Pay Equity Committee on May 4th, 2016

[Prof. Marie-Thérèse Chicha]

Yes, in fact, the comparative analysis I think your committee.... I devoted a chapter to best practices.

I think what is essential as a best practice, if you can call it that, is the pay equity commission. Without a pay equity commission, everyone would be confused, work would not go swiftly, etc. A pay equity commission is essential.

Another important element is the joint participation. As Mr. Durber said, it's a mistake in Quebec that we don't have joint participation in small enterprises. I agree with him. Joint participation will make the process much easier and much more adapted to the enterprise. Something else is training, and in Quebec there is a compulsory training that employers should give to members of their pay equity committee so they are able to do their work, because we cannot say that pay equity is not a technical job. It's technical. You need training if you want to do it well.

Another important element is transparency. In a survey I did in Quebec with those who are responsible for pay equity implementation, they mentioned that when employees or employee representatives think the employer is hiding some data, in the end they don't have confidence in the results, and that may cause conflicts.

Another important element is communication. The communication with the employees must be done well so they understand what is going on and they don't have an expectation that all the women in the enterprise will have a raise of 10% of their salary. Communication will lay the groundwork for a better understanding and acceptance by employees.

These are some of the most important best practices.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Great. I do have one more question.

The world of work is changing. We have a lot more precarious work. We have a lot more short-term work, and contracts. Because we're also thinking about the world moving forward, is there anything specific we need to be considering as we're thinking about pay equity legislation?

This is for anyone who would like to respond. Is there anything we need to think about to accommodate that?

[Prof. Marie-Thérèse Chicha]

I think that for precarious workers, it's much harder for them to mention they need to have pay equity. There are discriminatory practices. They need some support from either the pay equity commission or other bodies; otherwise, they won't be able to benefit from the pay equity due to their vulnerable situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Mr. Durber.

[Paul Durber]

I think one of the difficulties we have in the federal sphere is that we have one extraordinarily large employer. We have a number of crown corporations, many of whom, I would say, are following good practices. I would humbly suggest the federal employer has fallen behind. The last time it looked at pay equity was 1985 to 1989. In the meantime, their tools for valuing work date from the 1960s generally. They do not measure skills, efforts, responsibilities, and working conditions, all of them. They don't.

There are perhaps six in all that comply with pay equity legislation out of 72. I don't know whether that's the tail of the dog because it's such a large employer, but I would say that is a major challenge that requires a focus on the part of the federal employer that will only come through legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Ms. Davis, did you want to add something?

[Linda Davis]

I would like to say that the precarious workers of the 21st century really have no voice in terms of the types of employment they are engaged in, contract work, and things like that.

I think one of the key areas we can help is trying to bring those workers together in some form, to give them some sort of collective voice so that they can advocate for their work environment, access to benefits, and all of those things.

Those are key issues that add to the wage gap, the value of the workplace, and the value of the work being done. I think it's one of the key areas we have to look at going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you.

We have a question from Ms. Benson.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

It's quick one, I think.

Mr. Durber, I wrote down a comment you made about past pay equity exemptions.

[Paul Durber]

Right. What does that mean?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Yes. Thank you.

[Paul Durber]

Well, there may be claims by employers, notably, that they have done pay equity, and that therefore it's unfair to put more demands on them.

That happened in Quebec. All that is needed there is a process for looking at what has actually happened. Do they have a plan in place? Is it maintained? Do they, for example, have an audit mechanism for figuring out where they stand in terms of equal pay for work of equal value?

That may or may not have to be in legislation. It could be in policy. It's certainly part of what Madam Chicha talked about in terms of a strong commission and strong reporting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Do the others want to answer that question?

Madam Chicha.

[Prof. Marie-Thérèse Chicha]

I would like to add something. Maybe it's not directly in connection with the question that was asked; it's about the reporting.

You talked a lot about reporting, and I was not able to mention what reporting is in Quebec.

In Quebec, every year a report must be sent by each employer. It's a very short form, just one page with three or four questions. Have you done pay equity? Have you maintained pay equity? These are the sorts of questions.

This allowed the commission to say, as I mentioned, that 94% of employers with 100 employees or more applied the Quebec Pay Equity Act.

Reporting is very important, as the head of the Pay Equity Commission of Ontario also said, because it reminds the employer that they have to do some work. If they don't do it, there are very high penalties they have to pay for this. I think it's not a very heavy burden, but it's important to do.

In Sweden, every three years the employer must submit a report that is much more detailed than the one I talked about, but I think it's really essential to have one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you.

Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks.

There's a comment Ms. Davis made that struck my interest in terms of the caregiver penalties versus what we were looking at through our campaign as a government. We are looking at implementing an EI system that will have a care program that will allow the sharing of time off, with either two six-month periods or one eighteen-month period.

We're looking at the EI system differently and looking at trying to improve care, but I think a bigger issue is the aging population and the retirement wave hitting. That hasn't been part of this discussion,

I'm bouncing a couple of topics around here. Have you seen the EI system we've been talking about, and do you have a comment on what we were proposing during our campaign?

[Linda Davis]

I haven't looked specifically at that EI system, but I would say one of the shortfalls of EI has always been the inflexibility of taking time off, being able to take off short periods of time and be compensated for that.

In Ontario we have job protection for short periods of time for caregiver leaves, but there's no compensation for that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Right.

[Linda Davis]

Sometimes we see that the caregiving leaves are even shorter if you don't have somebody who's critically ill. You may have family members who are just somewhat ill.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Right.

[Linda Davis]

If I can just elaborate, the care penalty really refers to that penalty you get if you go into a caring profession that is undervalued and underpaid but you choose to do that because you care about the individuals, whether it's child care or home care. You sacrifice pay. Women do this all the time and men sometimes do as well. That's the care penalty.

The caregiver penalty is that penalty for taking time off to take care of someone who is sick and that, again, tends to be done by women.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Perfect. Thank you for clarifying that.

I mentioned the retirement wave, and I think we're sitting at a very opportune time to make changes when we have a large number of people exiting the workplace. We have to look at our existing workplace and look at it differently, and this applies to immigrants who aren't being paid what born Canadians are being paid. It applies to people with disabilities.

Hopefully, through our discussions and going forward, we'll be able to address not only the women's inequities but all the other inequities that are sitting there for the workforce that we have to draw from.

That's going to be quite the challenge in the next 10 years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Are there any other questions?

Ms. Benson.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

I have a quick one for both Mr. Durber and Madam Chicha.

If we were going to give the federal government some advice on a time period in which we would like them to have pay equity implemented, how long do you think it should take for them to create the legislation and implement it?

I can go to Mr. Durber first and then Madam Chicha.

[Paul Durber]

There are obviously two phases for legislation. One is getting something passed and the other is having a commission in place. I think it takes a little longer sometimes to put the organization into place, to find the expertise, and to ensure the appropriate leadership. I would suspect further consultation on the legislation, etc., is likely to take you six months to a year.

I'm sure you are better placed to know about those political realities than I am, but I can say from my experience in helping to organize various places that it does take six months to a year to recruit the appropriate people, to determine what your organizational plan is, to ensure with government that you are really clear on the mandate, and to actually have people in place so that the right signals can be sent. I would say probably a year and a half to two years.