Thank you very much, John.
I will repeat, just so there's no misunderstanding, that our organization unequivocally supports the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Our members have extensive experience with the current regime under section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. We've been deeply involved in these cases for decades. I've personally been involved for over 25 years in a case involving my client, Canada Post Corporation.
There are certain flaws in the current legislation—that is, section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act—that have been largely addressed in the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. This act, of course, does not apply to the federally regulated sector, so our members are not affected by this legislation. We remain under section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, we believe this act contains important principles and sound provisions that will improve the ability of employers and unions in the federal public sector to implement equitable compensation for women that is pragmatic and fair.
This legislation makes sense to FETCO because it integrates equitable compensation, or pay equity, into the collective bargaining process. Secondly, it requires that both employers and unions share responsibility for achieving equitable compensation. Thirdly, the proactive regime provides a more efficient, effective, and equitable problem-solving and dispute resolution process over that in the current Canadian Human Rights Act, which is complaint based and leads to interminable litigation.
The heart of the issue for FETCO has always been the fact that equal pay for work of equal value must be integrated with the collective bargaining process. Like equal pay, the charter freedom of association for employees and the right to a form of collective bargaining is accorded the status of a fundamental human right. Just because both are considered to be sacrosanct does not, in our view, mean they cannot be addressed together. If anything, they must be addressed together in order for both to be balanced and achieved.
I've heard it said that pay equity is not negotiable. We agree, but what we have to recognize is that the best way, many academics say, of achieving pay equity is through the collective bargaining process. That's the forum where wages and benefits are set between a union and management, and in our view, that's the forum in which pay equity must be addressed.
That is the whole thesis of Professor Paul Weiler, who appeared as a witness before the Bilson task force, and we commend his paper to you. Professor Weiler, as you may know, was a famous Canadian academic. He was chair of the British Columbia Labour Relations Board and an expert on comparable worth in the United States while he was at Harvard University, and we do commend his thesis to you.
Section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is poorly drafted. It articulates the general principle that it's discriminatory to pay different wages to men and women performing work of equal value. It has routinely and strategically been leveraged by trade unions as a means by which to effectively reopen collective agreements that they themselves have entered into with employers, in order to then seek additional payment on behalf of female-dominated groups in their union, a second kick at the can, if you like, that flies in the face of the fundamental sanctity of collective bargaining.
Unlike in the non-unionized environment, where it is the employer that makes the unilateral decision about terms and conditions of employment and compensation, in the unionized environment it's the bilateral decision between the union and the employer that sets the terms and conditions of employment. As the Supreme Court of Canada has said, there is no room left for individual bargaining between the employer and the individual employee. It must be done through the trade union as the bargaining agent. It's the two together who decide what compensation is to be paid. If you read Weiler--and I believe this to be true--in most circumstances it is the union that plays the major role in terms of the allocation of wages and benefits that the employer agrees to. It's mostly the union that decides how that money is going to be allocated under the collective agreement.
This is the reality that, in our view, the Canadian Human Rights Act does not recognize. Both pay equity and collective bargaining cover the same activity: the level, structure, nature, and amount of compensation. In the unionized environment, these activities have to be integrated. In Weiler's view, the alternative is to destabilize collective bargaining and to allow pay equity to be used to leverage the gains reached at the bargaining table. As I say, it is elaborated more extensively in our brief and in Weiler's paper.
In Weiler's paper, he states in his conclusions that “my first conclusion is that where disputes arise in employment relationships governed by both the [Canadian Human Rights Act] and the [Canada Labour Code], the bodies responsible for applying the law must read the two statutes together in a fashion that best accommodates these two important federal legal policies”. We say this conclusion applies with equal force to the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.
Thank you.