Status of Women Committee on May 28th, 2009

[John Farrell]

In certain situations where there are severe shortages of workers in particular jobs, regardless of the equity of the situation, employers are compelled, from time to time, to pay higher wages than a normal job evaluation process would deliver.

We don't disagree with you that work that women have done has been historically undervalued. You've mentioned many of the types and classifications of employees who have traditionally had undervalued work relative to certain male-dominated jobs. And the name of the game is to try to correct those inequities. But the section of the act that is dealing with market forces is really dealing with a market force exception to the general rule, as far as we can tell, where you're compelled, in order to manage your business and manage your workforce, to pay, for example, highly specialized people, where there may be a significant shortage, a lot more than you might otherwise pay them.

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

Right now, because of the reality of our economy, just in the last few months 500,000 people have lost their jobs. If we look at that, doesn't that mean market forces are going to push down wages now that there are so many people who are desperate for work?

[John Farrell]

I think that is true. Take a look at what happened to General Motors just the other day. Market forces are affecting the wages and working conditions of many employees across the country. As there's more and more unemployment, there's going to be a lot more pressure on a downward level of compensation. And it should be fairly applied on the way down, just as it should be fairly applied on the way up.

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

Somehow that doesn't give me cause for hope. I feel rather concerned about that.

I want to come back to the statement about the union and the employer being jointly responsible in terms of achieving pay equity. The problem is that the PSECA forbids unions from acting on behalf of their employees, as it does employers. For employers it's a $10,000 fine; for unions it's a $50,000 fine. How is that balanced? How is that equitable?

[John Farrell]

In fairness, we didn't have any input into the amounts of the fine.

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

You are endorsing this legislation.

[David Olsen]

We're endorsing the concept that both the employer and the trade union, for all the reasons we've given, are jointly responsible for achieving and implementing equal pay for work of equal value.

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

But we know in collective bargaining, which is the only tool that unions have, first of all, there are a whole host of other issues on the table that may preclude pay equity; and secondly, as we keep hearing over and over again, unions are not responsible for pay.

[David Olsen]

The legislation requires that both parties address that issue.

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

There is still that imbalance of $10,000 versus $50,000.

[David Olsen]

As to the difference in the fine, basically if the two parties are responsible for the outcome, then if complaints are brought, they are to be brought against both parties, right?

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

Is that to the labour board, which doesn't have the expertise to evaluate this, not like the Human Rights Commission does?

[David Olsen]

That's a whole other debate, but the Public Service Labour Relations Board has a lot of expertise--

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

But not in pay equity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Could you wrap up your answer, please, quickly?

[David Olsen]

That board has a lot of expertise. The tribunals under the Human Rights Act are usually ad hoc tribunals with no particular expertise, at least in modern experience.

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

They have been dealing with this for 25 years and the labour board has not. So can you say that?

[David Olsen]

What I'm saying is they're ad hoc--

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry. This is becoming a debate and we are well over time on it now.

I will let Ms. Hoeppner end this round. This will be the last round, because we have some work to do.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I just want to state for the record that it is important that witnesses not be judged on their gender, whether they're male or female. It is important that what witnesses say is what we take into account.

It is important as well that this does not become a political argument, because then credibility is lost. When we hear things such as “women are being bulldozed by the government” or “the government has little regard for women”, I can tell you that I find that more of a political agenda. I'm a Conservative; I represent the government, and this government and I stand for women who believe in equal treatment for women.

I wonder if Mr. Olsen can continue to speak on something he began to talk about, which was some of the things the union typically negotiates. You talked about the pool of resources they have. Out of those resources, what are some of the things that are negotiated that both the employer and the union have a responsibility to make sure are met?

[David Olsen]

I think you started to ask questions about health and safety.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Right.

[David Olsen]

Part II of the Canada Labour Code deals with occupational health and safety. It applies to both the federal private sector and the federal public sector. Canada Post's unions usually negotiate to incorporate all those provisions into the collective agreement so that they can have them enforced at rights arbitrations through the grievance process. Usually, for example, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has been successful in negotiating additional guarantees over and above the standards in part II of the Canada Labour Code.

I see the analogy.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

You see the analogy. That's where I'm going.

[David Olsen]

We have the minimum standards in part II of the Canada Labour Code. In the fact that they seek to add additional guarantees in the collective bargaining process, would one say that therefore occupational health and safety is negotiable?