Pay Equity Committee on May 3rd, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Minister Brison, did you want to respond?

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

One of the things that I'm very interested in as a policy approach to this is name-blind hiring. This is something that the government of the U.K. has implemented and moved forward with. Effectively when that government is doing a job search, when people apply, their CV is there but their name is not there until further on in the discussion. What this means is that women who might be disadvantaged by somebody in an interview, or in a consideration process, or people who may have a name that is, for an anglophone in a traditional setting, difficult to pronounce, or for whatever reason, these people aren't discriminated against.

I find name-blind recruitment a very compelling and interesting model, and it is one that at present in the Treasury Board we are looking at quite seriously in terms of how it's working in other places. I think it could really make a difference for us to consider here in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you very much, Minister.

We will now go to our next question, and it's Ms. Stubbs for five minutes.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you.

Thank you, Ministers, for being here today.

I have a question related a little bit to some testimony from a witness in yesterday's committee. She had said that one of the best practices of companies that are successful at achieving and maintaining pay equity is pay transparency, along—she emphasized—with consistent monitoring and enforcement, and that this is one of the practices that set apart companies that are successful at maintaining pay equity.

Just given your comments on your view about the government's leadership role on both the gender parity and particularly on gender pay equity, I just wonder, first of all, if you foresee any issues or challenges that might arise from a lack of transparency for non-unionized employees whose pay grades aren't published.

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

First, we do have transparency. Our pay scales within the Government of Canada core public service are—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Non-unionized employees that aren't public.

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

—public. We have our pay scales for public servants. These are all on the web, so there is a considerable amount of transparency around what people within the Government of Canada are paid. I would agree with the importance of transparency. That's something we're committed to as a government, but it is something in terms of pay scales that is already addressed within the Government of Canada.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Given the complexity and the division between what are considered the private sector public employees and the public sector employees, I think there are differences in terms of transparency and the publishing of pay grades. I'm wondering about your thoughts on those complexities and how you'd deal with that.

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

Maybe Minister Mihychuk can answer that.

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

There would be a fairly high degree of sensitivity from the private sector on disclosing all pay wages. I think what we learned from past labour legislation, or other initiatives, was that we should try to build agreement and consensus, and move without causing significant disruptions. For the private sector this is clearly something that is confidential. I've heard from business leaders that this is not an area they're looking to divulge, but on the public sector, as my colleague indicated, our wages are open and quite transparent, and for many unions that's also the case.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Minister.

I have a question on the issue of federal contractors, because it's been commented on here on both counts in terms of both gender parity and gender pay equity. I'd welcome comments from both ministers on whether they foresee—particularly if there's the implementation of a proactive pay equity regime for both gender parity and gender pay equity, and given your government's stated commitment to leadership on this issue—that those measures would become conditions for private sector recipients of federal contracts, subsidies, and grants?

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

Do you want to start, or should I?

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

Sure. I understand why the Bilson report was interested in this issue in using the federal contractors program as a way of increasing the number of organizations that would be subject to a new pay equity regime. All contractors in the federal contractors program are under provincial jurisdiction. Over 77% are headquartered in Ontario or Quebec, and that would cover 84% of the employees. We need to give some careful thought to that and work with our provincial partners. As with so many of these issues, it's one we would address with other levels of governments, as well.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Do you foresee making these measures a condition for any potential federal public subsidization or grant to either federal contractors or private sector organizations?

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

We'd be interested in your work at the committee on this, and if this is something you would consider or recommend. We're looking at your recommendations, but we're also taking into account the witness testimony of this committee. These hearings are not only informing your deliberations as a committee, but we're paying attention to them and benefiting from the work that you're doing, so we're interested.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you very much.

We're on to our next question with Ms. Dzerowicz for five minutes.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a couple of questions. The first is to Minister Mihychuk, although I always welcome any wise words from Minister Brison. In talking about scope, we've talked quite a bit about what the scope of any type of proactive pay equity model might include. One of the recommendations from the Bilson report is that all employees within the federal jurisdiction should be covered, including non-unionized, temporary workers, employees of Parliament, and federal contractors. I want to know if you had any thoughts on the scope, and what this committee should consider? That's my first question.

