Pay Equity Committee on May 3rd, 2016

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you.

Thank you so much for making time for the committee and for your comments on how important our work is. I know I speak for everyone when I say we feel that and we certainly hope to do our best to give the government the best advice to follow.

Here are a couple of comments to Minister Hajdu about the gender-based lens analysis.

What I would like to hear is what the role of your ministry is in leading that practice in other ministries. We know that one of the issues with pay equity is that there's a lack of transparency of reporting back concerning where companies and governments are. My fear around a gender-based policy and lens being used is that we won't know where things stand, who is using it, etc.

I think you can probably appreciate where I'm going with that comment. I'd just like to see whether there has been some movement around the ways in which we might see that it's being done.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you for the question.

Essentially, Status of Women Canada acts as a centre of excellence for GBA. We do a number of things to promote GBA, and of course, we fully welcome the report of the Auditor General that said we could do more. We also welcome the additional funds that will allow us to provide more support for departments and I'm confident we're heading in the right direction.

Also, I would hazard a guess—and I defer to my deputy—that we probably never spent so much time talking about GBA in previous governments, so I think that some of the elevation of conversation is also helping. I think the other part about that is having a full cabinet minister who is specifically tasked with addressing gender equality in cabinet. I would also defer to my colleagues, but I'm fairly vigorous about ensuring that GBA is applied thoroughly or at least we are highlighting MCs that are not applying GBA to my satisfaction, let's say, in the most collegial way.

I would say that we do provide support to departments in a number of ways. We provide people with training and tools. I love the suggestion that we should make GBA a mandatory part, and I would suggest not just for ministers but for all parliamentarians, because I think it's something we should all be reflective about, in things such as how we're presenting private members' bills, for example. It is not just ministers that are working on legislation and having interventions and conversations. We provide advice, expertise, and guidance regarding increasing capacity to implement GBA across the federal government.

We are, as I mentioned, encouraging and engaging leadership around GBA, and around what gender-based analysis is and looking at why it is valuable. We're using a multiple-lenses approach to that, so that it's not just about social justice or about equity but it's actually about the functioning of our country, and about making sure that with regard to the legislation, the policies, the procedures, and I would even argue the things that we procure, we're being thoughtful about how this is going to affect both genders.

The agency works very closely with the Privy Council Office and the Treasury Board Secretariat, as well as other federal departments, to recognize that GBA implementation does require a whole-of-government engagement. Now with a little extra financial support, we're going to be able to better track and monitor the progress of GBA implementation, which specifically answers your question, and then we're going to be able to report back on that.

We are really looking forward to gathering more data generally about gender. We've identified a huge gap in terms of gender data resulting from inaction over the years. We have data gaps and this is one of those areas, so we'll be collecting data in a much more vigorous manner.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to now go to Minister Mihychuk.

Welcome. We are pleased that you're here.

I do like to hear your comments. I believe my hearing of the witnesses around the table is that there was a lot of consensus. We've heard about the 2004 pay equity task force and have heard agreement around some key pieces, with regard to having stand-alone legislation that is separate from other legislation; with regard to the need to have a focus on pay equity that's separate from the Canadian Human Rights Commission; and with regard to how what we've done around a complaints-based process has not worked.

I think many of us are going back to the recommendations of that task force and looking for ways that they can be implemented. I wonder if you share that view of that task force. A lot of people testified, but there was consensus in that report around those recommendations, albeit not on everything, and we have certainly heard that here at the committee level as well.

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you for the question.

The Bilson task force recommendations were comprehensive. It was an enormous study, but there was a difference of opinion. FETCO opposed it. However, over time, a lot of companies have actually moved toward addressing these issues. When we looked at governments across the board in terms of provinces and the federal government, only ourselves and Alberta remain to go through the process of pay equity. I participated in the process, which is complicated, detailed, and quite time-consuming, both at the school board level and then at the provincial level. It was informative and also insightful, and it brought in fairness.

How we maintain a vigilance on that, I think is important. What you're doing now is reviewing all of the recommendations.

When we look at any system that takes 30 years to get a resolution, like Canada Post, it obviously did not work. Payments have been made to the estates of employees. They waited so long—30 years—for a resolution. Clearly, the process we have now has failed workers, and in particular women.

I look forward to your ideas. The idea of having a workplace pay equity committee is something that is functional. We work with workplace health and safety committees all the time. There are a lot of new and innovative ideas.

I thank you for the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

That is your time.

We will now be moving to Mr. DeCourcey for seven minutes.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'm going to split my time with Ms. Dzerowicz as well.

