Status of Women Committee on June 16th, 2009

[Hélène Laurendeau]

The employer and the bargaining agent...

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 30 seconds to answer.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

The short answer to that is that there will be transparency, and the equitable compensation assessment will stand on its own, outside but attached to the collective agreement.

In that way, people will be able to evaluate the process.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

When you say people...

[Hélène Laurendeau]

I mean the employees who have to vote on the collective agreements and the equitable compensation assessments.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Will they vote on equity separately?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

No, they will vote on everything at the same time.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

What do you mean?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

It would all be part of the same process.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

So it would be just one of the items in the agreement. Is that what you call equity?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry, that's it.

Cathy McLeod, please.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us again after last Thursday.

As we move along this process, I think no one is disagreeing that the old system didn't work. But there are perhaps some issues in terms of how the new system has been designed, and I'm really pleased that you're here speaking specifically to those issues. You've already had an opportunity to talk about many of them.

One issue is that this is not a bargaining away of human rights. The other is why it's very important to marry the two together. You were cut short on your last question, so I'd like to allow you to respond in more depth to Ms. Zarac's concern regarding the marrying of these issues.

The other thing we've heard, which I think would be nice to hear you address, is the concern that the Public Service Labour Relations Board won't have the expertise to deal with this issue. I note that only 80% of the workload of the Human Rights Commission dealt with this issue, but I presume that there are some strategies and you have confidence in the ability of that group to gain the skills and expertise to move forward to deal with this effectively.

Perhaps you could talk on those two issues.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

With respect to the expertise of the Public Service Labour Relations Board, they are currently supporting the parties in pay research, so the idea of becoming even more savvy in pay research capacity to include equitable compensation consideration is something that is doable. Part of our implementation strategy is also to quantify with them the research requirement that they're going to be facing with this new set of responsibilities, so we are looking at making sure that the independent body is capable of doing that.

I would also note that the staff relations board counts among one of its part-time members the previous chair of the Bilson task force. So there is capacity there that the Public Service Labour Relations Board can tap into in order to make sure it has the capacity to actually face these challenges. We are quite confident that this institution, which has been around for 40 years, which has been supporting the parties in various difficult situations, which is supporting the bargaining process and currently has a pay research capacity, will be able to expand and embrace that new role.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Certainly my feeling is that the more organizations and groups that have these skills and abilities, rather than it all sitting with the Human Rights Commission, the better off we are. It becomes embedded throughout.

On the opportunity to reiterate the importance of why we believe that marrying it into the collective agreement...again, you didn't have a chance to be more fulsome with your response to Ms. Zarac.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Although you now have only 30 seconds to be fulsome with your response.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

I'll be more fulsome in 30 seconds.

I would add one thought to all that. Resources on both the bargaining agent's side and the employer's side are unfortunately not always focused at the same time on those issues. Bringing them all into the same room for the same process would make sure that a fulsome discussion happened once every three or four years through the bargaining process. All the expertise would be at the table, as opposed to having—as is often the case in big unions—a team of people doing collective bargaining, and a separate team in another branch doing pay equity analysis.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Monsieur Desnoyers.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have not had the opportunity to meet with many of the witnesses, but those I have talked to said that this was a regressive piece of legislation that does not advance the cause of pay equity. On the hand, you claim that this legislation is proactive. The sole obligation of the employer under the current act is to inform the union. The employer is not required to work with the union on the study or assessment of equitable compensation matters. However, as everyone well knows, employers have a great deal of confidential information on file that is needed in order to achieve pay equity. So then, when you claim that the act takes a proactive approach, I do have some reservations about that contention.

You also maintain that the act is proactive, given our experiences with the current legislation and the studies done by PSAC and Treasury Board. It took almost four years to establish the rules of the game, rules which are now clear. Now you're saying that equitable compensation matters will be resolved through collective bargaining. Prior to the adoption of pay equity legislation, collective bargaining had caused wage disparities in all provinces. With this legislation, the government is taking a step backward and linking pay equity with collective bargaining. Basically, what the government is doing is reinstating wage disparity.

I have one final question for you. If I have any time left, I will have some additional questions for you. Why does the legislation apply to federal employees, whereas federally owned enterprises are exempt? The government says it is changing the system for federal employees because of certain shortcomings, but that for federally owned enterprises, the system works just fine.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

Very briefly, I would draw your attention to section 4 and to the ensuing sections of the act which clearly describe the process whereby employers and bargaining agents will be obligated to share information and work together on equitable compensation assessments. This was not something that we had with previous pay equity regimes, all of which came after the introduction of collective bargaining. This obligation is not clearly stated anywhere else, not in existing proactive regimes, because it is a separate process, and obviously not in—

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I have to interrupt you. You say that this obligation is not stated anywhere. Under Quebec's pay equity regime, partners are obligated to exchange information, and not at the bargaining table. This is a requirement of the pay equity process and for follow up action as well. That is something that you failed to mention.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

I would simply ask you to read section 4 and the ensuing sections of the act, which provide for a process very similar to the one you describe, but within the context of collective bargaining. That process calls for the exchange of basic information and for the parties to work together to conduct an equitable compensation assessment.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Earlier, you said that employees will vote on both pay equity and working conditions. As you know, a power relationship comes into play in the collective bargaining process. Inequities are often the result of the existing power relationship between groups governed by the same collective agreement. Do you think this might create some disparities?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

All I can say is that we are seeing a cultural change in our approach to collective bargaining. This cultural change will mean that the principles of equitable compensation will be front and centre at the bargaining table. The parties are responsible for ensuring that this approach is taken.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Madam Mathyssen.

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

Thank you.

I want to come back to some of the testimony we've heard from other witnesses. One of the things that was consistent was that the complaints-based system simply doesn't work. Yet if the objective is to indeed achieve fair and proactive pay equity, something on which people could agree, why not simply adopt the 2004 report on pay equity? There was broad agreement among the witnesses who came here that this was the way to go. Why isn't it the law? Why isn't it in legislation?