Evidence of meeting #25 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 right.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Patricia Davidson
Ms. Young, I'm sorry; your time is up once again.
We'll now go to Madam Demers, for seven minutes, please.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much for coming here today.
Ms. Russell, you are still with the National Association of Women and the Law, even though this association had to shut down its operations further to the cuts to Status of Women Canada. Congratulations on continuing your work on a volunteer basis. That is a remarkable accomplishment. We need women like you to defend women's rights.
Ms. Birenbaum, is LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, funded by Status of Women Canada?
You spoke of the erosion of the right to equal pay for work of equal value. One thing concerns me greatly, Ms. Birenbaum, and that is the $50,000 fine that unions will have to pay if they want to defend an employee who challenges the current legislation. That employee has no recourse to assert her rights. Because of the demise of the Court Challenges Program, that individual is all alone and without help if she wants to assert her rights. What is the point of collective bargaining if the union cannot defend the individuals on whose behalf it is bargaining?
One other things also concerns me a great deal. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal used the same language and the same policies in its recent decision. For example, I read in today's Ottawa Citizen that for the past 30 years, the government has been discriminating against a group of women nurses who were in fact more like medical advisers than nurses. Eighteen months after the federal government was found guilty of discriminating against these women, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal informed this group of women that while it believed them and knew they were right, it would have to ask the government to create a nurses subgroup, a medical advisors group, within 60 days, with the salaries to be determined through collective bargaining.
I was completely floored by this. How is it that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is using the same language as the government with regard to the new legislation?
In all, 840,000 people do not fall within the scope of this act and their cases will also have to be reviewed by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. How long will that process take? I find the situation quite worrisome.
What is your take on everything that is happening—and not just on recent events? We are seeing an erosion, not only from the standpoint of salary, but in every respect. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Patricia Davidson
Ms. Birenbaum, go ahead quickly, or we'll be running out of time again.
11:45 a.m.
Director of Litigation, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
I agree. There's a significant concern, as you identified; it's a foundational, constitutional principle that a right must have a remedy. Under the current PSECA regime, there is no remedy for women, particularly the most vulnerable and most marginalized women. There's no right to pay equity under this regime following that line of reasoning. One of the reasons you've identified there is no remedy is that marginalized women are simply going to be unable to bring large systemic cases before an expert body. It's simply impossible. I agree it's a significant concern, and there's a larger pattern currently in terms of women's access to justice, whether it's through cuts to legal aid or the elimination of the court challenges program. These are all very significant issues, I agree.
11:50 a.m.
Prof. Margot Young
I would add to that as well the broader context of cuts that implicate women's access to justice generally. This is a specific concern. It's a concern as well because the complaint process is an individual one. Complaints about pay equity by definition are group complaints. That's the best frame to get the most accurate and informed picture of the pay equity issues. That is simply no longer permitted under this new legislation.
The broader concern you raise about the contamination more widely of the recasting of pay equity is a very reasonable and important one to raise. Although we still talk about pay equity as a right, and the government does, I think it's clear from the deterrents of this legislation that it's no longer being treated as a right. Rights are not enforceable, identified, and remedied in the way that equitable compensation purports to be by this statute.
11:50 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Federation of University Women
From the perspective of CFUW, I would say no. We just think this legislation takes away the access to pay equity because it takes away the ability to challenge, and it takes away the ability to get the kind of help that people need. There are no court challenges. Unions can't help. If people are on their own, they can't challenge the big guys. There's just no way. I don't have a lot to say, but I say it from the bottom of my heart: this really places women in a very unequal and unenviable position. They cannot access the right to pay equity.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Patricia Davidson
Madame Demers, you have about 30 seconds, if you want a very quick question.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
I'd just like to know if, in your opinion, the pay equity legislation recently updated by the Quebec government would be the ideal answer to the problems that we are currently experiencing.
11:50 a.m.
Director of Litigation, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
The legislation in Quebec is certainly far better than the PSECA, and the task force recommendations build upon the best of the Quebec and Ontario models, and that, in our submission, is the direction the federal government should go.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Patricia Davidson
Okay. Thank you very much for your questions, Madame Demers.
We'll now go to Ms. Hoeppner for seven minutes, please.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Before I ask you a question, I do think it's important that we just clarify a few things that you mentioned. This government has in fact increased funding to Status of Women by approximately 42%. We have redirected it somewhat. We want to make sure that it has a direct impact on women.