My question is for Minister Brison.

First of all, I say thanks to everyone here for your commitment to gender equality across the range of issues. Certainly we know that closing the wage gap is a complex issue. However, we have received testimony and evidence that does show that moving forth with pay equity in a proactive manner can play a role there.

Minister Brison, you spoke a little about some of your concerns as they relate to PSECA. What other petition or testimony have you heard that may cause concern with that piece of legislation? We've heard a lot about a need for expertise in looking at pay equity issues. Is there anything along those lines that might draw concern with the legislation that was brought down in 2009?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Again, I've expressed some concerns on that.

The committee is studying some models from the past, including PSECA. We're looking forward to your recommendations. We agree that pay equity shouldn't be collectively bargained. Among other things, it would create logjams at the bargaining table. It's an enormously complex issue, and it takes years to resolve with the largest employers.

It's important to understand the relationship between pay equity and collective bargaining. Both have important objectives, and they're important to understand and to preserve. There is a tension between them. We need to understand and address that in any pay equity reform.

In terms of PSECA, I've expressed my views. I'm speaking on behalf of the government in terms of our views on PSECA, the way it was introduced, and the need to have meaningful consultation on something that is this important. We're looking forward to this committee's work because this is part of the consultation with you as parliamentarians.

I want to make one point. There has been some progress within the public service, from I'm told 1999, when there was a 17% pay gap, to 2003-04 at 14%, and now it's down to about 9% in 2013. There's been some progress and there are some reasons behind that.

In terms of the pay gap within the public service, there is an occupational segregation within the public service. Right now, 56% of the federal public service are women. There are more women than men doing lower-paid work, and there are more men doing work in higher-paid fields like engineering, for instance, and computer systems.

There has been some specific progress. For instance, 46% of senior and executive ranks are women now, compared to 35% in 2004-05. There is 56% of women in the economics and social science group, compared to 53% in 2004-05; 57% of the law group are women, compared to 51% in 2004-05; 47% of the commerce officer group, compared to 40%. There has been some progress, but we need to do more.

One of the things we want to do more of is to attract millennials to the public service. We believe that this has the capacity to really move the needle in terms of gender balance within the public service as well. We can talk about that in subsequent questions.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Certainly, and I think a lot of the testimony that we've heard would reflect the fact that people do recognize the advances that have been made, but certainly see much more that needs to be done.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Big time.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I'll pass the rest of my time to Ms. Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much.

I too want to say thank you very much for being here, for thinking it's important to be here, for your wonderful presentations.

I also want to reiterate a comment because I think it's very important. We've had a number of presentations over the last few weeks, and the majority of the people who have come before this committee have overwhelmingly supported some type of proactive pay equity model. I didn't want you to get the impression that wasn't the case, even though we did have a couple of groups last night that indicated otherwise.

Minister Mihychuk, you talked about the labour program being able to refer suspected cases of gender-based wage discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. My understanding is that over the last five years, there have not been any referrals. Do you know why, and if anything can be done?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Yes, that's true. No cases have been referred over the last five years, and I think it's a reflection of the previous government's priorities. The department is small. It's overtaxed. They've seen a reduction of support for staffing, and they've been focusing on workplace health and safety.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Minister Brison, one of the very clear recommendations of the Bilson report was that pay equity should not be included in the collective bargaining process for a number of the reasons you've mentioned. What role, if any, do you see unions playing in pay equity legislation?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

First, we meet with union leaders on an ongoing basis. For instance a couple of months age, we released a report on mental health that was attained through the co-operative work between the government and public sector unions led by the joint council. This is one of the areas where there's a lot of common ground between public service unions and the Government of Canada.

Incidentally, that mental health report was commenced under the previous government under Tony Clement when he was in my job, but there are important areas of social and economic progress, including pay equity and including mental health and others, where there is a significant level of common ground with organized labour, including the public service unions. These are areas that we want to work on with them, including a proactive pay equity system, which we believe has real merit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you, that is the time.

Our next questioner will be Ms. Gladu for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ministers, for being here, we appreciate your time and the work you do.

We've been hearing lots of different witnesses and a lot of the discussion has come from the 2004 report. We've heard unanimously that a pay equity committee within every organization is a key part of the success.

On the legislation part of it, we've heard varying things. Minister Brison, your point about the improvements that have happened in the federal government to close the wage gap without the legislation being there is fair, and that's the same message we heard from the Canadian banks. That said, we see that Quebec has the narrowest gap—they're lowered it to 8%—but that Nova Scotia's legislation produced the biggest improvement in a short period of time. When we start looking at the time frame of how we close the gap quickly, they told us the Quebec legislation took two years from the beginning, when they started crafting it, to the time it was implemented, which is hugely long.

