Status of Women Committee on June 4th, 2009

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

Thank you very much. Thank you all for being here.

I have a couple of quick questions, but I would like to begin by stating, in addition to Ms. Hoeppner's point, that quite some time ago I tried to get information in regard to just how much the Government of Canada had spent over the years in challenging pay equity settlements. It wasn't available. I was not able to get that information, but I had a profound sense that the taxpayer had been billed a considerable amount of money.

I quite agree that in challenging pay equity, very often it's the lawyers who get rich and it's women who are disadvantaged.

I have some quick questions. The first is whether any of you were consulted when the government brought forward the PSECA. Were you part of the consultation process at all?

[Joanna Birenbaum]

No.

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

Did you regard that as an oversight by government, or would it have been better had they consulted with you?

[Joanna Birenbaum]

I think what that question points to is the overall process, which Susan referred to in her comments. There was a huge public investment in the pay equity task force, with hundreds and hundreds of hours, submissions, and government investment in that process. This legislation was rushed through without apparent consultations or discussions about whether this current legislation would better achieve the ends than the recommendations in the pay equity task force. There's certainly no evidence that this legislation is in any way superior, and as we've submitted today, all of the evidence is that it is not.

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

I'd like to come back to this question of collective bargaining. One of the things that's been established quite clearly in international law and in our discussions here is that pay equity is a human right.

Quite simply, it is a human right, and in the collective bargaining process there are a lot of things on the table—wages, benefits, and working hours. The risk is that in that process of negotiation, the employer could quite easily say, “All right, I'll raise wages a bit, and I'll give you benefits in terms of dental care, but pay equity is strictly off the table.” Can that happen? Is that a real possibility?

[Susan Russell]

I believe—

[Prof. Margot Young]

It can absolutely happen. That's the concern. The notion of rights encodes an idea of trumps: an entitlement that you don't trade away and that you get regardless simply by virtue of your status as a human person deserving of dignity and equal respect. To put it as another item with other items on a bargaining table is really to say that it's not a right.

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

Ms. Russell, did you have a comment?

[Susan Russell]

Yes. I believe that pay equity is a fundamental right, and it's very easy to get it bargained away. A lot of the discourse around this table about court challenges, unions, and so on and so forth is all about democracy, and I have to tell you that democracy is not efficient, but it's what we have and it's what we aspire to.

The court challenges may not be the best way, but it's been a shining international example of what Canada could do to speak for the less fortunate and to bring issues forward before the government. I fear that when people lose rights, when they lose protections, democratic principles are at risk.

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

Thank you.

We're talking about human rights here. I know there has been a challenge against this piece of legislation. I'm wondering about the legal implications, therefore, of the PSECA. Does it indeed violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[A voice]

Yes, it does.

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

How so?

[Joanna Birenbaum]

Well, on a number of grounds, but LEAF's focus would be on the equality rights provision: that the legislation perpetuates and entrenches sex-based wage discrimination, and as a result, it falls afoul of the equality rights guarantee.

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

Okay.

Professor Young, there was a reference made to the letter to the Prime Minister that you and a significant number of other quite noteworthy Canadians signed in February. Have you received a response to that letter? It's quite some time ago now that it was sent. If not, does that concern you? What does that say?

[Prof. Margot Young]

Well, no, I haven't received a response as a signatory, and to my knowledge, none of the other signatories has either. That distresses me, to tell you the truth.

To send a letter off to my Prime Minister, and in particular a letter that had so many signatures on it of so many women who have been significant—and I'm not including myself—in key sectors of Canadian society and the struggle for women's equality.... I think it's shameful to not get a response. I think this letter was an important and powerful statement of concern by leaders with expertise on women's equality and pay equity in particular. To have it fall with no response is really shocking.

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

I want to get back to the act itself. What stipulations within the PSECA would encourage employers to ensure the equal wages of their employees? What types of penalties, for example, would the Public Service Labour Relations Board impose on employers who fail in their pay equity obligations?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

We have time for a very short answer.

You have about 20 seconds, please.

[Joanna Birenbaum]

It's not clear if it will ever get to the board, particularly if it has to get there by way of individual complaints.

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

Are there penalties for employers? Is that in the act at all? Did you see that in the act?

[Joanna Birenbaum]

My understanding is that it's not specified.

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

So employers are not compelled.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Mathyssen.

We'll now move to our second round of questioning.

Ms. Neville, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you. I think I'm sharing my time with my colleague, Mr. Volpe.

I want to take a different approach--somewhat following up on Ms. Mathyssen's line of questioning--that I was thinking of particularly as Ms. Birenbaum was making her presentation.

At least two of you are lawyers, and I guess I'm asking for some legal input. What I am struck by increasingly is the vulnerability of this legislation to appeals in the courts.

Is that a fair comment?

[Prof. Margot Young]

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

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

I'm struck by the vulnerability of this legislation to legal appeals, legal remedies, or challenges. I'm hearing that it is not constitutional, that it is not in line with our international commitments, that it is not in line with previous commitments.

How vulnerable is this legislation?