I'll give you an example that we just learned of. We just completed a study on EI benefits, and we found out that back in 2000 there was some research done on whether women would benefit from having self-employed individuals be able to receive paternity and maternity benefits. That study and that research were done in 2000, but absolutely nothing was done under the then government. We were elected in 2006. We immediately looked at this issue, brought a task force together, and we are going to be addressing the issue.
The other area that we have really acted on is matrimonial real property rights for aboriginal women. I think it needs to be clarified that we have increased funding, but we don't want to see it tied up in a lot of studies. As much as we respect and admire academic groups, our purpose and our goal are not to fund or make sure that jobs are created in academic groups. Our goal is to make sure that funding gets directly to women and to helping women on the ground. I think it's important that issue be clarified.
My question is for you, Ms. Birenbaum. Under the court challenges program, we were told by some of the groups that it actually took 18 years. We had some women sitting in court for years and years and years, being asked questions and going through really tremendous hardships. Can you just tell me as a lawyer, how much time legal counsel would be able to bill? How many hours would legal counsel be able to bill if under the court challenges program something dragged on for 18 years?
11:55 a.m.
Director of Litigation, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
I think what your question is directed at is this larger justification for the PSECA, which is that it's more efficient because there won't be any more complaints brought under the PSECA because no one's actually going to be able to bring these complaints. One of the difficulties with that justification for the legislation is that it doesn't look at why cases drag on for years and years. The reason, frequently, is that there is resistance by the respondent to the rights claim, and that's very true in the case of the pay equity claims that have dragged on.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I think you would agree that, obviously, there are a lot of lawyers making a lot of money on the backs of this program.
11:55 a.m.
Prof. Margot Young
I'm going to jump in here because I very strongly disagree with that. I would link it back to your comment about the court challenges program. I see the court challenges program as critical to making the section 15 equality guarantees of the charter available and accessible to the most marginalized groups in our society.
I want to give you an example of a case that would not have proceeded but for the availability of both the court challenges program's funding and the willingness of the lawyer who took that case to do significant pro bono work on that case, because of course the court challenges funding was never fulsome and never covered costs completely. It always relied upon lawyers contributing their own time without the range of pay that lawyers in other circumstances would receive.
I'm referring to the case of Sharon McIvor. That started in British Columbia, and recently there was a decision in McIvor's favour in B.C.'s Court of Appeal. That was the case that dealt with discrimination against women under the Indian Act, an issue that has plagued this country for decades. That case would not have proceeded but for the court challenges program. Other Sharon McIvors out there suffering under discrimination won't get their day in court without the court challenges program.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I appreciate that. We actually had a couple of witnesses, Gisèle Pageau and Barb Byers. They are both women who don't necessarily agree with our position, but they stated that many lawyers are making a lot of money on the backs of women. I think it's important, even though we might not agree on everything, that we do agree that we don't want to see women suffering. They are suffering under the current program. It's not working. We are seeing the legal community making a lot of money.
My other question is that we know that unions are the primary groups that help determine wages. We know that. Do you believe that unions play a role at all in ensuring that equitable compensation is achieved?
That's open to anybody.
11:55 a.m.
Prof. Margot Young
Yes, of course. They're the workers' representatives. They have an obligation as the workers' representatives to take those pay equity concerns to the bargaining table. That does not mean, however, that the discrimination that results in an employment context is the union's fault in the same way that it's the employer's responsibility.
To say that unions stand in the same position as the employers is not sensible.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're agreeing that unions play a role, but you're saying that once that agreement is reached, then maybe a year in, if they decide they're not happy with it, the union should not have to assume any responsibility for that agreement already having been reached. Is that correct?
They play a role--
11:55 a.m.
Prof. Margot Young
No, that's not correct. I hear someone else trying to get into this conversation.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
That means they play a role, and they can help women achieve the equitable compensation. If they do play a role, they play a role, and they should be part of the process.
11:55 a.m.
Prof. Margot Young
They already are part of the process. I guess what I would argue--and many others would argue--is that the assertion of a pay equity right ought not simply to be part of the collective bargaining process. It ought not to be thrown into the mix of all the other things that are collectively bargained for. I think that's an initial point that is part of the answer to your question.
The second point is that--
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Patricia Davidson
Once again, we're going to have to....
I'm sorry, but your time is up again. Thank you, Ms. Hoeppner.
We'll now move to Ms. Mathyssen for seven minutes, please.