I definitely want to encourage Ms. Ballantyne to continue her efforts on trying to encourage women in STEM, women on boards, women who are under-represented. Those areas will close the gap in a much faster way. There was unanimous agreement that the existing complaint resolution, 15 years for $30 million, is not working for anyone so there definitely needs to be some mechanism that is a faster resolution mode.

But that said, it's still not clear to me whether the legislation is needed or not. When you talk about addressing the gap, you're down to the last 9% in some areas, like in the federal government. StatsCan has said to us, that's where these unknown factors come in and now you're going to need to do some research to figure out what it is. Is it women leaving, or whatever?

Minister Brison, would you support doing research with Statistics Canada to try to analyze that for the federal sector?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

We want to have better data and a better understanding of this issue. We have some indication as to what has made a difference. For instance, in terms of lowering the gap, the gap is lower in those who are under 35 within the public service. That's due in part to women graduating in ever-increasing numbers from post-graduate and post-secondary programs that are leading to higher-paid jobs. There may be in that cohort less of what Minister Hajdu referred to as the motherhood penalty. These are things we need to address.

There are other barriers to women in the workforce that we, as a government, need to address both within the public service and more broadly in terms of public policy, so with regard to Statistics Canada and other sources of good-quality data, we want to make decisions based on good data and good evidence.

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

Absolutely. There are some people who think we don't want to spend more time studying to get that last 9%, that we should just pay for it. Do you have an idea how much that would cost for the federal service?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

First of all, there are a number of methodologies and calculations, most of which have been based on studies that were done some time ago and have not been updated to current numbers. I want to be clear, though. When I mentioned earlier progress that had been made—you mentioned that the banking association said progress was made—I did not cite that progress in any way, shape, or form to reduce the imperative of addressing pay equity. In some ways when you are addressing these issues, it's sometimes the last 9% that is the toughest and requires real action. I didn't cite it from the perspective of a self-congratulatory thing that we have inertia here. I just want to make that clear. There has been some progress.

Even on the issues of gender-based analysis, the decisions rendered by a cabinet with gender parity are better decisions that are more reflective of the diversity at the cabinet table. That goes to any decision-making table whether it's in a caucus room, a committee, or within a department or agency of government. On an ongoing basis we need to be rigorous in terms of demanding progress and measuring progress, and that's where the evidence comes in.

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

You'll be happy to know—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

That is the time, but thank you very much.

Our next questions will come from Ms. Sidhu.

You have five minutes.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the ministers for being with us.

My first question is for Minister Mihychuk. How can the federal government better include immigrants and indigenous people in federally regulated areas of employment? What will it take to hit pay equity? What barriers will be challenging to overcome?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

That's such a big question, but it's very important.

We released a study about a month ago showing that in the federally regulated sector, we have done relatively well in terms of visible minorities and the disabled. On indigenous, we're still below what is the average for the general population, but there is an incline. In terms of gender we've seen a significant drop of the number of women who are employed in federally regulated sectors, which is very disappointing.

I think that we need to be proactive. We need to lead by example, as our Prime Minister did. When we reach out and have opportunities, we must include committees or groups that reflect Canadians. Of particular concern are those minority groups, like indigenous people, that often come with so many challenges to participating fully. We must take extra effort to ensure that we find a way to understand those things.

I'll give you an example. Many indigenous people will require time off work to participate in traditional agricultural activities. They may want to go on the moose hunt, and that would take three weeks. If an employer were to look at understanding culture, that would then produce an employee who would come back, would be very loyal, and then continue working. However, if the employer doesn't understand how that is a cultural norm, those individuals are often terminated.

I think that's also true when we look at, for instance, parental leave. Women will take maternity because it's often the best solution financially for a family. When we're discussing paternal leave, this would help women have greater opportunities in terms of their career. It would of course enhance the quality of life for the child, as both parents would be able to have an opportunity to participate. This as a concept, I think, that's time has come. There are so many different aspects of trying to break down what we see as the wage gap, and I think it will take all of us to be vigilant.

Thank you.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

What would you say for the immigrant people?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

For immigrants, we look at the opportunity to have an understanding of the skills that many immigrants bring to Canada. They are very sophisticated and very well-educated, and sometimes there are stereotypes that hold people back. Sometimes people say that if you just look at the resumé and don't include the name on it at all, you'll be able to then be more objective with your hiring procedures. I think we need to be sensitive to culture and eliminate the stereotypes for immigrants.