Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's certainly an honour and a pleasure to be here, and thank you very much for the invitation.
I've worked in pay equity in one way or another for about 30 years, and among other things, I've also worked directly for employers, for joint parties, unions, and management. I've also done third party adjudication. Some people don't think I'm terribly independent, but that's their problem.
I've worked particularly with four frameworks that have been at issue here: two proactive ones, namely Quebec and Ontario; the complaint-driven process that existed in Quebec; as well as the federal complaint-driven recommendations of section 11. I must say I'm a great fan of the Bilson report and recommendations. I think it's very comprehensive.
This probably fits with your interests. I'd like to focus on my experience with Ontario and Quebec, and the leadership that has been offered, to talk somewhat about the implementation of proactive pay equity in the federal jurisdiction, about which I have some thoughts. Then I'll talk about replacing the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, and why, and then I have some concluding brief thoughts on issues going forward.
In terms of my views on the Ontario and Quebec legislation, I come away with two things from the Ontario legislation. The initial go at it was not as fair as it could have been, because the lowest paid male comparators ended up being the primary target for making comparisons. Whereas, in the federal jurisdiction in Quebec, it's average. Later on, the Ontario legislation was amended to include proportional value and that also is a good deal fairer.
I think one of the difficulties is that sometimes once you start, you end up having to continue. Many pay equity agreements and plans are stuck on the lowest paid male comparator. I'd urge you not to take that route and I would hope that the Ontario experience will definitely come into play there.
I mentioned that Quebec focuses on average comparisons as well as under section 11 and the reason for that, by the way, is that if you have three male jobs being paid differently, it makes more sense to be able to tell both the employer and the employee that you're being fair by taking the average, neither the maximum nor the minimum. That's a very simple concept. I don't think we need to go to the moon to figure that one out.
Ontario has exerted a great deal of leadership, particularly on the basic issue of gender neutrality. One could pause on that issue of bias and gender neutrality, because it goes to the issue of fairness in how you figure out the value of work. Unless you approach that question knowing your biases, testing all the systems, which by the way truly need testing and I'll come to that, you will not end up having the proper, supported regime for pay equity.
In this regard, I would say that the leading jurisprudence on gender neutrality comes from the pay equity hearings tribunal. I would certainly recommend, if you're doing any research in addition to Bilson, there are certain cases, such as Haldimand-Norfolk, No. 6—there is a whole bunch of them, as some employers are pretty litigious, as were nurses' associations—and Women's College Hospital, that I would recommend on that issue of gender neutrality. It's really fairly important. Also, of course, there are a number of Supreme Court of Canada decisions, going right back to 1989, and in questions we could maybe cover that, if it's of interest. I'm sure they're all referenced appropriately.
Job evaluation—you've heard the term classification—is an exceptionally difficult discipline to get hold of. It takes a great deal of detailed analysis, and consequently, because of the basis of compensation it's extremely difficult to change.
One reason for having proactive pay equity legislation is to force, and I hate to use that word, a re-examination of the very practices of how you value work. That's a technical term that follows the issues you're dealing with here, which is the stereotyping and undervaluing of women's work. Job evaluation is a key tool for doing that. Unless it's reformed, unless there are rules such as they have in Ontario and Quebec, I would venture to say that your reform won't work.
Maintenance is clearly exceptionally important. I'm so glad that you've heard from the Ontario commission. I've noted a lot of difficulty in Ontario, with some of the unions that are trying to push for maintenance, in having employers respond. I totally agree with the Ontario Pay Equity Commission that reporting is very important in the legislation.
Someone used the word transparency earlier. Having transparency on what's happening on an ongoing, continuing basis is very important. That won't happen unless there's a legislative mandate.
I know that when I was looking at the Ontario experience early on, they had to do a sample. They couldn't report on particular cases. I felt that the commission was somewhat hamstrung in what they were doing. It lowers the incentives to employers in particular—who have to pay a cost, by the way—to carry out pay equity. I would certainly support very strong measures, in whatever legislation you come up with, for gender neutrality and maintenance and real incentives.
I've covered reporting. There are reporting requirements in the Quebec legislation, which I think are very helpful.
I'd like to speak briefly about the body that you recommend to implement pay equity. I would not recommend the Canadian Human Rights Commission, even though I worked for them. As a complaint-driven organization, I think that they have the wrong culture. I would certainly support a proactive, new commission.
By the way, the Human Rights Commission has been unable to maintain its expertise, and the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act has not helped. I've mentioned that I think it ought to be abrogated. I don't think it's pay equity legislation, and I can speak more about that.
I would also like to mention issues going forward, which include proxy. We can perhaps speak a little about that. How to treat past pay equity efforts.... There would be applications for exemptions, and I think that needs to be provided for in legislation. Quebec has experience in that.
Finally, I think you need to do research on extending the grounds.