the dispute resolution mechanism you've talked about.

[Barbara Byers]

Thank you for the question.

We had indicated that we think the onus has to be put on employers to correct the wage disparities, but it's not them operating on their own. That's not going to be a successful plan. In fact, that's the plan they have now. They get to set the wage rates and then other people face the wage discrimination.

What we would say is that the employers are obviously a party to this, but then they have to invite in either unions or employee groupings so that, again, people have the confidence that this is being done fairly and that their working requirements are looked at in that respect. Obviously, then that has to be maintained, because you can't just set it once and then walk away and pretend that it doesn't happen.

Vicky may have something to add as well.

[Vicky Smallman, National Director, Women's and Human Rights, Canadian Labour Congress]

The task force recommendations get pretty detailed in the composition of the committees, how plans are supposed to be developed and maintained and so on. It's not like we have to reinvent the wheel of that part. But the bargaining agent very much has a responsibility to hold the employers accountable, to be engaged in the process, to assist with the evaluation of jobs, and to maintain and ensure that the enforcement is there.

I think we can be guided by the most excellent work of the task force in determining that role.