Pay Equity Committee on May 3rd, 2016

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you.

Actually, I have a couple of comments. I think what we've heard around this table from witnesses is that the 2004 task force report was world class, one of the best done. I'm not just saying that because Professor Bilson is from Saskatoon, but I'll add that there. She was the first woman chair of a labour relations board and whatnot. It was ahead of its time. It was extensive, and that's what we've heard over and over again. We've also heard three main points and I would like your comments on them.

One was that the legislation needs to be proactive, and it should cover both public and private sectors. It needs to be a stand-alone type of legislation, which was the point you mentioned earlier, Minister Mihychuk, because it takes a skill set and an expertise that aren't found in other places. If the resources aren't there within the Canadian Human Rights Commission or within the Canada labour department, then those things don't get done.

We heard that in the first round in 2004, the private sector employers did support it with some reservations, but contained in those recommendations there was a flexibility with regard to employer size and whatnot. I think the other point to make is that the complaint-based process allowed employers, when there were settlements for pay equity, to pay less—50 cents on the dollar—for settlements, and that means that in some ways there was a bargaining away of pay equity, and you can imagine what that would be like if you'd been waiting for 30 years for pay equity and you were going to take a 50-cent dollar. That is not pay equity.

I strongly believe that this committee will provide you with guidance based on some pretty credible witnesses and some consistency in what people we've talked to have said. I would like to hear your general comments about this. The last thing is to have a timeline. We heard that in Quebec it took a little bit longer, but that's because it was one of the first and it was challenged by the unions because it was going to exclude the private sector. The private sector is now included.

Two large jurisdictions have gone ahead of us, so I think we can move forward, and it would be nice to know, point blank, if you would be supportive of stand-alone proactive pay equity legislation in this mandate. I'm asking both of you.

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

First, a policy approach for proactive pay equity is one that's very complex. It is one that involves the public sector but also federally regulated employers. Mr. Albas asked an important question. With any legislative approach we take as a government, we'll consult broadly.

Don't underestimate the importance of the consultations that this committee is doing. When you have an employer group here before this committee, it's really important. We are not operating parliamentary committees as branch plants of ministers' offices, these are important legislative creators of policy and recommendations and we respect the work you're doing.

The work you're doing is very important, but in terms of any legislative approach we take, of course there will be a broad level of consultation as part of that. I want that to be clear. But again, this committee's work and the independence of this committee is important. Don't underestimate the time required to get this right in terms of the complexity of this issue. We need to have the right data; we need to have the best methodologies.

I believe that you're studying some of the wage comparison methodologies—job to job, job to line, line to line, job to segment—and the pros and cons of each. This is an area of public policy of which I think Mr. DeCourcey said that the principle is simple. We all understand that as a committee, as a Parliament. Getting it right is the part that in something as big as the public service and all federally regulated industries is really important.

Our parliamentary secretary at Treasury Board, Joyce Murray, has experience as a provincial minister in British Columbia, as does Minister Mihychuk. We can learn from and draw from those examples of provincial governments in Canada, and governments in other countries, as we look at the best way to move forward. That should be part of a process that is more comprehensive.

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

It's fair to say that the previous complaints-based system was a failure, in that we've seen cases that took 15 years, 30 years, to go through the system at enormous costs and pain through that whole process. A proactive approach seems to be working in Ontario and Quebec. I think you're getting first-hand knowledge from the very best of individuals from across the country. We're anxious to hear what you have to say, and of course we'll be consulting with unions, with the private sector, with youth, and of course, with our partners in the private sector.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you very much.

The next question will go to Mr. DeCourcey for seven minutes.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you again, Madam Chair.

Once again, I appreciate the acknowledgement of the complexity around the implementation of pay equity. I would like to echo the comments of Mr. Albas, that this is a great committee and there has been a lot of good witness testimony come before us, and largely, there has been a commitment shown from the members here to make sure we get this right and put in place the right proactive model, including potential legislative and other steps to do that.

Looking at some of the provincial legislation, both Quebec and Ontario, that covers public and private sectors, as well as some of the other provinces that cover the public sector, is either ministry looking at lessons that can be learned from the provinces? Is there any advice that you can provide to us of where we should look for some of those provincial models to help with our final recommendations?

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

I know that we look forward to the results of the Ontario wage gap review. That will help to inform us. As a committee, are you looking at some provincial examples as well, in terms of Quebec and Ontario?

It would be very helpful to us to identify any best practices or approaches that can help inform our way forward from this committee. That would be helpful. As I said, that's one of the things we're looking forward to in terms of Ontario's wage gap review, which is forthcoming. We're expecting that in the autumn.

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

Absolutely, we're going to look at best practices, but some jurisdictions have been doing this for the 20 to 30 years that they've been through the process. Some knowledge has already been gained. The Human Resources Professionals Association's white paper is obviously timely. It's brand new; it was recently issued.

