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.
Director of Litigation, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
As you know, two constitutional challenges to the legislation have already been filed.
Director of Litigation, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
Oh, sorry. One was by the Public Service Alliance of Canada and one was by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.
So that litigation is already under way. I agree with you; if there isn't legislative change, those cases will wend their way through the courts.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Without the assistance of the court challenges program.
Director of Litigation, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
That's correct.
Prof. Margot Young
I'd like to add something to this discussion that I think is an important consideration.
I think it is critical that there be a challenge--under particularly section 15 of the charter--to this legislation that raises some really significant issues about women's equality. But I would also say that there are broad equality aspirations in our Constitution, aspirations of substantive equality, that the government should take to heart and implement, regardless of whether or not they think they have a piece of legislation that they can charter-proof. Section 15 of the charter is an important tool, but it's not the last word on whether we have legislation that is fair and equitable towards women.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I'm delighted to join in this debate; I guess it's more than just questions and answers.
You'll forgive me if I insinuate a quasi-ideological question inasmuch as it follows up on what one of the members of the government side asked with respect to the role of unions.
As my colleague Ms. Neville indicated, of course, if there is already a challenge before the courts on the legislation, it would appear that we are moving away from holding responsible the unions and other public and private organizations for any shortcomings in parity, in equality, whether it's in conditions or whether it's in salary or just, generally speaking, in law.
But can this be achieved? Can we work towards a system of remuneration that takes into consideration the entire package of disbursements for the public--in this case, not only women but also those who truly do believe in equality--without having a federal role through a court challenges program that sustains any challenges in the courts through legislation that would violate those principles, irrespective of the origin of the violation?
I'm asking that of Madam Birenbaum first, I guess, and then either Ms. Young or Ms. Russell, whichever of the two.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Patricia Davidson
You have about 40 seconds to reply.
Ms. Birenbaum, please.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
It's an important issue. I think they should be given more time.
Director of Litigation, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
I would just note that the suggestion that the court challenges program has benefited only lawyers is extremely controversial, and perhaps even outrageous. The court challenges program is separate from the pay equity issue in the sense that if a proactive pay equity regime, consistent with the task force recommendations, is enacted, then you have a system whereby the rights-holders have supports through either their union or their workplace, in conjunction with a well-funded, specialized pay equity body. That's why the court challenges program is a somewhat different issue.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Patricia Davidson
Thank you very much.
I'm sorry, but we've already gone over your time, Mr. Volpe.
We'll now move on to Ms. McLeod for five minutes, please.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think I need to start, as I probably have in each hearing we've had on this particular issue, with the very sincere comment that I think everyone is trying to achieve the same goal. We perhaps have a different world lens, in terms of how we can achieve it. I would really like to put on the table that this is the sincere interest of the government.
I know that democracy is not always efficient, but I also believe in a pragmatic approach to getting things done. I also believe that to truly embed equity, we have to start to make it widespread and embed it everywhere. We can't count on the expertise of a panel that has to spend years. We have to develop skills and expertise throughout Canada, in terms of doing the job and in terms of the pay equity issues. I actually believe that we can develop skills and expertise throughout.
I want to focus in on two particular issues, and I have one quick question to Ms. Birenbaum.
You mentioned aboriginal women as compared to men. I know aboriginals, period, have real challenges with employment. Do you have the statistics for aboriginal women compared to aboriginal men, in terms of that statistic that you talked about earlier? If not, that would really be appreciated.
Director of Litigation, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
I don't have them available, but I'm not sure why the comparator would be aboriginal women to aboriginal men when aboriginal men are also subject to discrimination on the basis of race.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
No, no, but it would just be of interest.
I've worked at the coal face with aboriginal communities in health care, etc., so I'm going to use an example, in terms of market forces, and perhaps you could share with me why you think this is wrong.
The nursing profession is typically female-dominated. We have nurses in our federal government system. Perhaps we're doing a classification process. Let's say they decide they will go through the whole process, and physiotherapists, who, let's say, are 50-50 male to female, end up in the same category—this is a little bit hypothetical—so here you have physiotherapists and nurses in the same category. But the nurses are in short supply. Nurses are being drained off to the United States or are being drained off throughout the world, and physiotherapists are not in such short supply. In this case, you look at women and a predominantly female profession. Are they not going to be unduly harmed by not taking into account market forces?
Market forces make some sense to me, and again I'll use that example of nurses. In this case, nurses who would actually be putting market forces into the formula would perhaps benefit from it. I open that up for some comments.
Prof. Margot Young
I can start off.
I'm not sure that your hypothetical actually captures what's at play here—and I understand hypotheticals are always hard to draw—with the concern with respect to market forces. The issue that led to the recognition of pay equity in the first place was the recognition that women enter the labour force with a vulnerability to gender discrimination, and the characterization of jobs as being considered typically female results in a devaluing of them. The bargaining power that women and groups of other vulnerable individuals have in entering into an employment relationship reflects discriminatory attitudes and presuppositions, and in fact is such that it's not a situation in which we can say that the market forces operate neutrally and without gender discrimination. The statistics we see about pay inequity between men and women are products of that process, so why would we go back to that process thinking it would remedy itself?
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, but again I would go back, perhaps, to my example.
Conservative
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
My final comment, given the fact that we're trying to create the same results, is that it would be wonderful to have, sometime down the road, some comparative analysis with the Quebec system to see who's actually achieving the results they're trying to achieve. I would really look forward to that kind of review.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Patricia Davidson
Thank you.
Now, for five minutes, could we have Monsieur Desnoyers, please?
Luc Desnoyers Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
When I first set eyes on this bill, my jaw dropped. It is unquestionably a major step backward for women who have fought for decades to build a Canadian and Quebec culture in which women's basic rights are respected.
I negotiated collective agreements for over 27 years, at a time when there was no pay equity legislation and where a power relationship prevailed during the negotiation of wages for plant workers. Often, there were gaps and injustices. When the legislation was enacted in Quebec and at the federal level, it meant employers, employees and unions could truly work to implement the legislation's provisions and reduce any inequities. Hundreds of collective agreements were successfully negotiated and the provisions of the Pay Equity Act implemented without having to pay lawyers. This was a major accomplishment and a radical shift in culture.
In your opinion, what impact will this legislation have on women? The right to equality is threatened, along with other rights. You mentioned employment insurance. If the gaps widen, women will have less than men.
Do you anticipate that the legislation will have any kind of impact on pension plans? I'd like to know if you think the legislation will have a negative impact on women in many areas of society.
Conservative