Evidence of meeting #20 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was human.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1 p.m.
Legal Counsel, National Office, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
There are different ways for unions to defend their members outside the very rigid framework of this bill.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Would it not be better for governments, regardless of the order, to negotiate with public sector unions—and by this I mean the Public Service of Canada—to ensure that when an offer of employment letter is signed, equity is clearly mentioned, and that they do not have to deal with a complaint three, four or five years down the road?
It would be more proactive for the union and the government, or any other employer, to have pay equity clearly acknowledged on paper, because this can be verified. If a man earns $55,000 and I do the same job as he does and I also earn $55,000, when I sign my offer of employment letter, the government and the union will have signed off on it at the same time.
1 p.m.
General Counsel, National Office, Legal Department, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
I'd like to say something, Madam Chair.
The key issue here is that the proposed legislation forces unions to negotiate with the government and to use fundamental rights such as the right to pay equity as a bargaining chip to secure other advantages for their members. It forces unions to take an overall approach to collective bargaining. Considerable sums of money are on the table. The employer asks the union to choose between the rights of its female members and those of its other members. This type of choice is unacceptable and that is why we are opposed to the bill.
We are all in favour of negotiating certain aspects of this issue. That is what the province of Ontario is doing, but in their case, pay equity is being negotiated separately, not as part of the overall bargaining process. That is the difference.
1 p.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank you for being here and presenting to this committee. I think it's a very important subject.
We've heard the issue about the prolonged time it's taken in the past for pay equity resolutions and the cost involved. Would those be resolved by adopting the 2004 report from the Pay Equity Task Force?
1:05 p.m.
Women's and Human Rights Officer, Membership Programs Branch, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Yes, we think proactive legislation would resolve this issue, because you're addressing pay equity before a complaint. You're actually trying to encourage, if not force, the employer to do the pay equity exercise to evaluate the compensation practices.
Quebec has similar legislation to Ontario. Of employers who did do their pay equity exercise, 85% said in a survey that if it weren't for the legislation they wouldn't have done it. So a proactive pay equity law really does make a difference. Instead of forcing victims of discrimination to file complaints, it forces employers who actually have the control of their pay practices to review them and to comply with the human rights of women.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you.
Ms. Ducharme, you were talking about the five or so years when presentations were made to the task force and your sense that there were those in the private sector who did not ever want to see proactive pay equity. We know there is proactive pay equity in Ontario, in Manitoba, and in other provinces. What has the effect been? Have employers been disadvantaged in those provinces? Has pay equity been a negative?
1:05 p.m.
National Executive Vice-President, Executive Office, Public Service Alliance of Canada
As far as I know, employers continue to employ--unless they're in the auto sector. People are better paid in those jurisdictions. Women are better paid than they are in other jurisdictions where there is no proactive pay equity legislation, so they have a higher standard of living.
1:05 p.m.
National Executive Vice-President, Executive Office, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Absolutely. Women are taxpayers.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Under the new legislation, only individuals will be able to bring pay equity complaints forward. They can't have the help of their unions or employers. In fact, there's a $10,000 fine for employers and a $50,000 fine for unions. What is your response to these fines?
1:05 p.m.
National Executive Vice-President, Executive Office, Public Service Alliance of Canada
From an organizational perspective, I think this is mean-spirited and punitive. I think this shows the true sentiment behind the government that wrote this piece of legislation. This isn't about improving pay equity, access to pay equity, or speeding up the pay equity process. It's about stifling the rights of women who work for the federal public sector—their human rights, their ability to access equal pay for work of equal value. It targets unions that have had success in fighting the Government of Canada on behalf of their members.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Bill C-10 uses “equitable compensation” instead of “pay equity”. All provincial pay equity legislation uses the term “pay equity”. What are the implications of calling it “equitable compensation” instead of good old proactive “pay equity”?
1:05 p.m.
Legal Counsel, National Office, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
When I started my presentation, I started talking about what pay equity means. I wouldn't want to assume what the government was intending by using that title, but we can see from the act that this is not pay equity. It is not achieving it in any way. Perhaps that's the only appropriate thing—that it's not actually called the Pay Equity Act or pay equity legislation. I don't pretend to understand their motivations, but we're certainly a long way from effective pay equity legislation.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
There was a question raised about the government's saying that their act was based on the Ontario act. The minister also insisted that it was based on the Manitoba act. It's created a great deal of confusion. With respect to Manitoba, there was some discussion about negotiations for pay equity occurring at the bargaining table. I wonder if you could clarify that. This was the position that the government insisted was the reality—that this was like the Manitoba act and they bargained for pay equity during collective agreements.
1:10 p.m.
Women's and Human Rights Officer, Membership Programs Branch, Public Service Alliance of Canada
The only similarity with Manitoba's pay equity law is that the law applies only to public sector workers. There has been a lot of misrepresentation about how this act resembles provincial legislation. In fact, PSAC has produced a two-page document on the differences between this act and the Ontario act. If we can, we'll provide a copy to the clerk. At this time, we have only the English version, but we'll send you the French version by the end of the day. I'm sure it will respond to a lot of the questions that members have.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I want to apologize to the witnesses. The meeting was supposed to end at 1 p.m. For various reasons, we've gone over by about five or ten minutes. Many members have had to leave, and I know they didn't leave because they didn't want to hear or participate. It was purely because many people have one o'clock time commitments.
I want to thank you for coming today.
Has someone moved to adjourn?
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
1:10 p.m.
An hon. member
It has been adopted.