I'm also going to ask a question to Minister Brison. Minister Brison, you indicated any type of pay equity legislation will have wide-ranging fiscal implications. Is there anything you could share with us on that front? If there's some data or more information, I'd be grateful if you could share that with the committee.

Thanks so much.

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

Thank you very much.

I'll start out with the issue of who should be covered in something like pay equity. I actually think it's related to job type, not whether you are unionized or not unionized, or whether you work part time or not part time. It's basically what type of job you do, and that's where the analysis needs to occur.

In terms of federal contractors as well, it's important to note that in Ontario and Quebec there's a proactive pay equity system. Of the companies that are federally regulated contractors, 84% are actually from Ontario and Quebec and have been covered by that proactive legislation. That's a fairly comprehensive number, and many of the companies are actually complying with those standards.

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

One of the things I want to mention is in terms of the Bilson recommendations. You mentioned one of the recommendations. Another one was the establishment of pay equity committees. It's important that we have a balance between employer and employees in terms of these committees. That's something that's very important to consider. It's important to have a balance between employer and employee in terms of these pay equity groups.

In terms of the figure, there's a range and they're quite dated to be honest. They're based on analysis that is really out of date. First of all, you land on a number of methodologies to use, but they all right now are based on older data. It would be folly for me to put out figures that aren't reflective of current analysis. There is a significant range in figures.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

Do you have anything for the last minute, Matt?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I'll just add the comment that it's become quite clear to us that the concept of pay equity is simple, but the process of implementation is somewhat less so. Thinking about the broad recommendations back in the 2004 report, are there any complexities that we should be thinking about as we look at those that would be of significance to Treasury Board or ESDC? Perhaps if I have time I'll comment on that again.

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

One of the things I mentioned is the pay equity committees and the balance on the pay equity committees. I think that's important. I think the notion that pay equity ought not be part of the collective bargaining process is one that's important to respect. I think that moving forward we need to ensure that we measure on an ongoing basis. We have a mechanism within government to measure progress on this on an ongoing basis. We have a tool within government to measure progress on pay equity going forward on an ongoing basis, and to monitor, assess, and advise on ways we can improve. I think that's important. It's not just a one-time thing. This is a work in progress that will continue over a longer period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you, Minister. That's your time.

We have a question now from Ms. Benson for three minutes.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you.

Minister Brison, I want to follow up on something with you. We have heard at the committee about the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, that it wasn't something people welcomed. There were lots of issues with it, in particular when it came to pay equity, because it had it as bargaining, not as a fundamental right—you mentioned that—as well as now including the market mechanism piece. That's definitely something I've heard at the committee.

I think the other piece you mentioned is the leadership role the federal government can play in a variety of areas. I guess I'm saying that this is a key place where we can step up and work in our own federally regulated area to make a difference, and have others come after. We did hear from the federally regulated private sector folks last night. They were kind of worried, and not really welcoming something.... They felt they were doing a good job, but they couldn't share with us any statistics on how well they were doing, how far they had come, and where they were going.

I just want you to comment on the importance of reporting out on how we're doing as a way to be a leader.

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

Well, you can't manage what you don't measure, so doing that within government is important. I think we can do a better job. I think federally regulated industries have a responsibility to provide good information on this. This is really important for us to understand.

I think this point of leadership, though, in terms of what we do on this as government—in terms of politics, in terms of candidates, in terms of the forming of cabinets—all makes a significant difference. I would agree with you in terms of reportage. We ought to expect better reportage on these. I've given you some of the data within government, but for a lot of it we do need better data.

I mentioned that in terms of the younger cohort, those under 35, the gap is not as great. However, there's a real issue in that the average age of new hires in the federal public service is 37. It's one of the reasons why I want us to do more in terms of attracting millennials to the public service. We have a world-class public service, but we also have the demographic reality of a lot of really great public servants who are going into retirement age. Young people and the millennials want to make a difference. You can really make a difference in the lives of Canadians in the public service. We feel that this will help in terms of gender parity as well.