We'll look at international best practices with regard to pay equity. In the case of Sweden, the 2009 Discrimination Act requires employers and employees to endeavour to equalize and prevent differences in pay and other terms of employment between men and women who perform work. In France, there is the 2006 act on equal pay between men and women. Switzerland has an act that they brought in from 1994, the federal act on public procurement. In the U.K., firms are encouraged to implement gender-neutral job evaluation schemes.

I think we have an opportunity to look at a broad-based experience from various jurisdictions, and it will help us make one of the best systems possible.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Something else we've heard from groups whom I would characterize as proponents of the 2004 report is recommending that government perhaps look to that report but try to implement it in a staged approach, perhaps with more flexibility, in order to make working through the process of implementation more palatable.

Have you heard that type of testimony in your outreach and consultations, in delving into this file?

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

Just to that point concerning flexibility, the federal private sector is dominated by small and medium-sized firms with fewer than 100 employees. In working with those firms and hearing concerns, and in moving forward while recognizing that there are challenges potentially faced by smaller employers, I think we have to listen to those concerns.

The Bilson report is very helpful in terms of informing, but again, Bilson recognized the complexity of this. I mentioned earlier the importance, for instance, for committees dealing with pay equity to have a balance between employers and employees. I think that's important, and it may not have been part of Bilson at that time. It's something I would urge the committee to consider.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Julie, did you have a question?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I'm not sure. I have a comment.

[A voice]

Sonia has a question.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

My question is for Minister Brison.

Yesterday we had testimony from Serena Fong from Catalyst, and we heard about Gap Inc. We also had testimony from bankers who adopt their own living wage to ensure pay equity.

Do you see voluntary models such as these as being effective?

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

The issue around a living wage.... We often don't recognize excellence in social progress as practised or implemented by corporate Canada; we sometimes overlook it.

I heard a really good one a while ago. Craig Alexander was chief economist of TD Bank. He got a phone call one time from Ed Clark, who was CEO of the bank. He wanted to do an analysis within the TD Bank of the lowest-paid people in their branches to consider whether they were receiving a living wage, taking into account cost of living and other factors. The analysis came back, and people got a pay raise at the lower end; it came from people at the higher end. That was from a bank CEO at one of Canada's largest and most successful banks.

Inequality is bad socially. It's bad economically as well. This is something that's really important. I'm getting off topic a little bit. I'm sorry about that, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

You are also out of time, Minister.

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

There are rapid changes in terms of automation and globalization, and governments are going to have to have some level of foresight and analysis in terms of what the impact will be. We talk about gender-based analysis in terms of our decisions here. We should also have gender-based analysis in terms of looking ahead at the global trends in terms of the nature of work and consider how we can pre-emptively approach social and economic policy, including education, skills, and training.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you very much.

My apologies for having to cut you off on several questions, but we do want to make sure that it's fair for all the members to be able to ask questions.

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

I apologize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

That finishes that round of questioning. We have a couple of minutes left if you would like to more fulsomely reply to any of the questions you received. If you'd wish to have some closing statements or reply to those questions now, this is your opportunity.

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

I just want to encourage you to work on the file and work quickly. We're anxious to hear about and to get your report. Clearly, from the enthusiasm we saw in the House, this is something that a lot of our members care about. I know that the public in general is watching your activities with great interest.

Thank you very much for doing this.

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

I want to thank the committee too. I must say I have served in opposition, I've served in government, and I've been on parliamentary committees a lot over the years. This one seems to have a good sense of co-operation, collaboration, and non-partisanship. I think that's great. We do value the work of parliamentary committees and we look forward to the results of this.

I'll leave you with a couple of points. Pay equity reform is only part of the solution to the gender wage gap. Minister Hajdu pointed out some of the other areas, and I think we've had some discussion in terms of how to close that gap. Pay equity is part of that. Certainly any pay equity reform needs to manage the complexity both on the policy side but also on the implementation side.

We as politicians tend to focus 90% of our effort on policy and about 10% on implementation. That's why a lot of times we get great policy and lousy implementation, and we need to get the implementation right on this. It's really important even for the classification of jobs and these things. There are enormous complexities to this, and your work can actually help, including the choice of evaluation tools over the long term and having some flexibility in those.

Lastly, on the issue of compliance, in a proactive model the expectation will be that all employers comply within established time frames. The experience in other jurisdictions indicates that non-compliance is a significant problem. I'd like us to understand where that non-compliance is and what's generating it. Let's not ignore challenges in terms of the implementation in other jurisdictions, and let's be honest about what the challenges are here and deal with them as we move forward. If we don't, then this will be an exercise in policy, and again, getting the implementation of this is critically important because I think we all broadly agree on the policy imperative.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here and I look forward to your report and to working with you as we move forward as a Parliament on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you very much for this very dynamic discussion.

It was a very engaging discussion. Thank you to the ministers. Thank you to the members for adding a special day for this committee meeting, and we will see all of you tomorrow at 5:30.

Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.