Status of Women Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

I am very sorry, Ms. Laurendeau, but it is not at all like the Quebec act. Ours is certainly a proactive piece of legislation, but it is nothing like the one put forward by the Conservative government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have a little under two minutes left, Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Have you have finished?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Yes, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I will go to the Conservatives now, with Madame Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Good morning, Ms. Laurendeau and Ms. Bogden. Thank you for being here with us this morning.

We have talked about pay equity at great length. Could you tell me how long it takes on average for a complaint filed by a woman to be settled?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

On average, it can take from two to 20 years to resolve complaints. The most obvious examples are the 1984 complaint against the federal government, which was settled in 1999, and the complaint against Bell Canada, which was resolved 20 years later under the current system. We also have some less complex complaints from smaller groups, which take two to five years on average to be resolved.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

It is a very long process.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

Yes, it is very litigious. The reason is very simple. Once a complaint is made, a factual basis has to be formed. Job assessments have to be done as soon as the complaint is filed whereas, in a proactive plan like the one put forward by the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, the obligation to do job assessments and to maintain the factual basis is ongoing. Every time wages are reviewed, we use the update from this factual basis and we do another assessment. That is the difference between the long process in a complaint-based system and what can be better managed in a proactive system.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

In the Bell Canada case, which went from 1984 to 1999, did the women at least win, given that it took that long to settle the complaint?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

In the complaint that was settled in 1999, the federal government paid out $3.2 billion in pay equity in addition to another sum of $900,000, which was paid in 1991.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

So the women won.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

Yes, the women did win.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

In your opening remarks, you talked about experts. Could you tell us what they think about a more dynamic system as opposed to a complaint-based system?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

Most experts agree that a proactive system leads to far fewer confrontations and is a lot more effective in terms of results. All the work that was done by the Bilson task force showed that proactive programs produce results more easily and quickly than a complaint-based system.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I suppose that the longer a dispute lasts, the more collateral damage there is.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

Not only is there collateral damage, but a complaint-based system takes a picture of the complaint at the time it was lodged. A situation is never static, but it takes years to settle a complaint. However, a proactive system makes it possible to address issues that may come up on an ongoing basis as salaries are reviewed. It is a lot more dynamic in terms of results, a lot less static, which leads to fewer confrontations and gives results more consistently than a complaint-based system.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

If I understand correctly, both sides seem to come out winners because the dispute does not drag on and on for no reason. After 20 years, there must be some frustration, whether on the employer's part or the employee's.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

That is correct.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

So women come out winners less and less.

I will share the rest of my time with Ms. McLeod.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I listen, it's very clear that everyone and all parties at this table do want to accomplish the same thing, which is pay equity for women. Really, I think the only disagreement I'm hearing is how we best accomplish that goal. Certainly, our government believes that we have accomplished that goal with our Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, and I think, as per Mr. Ignatieff's bill, he believes there's a system that would accomplish it in a better way.

I wish he had been present to hear your testimony, because I think he would feel very reassured that, indeed, we will be accomplishing the goal that is intended through the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.

Of course, as we look toward setting an example, which we talked about earlier, yes, we have jurisdiction over the federal government, but if we're looking at examples that can be used throughout Canada, we need a system that is proactive at many—whether it be private sector—bargaining tables, so really I think we have a model that could be an example for all employers.

I have two quick questions. I think I have a little bit of time.

When we talk about 72¢ on the dollar--

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Sorry, you have one minute.

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

When we talk about 72¢ on the dollar, is that a Canadian-wide figure for all women employed?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

The global wage gap in Canada is about 72¢ or 76¢ on the dollar, yes.