Pay Equity Committee on April 20th, 2016

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you.

Does someone else want to answer the question, please?

Ms. Young, or Ms. Taras...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Ms. Taras wants to answer that.

[Dr. Daphne Taras]

I had experience, being on the Arthurs commission on the Canada Labour Code, of various employment standards, and my own preference would be to handle workplace-related discriminatory practices together. I think there are bundles of practices, and I would not personally privilege pay over other issues. I would rather see a sensitive panel, a separate one. I agree that it takes expertise to understand workplace discrimination or patterns of work, but I would like to see more issues. I don't see why it shouldn't be broadened to include a number of the barriers that women face at work. To only be able to deal with pay does not eliminate many of the problems that bug us at work, that perplex us, and that are almost insoluble.

I don't see them as ripped apart. I see them as part of a package of workplace practices that in their totality discriminate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Does anybody else want to answer that?

Or do you want to continue or share your time?

[Prof. Margot Young]

Let me jump in really quickly, and then I think Kathleen wants to also.

There is a bundle of issues to consider when you're thinking about the institutional home for a pay equity system. You want a system that isn't already burdened, because that results in delay. You want a system with requisite expertise that is sufficiently—indeed very adequately—resourced. You want something that is set up to be proactive, with the staffing and the resources for that. You also want a guarantee of impartiality through security of tenure and pay. Those features are the ones that should guide you in your choice of where you institutionally house the program.

[Prof. Kathleen Lahey]

As a quick reference, Heidi Hartmann in the United States has been involved in some very large-scale studies that have compared on the one hand an overhaul of an entire public sector workforce—for example, a whole state in the United States—and on the other, both the costs and the benefits and the types of outcomes for more targeted pay equity, gender discrimination-focused programs.

Not surprisingly, the conclusion that was reached was that the whole workforce do-overs are much more expensive and tend to minimize the benefits, for the gender-based discrimination, and at the other extreme the programs that were more directly focused at gender-based discrimination result in overall fewer costs but much greater impact upon the specific problem of gender discrimination.

I think this is something worth taking into consideration. I can provide references to some of her studies, if you want to look at some of the details that enter into this finding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you.

You have 45 seconds.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

The vast majority of witnesses we have met with so far have all been repeating the same message, some more vibrantly and passionately than others, that the work was done ages ago and that we need to move on with implementing the recommendation of the 2004 pay equity task force.

Do you agree with this, and if so, is it totally or in part?

[Dr. Kate McInturff]

Yes.

[Voices]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Okay. We have unanimity.

That's a perfect note on which to end.

I want to express, again, my tremendous thanks to all of you, witnesses, for your patience, your expertise, and all of your testimony. If there are things that you feel didn't get covered, please do submit briefs. I know this was a short period of time in which to get this much information, but thank you very much for taking the time out to do that.

There's one final motion, I think.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Yes, I have a motion. I'm hoping the library will still like me after this.

Just as we're starting to move towards the end of our presentations—and I know we still have a number of them—I'm wondering if the library can put together the key decision points and options within the decision points that we should be looking at as we're thinking about legislation. Those could be from Treasury Board, Labour, Status of Women, or all three.

[Julie Mackenzie, Committee Researcher]

Is this in terms of legislation or in terms of the report?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I'd like to say in terms of legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

You don't actually need a motion to do that. We can just make the request at the library.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Oh, okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Is there another...?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I would just point out that we still have a number of witnesses, and I think it's probably too early for us to be directing the analysts to start moving in a particular direction and report at this stage. The whole point is that we still have a number of people to hear from. We should hear their testimony and then we can start looking at drafting a report and recommendations. I think it's just a little early for us to be picking certain elements when we've heard only a few segments from the witness list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Monsieur DeCourcey.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I certainly wouldn't want the decision options to be restrictive in any way, but I actually do think it would be helpful to kind of scope or frame some of the different points along the way that decisions need to be made on. I think part of that decision tree is “and/or a different option from the options that are presented to us” as an option itself. I certainly don't think it's restrictive, but I think it would help in framing some of the questions for remaining witnesses as we get to the end of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Also, I would be interested if you could send us links to the Quebec and Ontario legislation that we've heard about, so we can take a look at the language and the differences.

[Julie Mackenzie]

I think in the earlier briefing notes, whenever you see the Ontario Pay Equity Act there is a hyperlink.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Is there a link in there? They've been printing them for me, so I haven't seen those links.

[Julie Mackenzie]

Anytime you see the blue, those are hyperlinks going to the documents, but I'll send them again.