Science and Research Committee on March 30th, 2023

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I would like to get back to the comments by Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

I believe that as the study would progress on pay equity with respect to gender and diversity, that would come out when we're talking about the witnesses. We could hear the witnesses' testimony, and then when our subsequent report is written, it could be taken into consideration in the writing of the report that we understand that this issue is certainly determined by or under the purview of Quebec and the provinces, but I don't think that should preclude us from hearing from the witnesses and hearing what they say.

I think the report could sum up recognition of that in any recommendations, saying that this is what we would recommend in full recognition that we don't have the ultimate say in this as the federal government. There is national pay equity legislation—there has been for years—with respect to work of equal value, so I do think there is a role for the federal government to be reviewing this, because it has come up time and time again in various testimonies that this is a serious issue and a problem that is affecting the retention of researchers to do this valuable work here in Canada.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Next up is Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was simply going to reiterate my proposals to ensure that they are clear to all committee members. I agree with the suggested order and, if we want to plan two studies, I don't see a problem with that.

It's not that the pay equity issue is not important. The problem is that we're here in the committee that is making recommendations to the federal government. So we want to conduct a study and make recommendations on something that we will not be able to change.

The people I represent did not elect me to change the colours of the walls in schools. Pay equity is a very important matter. However, the federal government can't change pay legislation in universities across Canada. Where the federal government can really change the legislation is through the contracts it awards. I have no objection to that. I support that 100% and we're going to study that issue.

However, I refuse to proceed with a study and make recommendations on something that the federal government can't change, not because it's not an important issue, but because it's not within our jurisdiction.

I think it's important to understand the limits of our roles and responsibilities. I would even invite analysts to give us their opinion. What can the government really control under the act, and what can the federal government change in terms of pay equity in educational institutions?

I'd like to hear their unbiased and objective comments so that they can clarify things for us in our important work on this committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Mr. Lauzon is next.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do understand the question being raised by my colleague. However, it's not the first time we've received witnesses who are indirectly connected to issues in order to give us a better understanding of them. Welcoming witnesses to speak to us about pay equity in the provincial systems will give us a better understanding of the system, and of programs linked to the federal government.

Witnesses are people who come to inform us of the situation they are in, but do not necessarily make recommendations that are directly applicable to federal organizations. Testimony is a consultation tool to enhance what we know so that we can make better decisions pertaining to programs involving the federal government.

In this instance, We can feel better about ourselves through comparison with others, and its by seeing what is done elsewhere, whether positive or not, that we can make better decisions. However, if we decide today not to look elsewhere, we will make it impossible to be better in our field of expertise.

I'd like to thank my colleague, who has agreed that the committee should look into the studies proposed in the two motions. However, the second motion is broad enough to allow the invitation of witnesses who are directly linked to the federal government, if desired. However, the motion would also allow the NDP, the Conservatives and the Liberals to invite other witnesses to assist us in understanding the overall situation.

We should therefore proceed with the motion as proposed by Ms. Bradford.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

All right. I'm seeing that there are no other questions.

Maxime, do you have one more?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Could our analysts answer the questions I asked a short while ago?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

I recognize the analysts.

[Grégoire Gayard, Committee Researcher]

As for what the federal government can do, the key act is the Pay Equity Act, which affects the federal sector, as you were saying. This was raised earlier.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

My question was whether the issue of pay equity in Canadian universities was a federal government jurisdiction; yes or no?

[Grégoire Gayard]

It's hard to answer with a yes or no because it's rather more complex than that.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Allow me to reformulate my question. In Canadian universities, is pay administration, other than for federal contracts, a jurisdiction of the federal government?

[Grégoire Gayard]

It's not covered by the Pay Equity Act.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Madam Diab, your hand was up. Is that still the case?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Listen, I would simply like to say that I'm not sure it's fair or appropriate to put the analysts on the spot sometimes. I also believe the same question was asked when we met last meeting. I believe they've done their best to answer right now, based on their knowledge, I guess, and I'm not sure it's really their place to do so. They haven't done any research on it. We haven't asked them to.

I think that's kind of what we want to do in this study—to look at what's been asked but also go beyond that. I'm pretty sure all of that will come out in our study. Obviously, what the federal government can't control it can't control, but I do believe a federal government can give a lot of support, whether it be through funding or otherwise. There are other ways to do that. I think we need to look at the universities, the colleges, the students at all levels, the professors and everyone else, because this is pretty important. Again, I believe it will all come out in the study. As for what cannot be done, that's fine; we'll find all that out.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know if it's appropriate to put all those questions to the analysts again.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

We have a number of speakers now. It will be Ms. Bradford and then Mr. Lobb.

Just as a brief comment from the chair, as much as I don't have a say in this and it's up to you guys, I think these are some of the reasons that we don't extend studies or schedule them out fully until we have fully baked in what the study will be.

Once again, it's up to the members of this committee to decide on different motions and how we this play out.

Right now Ms. Bradford has the floor.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I'd like to call the question, please.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Ms. Bradford would like to call the question.

Go ahead, Ben.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

First of all, I'd just like the Liberals to repeat the amendment to Maxime's motion. I believe the amendment is what we're talking about right now.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Yes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Could Mr. Lauzon or whoever brought that amendment read it again? It's been so long that I need a refresher.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

The amendment simply states that further to the discussions we have had, we've decided to move the Bloc's motion. As it was part of the discussion, we are asking to move on afterwards to Ms. Valerie Bradford's motion as worded.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

I think we're going to have just a little bit more debate around the table here, because it's not clear that the debate has ended.

I'll let Mr. Lobb have the floor, and then we'll have Mr. Blanchette-Joncas back.

Go ahead, Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I'm not going to judge anybody's amendment on a motion, but again, to say that we're going to do an amendment on a motion that says that we will do Ms. Bradford's motion after Mr. Blanchette-Joncas' study....

We're all in public here. Everybody's going to look pretty bad if we turn around and do a different study afterwards, if you know what I mean. To me, I want Ms. Bradford to have her study after we are finished with Maxime's study. You know, all sorts of interesting things could come out of it. I don't know that we need to do an amendment to his motion to get that done. I think we're all in agreeance.

It's all in public. It is a little beyond the norm to do an amendment to a motion on a study that will study another study after the study. Instead, I think we could all agree in public that we're going to do your study next, after this one, all in good faith. It's all in public. We could just vote. You could withdraw your amendment and we could vote on his motion and carry the day.

I mean, if anybody goes against you, they're a liar. It's in public, so it's pretty good opposition research in a re-election campaign if you're a liar on something like this. I give you my word, and I'm sure everybody else here would give you their word too. I think it's recorded as well, so it would be good on Twitter if somebody went against their word.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!