Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good evening, everyone. Joining me today is Elizabeth Cameron, who is vice-chair of FETCO but also the vice-president of labour relations at Nav Canada, a federally regulated firm. I'll provide opening comments, and we will be both be available for questions at the end of the presentation.
For those of you who don't know, FETCO stands for Federally Regulated Employers – Transportation and Communications. I recognize that's a mouthful.
FETCO member organizations are all federally regulated firms in the transportation and communications sectors. We have existed as an employers association for more than 30 years. We are generally large employers in the federal sector, encompassing more than 400,000 employees and representing well-known firms such as Air Canada, Bell Canada, CN, Canadian Pacific Railway, and Telus, to name a few.
FETCO is not one voice. We try to present positions on issues that accommodate the concerns of all our members, but this is not always possible. Therefore, please accept the comments today as a collection of thoughts from many of our member companies. In the short timelines presented to us to report back to you on your work, this is what we can offer.
Let us start by stating one clear fact: FETCO member organizations support the concept of pay equity—that is, equal pay for work of equal value. We firmly believe that closing the wage gap between men and women is important. This is the right thing to do, and it makes good business sense. FETCO members believe that while the current system for addressing pay equity complaints is not perfect, it is better than creating an entirely new system following the proactive model used in Ontario and Quebec.
When we polled FETCO members on the positive attributes of the current approach, we heard three clear messages.
First, the current complaints-based approach has raised awareness about pay equity. Employers have a sense of responsibility and commitment to comply with the Canadian Human Rights Act, which specifically includes protection against wage discrimination based on gender. Employer awareness continues to grow through better knowledge, understanding, and application of some of the more technical aspects of gender analysis and job evaluation. These issues are all moving in the right direction.
Second, it is important to note that the provisions of the act, which prohibit discrimination in general, also protect the members of those groups against wage discrimination. In other words, prohibition on wage discrimination is already covered under the act for the 11 protected groups, which include the employment equity designated groups, of which women are one such group, of course.
Third, the current approach has led to significant pay adjustments for women in the federal sector, in the hundreds of millions of dollars. While our members may not agree with all aspects of the settlements that have emerged, we have seen the needle move in a number of areas via a number of cases. There has been progress under the current model. These are complicated cases that have, at times, taken years to resolve, but they are resulting in change.
Now, here are a few challenges.
First, as you know, pay equity complaints tend to be protracted, confrontational, and costly. Pay equity is complex and resource-intensive to study and implement. Even larger and more sophisticated employers must engage expert consultants. The Canadian Human Rights Commission is under-resourced in this area and therefore is often unable to investigate and process complaints in a timely way.
Second, the current system can make collective bargaining relationships more complicated. Under the Canada Labour Code, parties enter into good-faith bargaining to find an agreement on many matters, including compensation. A practical challenge emerges when, at the end of bargaining, unions can use section 11 of the act to launch a pay equity complaint against an employer.
Third, some of our members raised issues with the exceptions listed under section 16 of the Equal Wages Guidelines. There is a concern that section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act assumes that nearly all pay variances must be attributed to gender discrimination. We suggest there may be other factors at play that contribute to wage gaps, and we would welcome an opportunity to research this further.
FETCO members are generally not convinced that a proactive model is the solution. This would be costly and administratively cumbersome for both government and business. This model has not proven ideal in the jurisdictions in which it has been introduced. As an aside to this, we’d like to better understand the pros and cons of the proactive approach. At this point there are more questions than there are answers.
This approach would create a commission and tribunal duplicating the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which already have the structures and processes in place to handle such complaints, and with which all the parties are already familiar. We are not sure of the value in creating a whole new set of government entities when adequate infrastructure already exists.
We suggest that governments should commit to enhancing the role of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and improving the processes by which pay equity complaints are administered, including injecting additional resources.
As employers, we would like to be part of the solution. We believe consultation and study should continue to be pursued. Also, we are big advocates of this work being done under the tripartite model, whereby government, business, and labour collaborate on finding solutions.
We believe the best way to tackle the issue of pay equity is to take a comprehensive approach that addresses the root causes of wage disparity between men and women. Raising awareness among employees about the issue and processes available, both internal and external, should also be considered.
We do not believe this is an issue that can be solved overnight via one solution. In addition to addressing discrete challenges with the current complaints-based approach, we suggest other areas in which the parties can collaborate. For example, we could study the root causes of the wage gap; support labour market research that forecasts demand for skills, allowing educational institutions and organizations to proactively plan for roles and income within industries; sponsor activities to attract women to non-traditional fields where they are currently under-represented, such as science, technology, engineering, and math—the STEM sectors—via apprenticeship programs or other educational resources; provide educational opportunities for employers to ensure that any gender stereotypes and biases are removed from all human resource activities; support initiatives to promote women in leadership roles to ensure effective paths exist for women to advance within organizations across the public and private sectors; and finally, reward organizations that increase their diversity.
This is what we believe a system of the future looks like: three parties coming to the table, solving problems and jointly improving the current approach via comprehensive analysis.
Thank you.