Status of Women Committee on May 28th, 2009

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Did Madame Casara or Madame Carbonneau wish to jump in?

[Claudette Charbonneau]

I'd like to try and clarify the debate by talking about the Quebec experience.

On the one hand, union organizations never maintained that the complaint process was adequate. We have struggled not to head towards negotiation, but to demand a proactive law. In Quebec, we've had both regimes. I come back to the public sector. As long as there was not a proactive law, we did what we could with negotiations. The proactive law accounted for a difference of $2 billion for women. It shows that negotiations can sometimes correct certain aspects, but it's not true that the right to pay equity is fully achieved.

On the other hand, regarding the responsibility of unions, a proactive law forces both parties to assume their responsibilities. People can submit complaints to their unions, which may refuse to act, or act in bad faith, or don't fulfil their responsibilities. But what we have now in the federal law is something else. It makes the union responsible for the payment of wages. This is a far cry from condemning a union that doesn't do its job properly, from imposing a fine on it, from compelling it comply, and getting it to think it must pay wages.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you very much.

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'll give you 10 seconds. That's all you have left.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I'll have to come back to my next series of questions on my next turn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Neville.

We're now into the five-minutes segments.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you very much.

And I want to thank all of you who are presenting here this morning.

My first question is to Mr. Farrell and to Mr. Olsen. You are obviously supportive of the current legislation that has been passed. Were you,or anybody in your organizations consulted on the drafting of this legislation?

[John Farrell]

We submitted papers to the Bilson task force. They are on the public record. We did that in 2004. As far as I know, we were not consulted directly in respect to the drafting of this legislation.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

So you had no input into the drafting of this legislation?

[John Farrell]

No.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you. I just wanted some clarity on that.

I guess my line of questioning--

[David Olsen]

Just for clarification, I do know that one of the Treasury Board witnesses, who made an earlier appearance, did say they found support for their position in the FETCO brief before the Bilson task force and presumably in Paul Weiler's testimony, which I referred to here this morning. I've read that in the committee proceedings.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I missed it, but thank you.

[David Olsen]

Thank you.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I think it was you, Mr. Olsen, who made reference to section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and said that it was problematic or troubling. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit more about what your concerns are, briefly, because I have other questions.

[David Olsen]

Certainly. I do have a problem with what's going on.

I think the public record discloses that section 11 was introduced--and I think it was in 1970 or 1977--to articulate the principle that there should not be discrimination between men and women, and that when persons were performing work of equal value they should be compensated at the same pay.

The principle was articulated, but it was left to the community to fill in the gaps. There was no distinction between a unionized and a non-unionized environment. And it has led to a lot of litigation about what exactly the principle involves. That's all.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

I guess my line of questioning is not dissimilar to Ms. Mathyssen's. I am profoundly concerned with the bargaining away of a human right.

You identify the right to collective bargaining as a human right as well. I guess I have a problem with putting this under the collective bargaining process. I have problems with the fact that an individual who has a concern is forbidden by this legislation to use the support of the union; otherwise, one or the other of them is likely to get a $50,000 fine. Can you comment on that aspect of it?

[David Olsen]

I think FETCO would agree. There's no debate. No one is challenging that, as Weiler says, both these principles are sacrosanct: freedom of association or collective bargaining and equal pay for work of equal value.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

They're really not going to be reconciled in this legislation.

[David Olsen]

I think they can be reconciled. That's what Weiler's thesis is. They have to be reconciled.

With the articulation of the principle in the statute, then the means by which one achieves it.... It makes sense to be in a unionized environment, through the collective bargaining process. That's the process by which to achieve it. That's the process by which all terms and conditions of employment are established.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

But under this legislation, a person with a concern doesn't.... There's a heavy penalty.

I'd like to hear comments from our other two witnesses, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 20 seconds left, Madam Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Madame Carbonneau, you have 30 seconds in which to respond.

[Danielle Casara]

It's irreconcilable.