Status of Women Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

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

Do we actually know what it is in the public sector?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

In the public sector it is more in the realm of 81¢ to 85¢. I would say that below 35 years of age, women are at 98¢ on the dollar.

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

So we're better, but we have a little ways to go.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

We still have a little ways to go, but we're definitely a good 12% to 15% above the global wage gap in the Canadian population. That's correct.

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

My colleague from the Bloc actually cut you off as you were looking at learning from other provinces and how that formulated our particular plan. Would you like to take 30 seconds to...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You now have 15 seconds.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

In 15 seconds, I would say only that I don't think I said that the PSECA was like the Quebec model. But what I did say is that it is a proactive regime and that, like the Quebec, Manitoba, and Ontario models, it will rank the results of a proactive regime.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to the NDP and Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to Madame Laurendeau and Madame Bogden for being here.

I understand that this is rather a difficult situation for you, and I'm going to try to not make it more difficult. However, I do have some questions, and I have to be very, very blunt. When I asked for people from the bureaucracy to come to explain this to us, I was looking for technical information regarding the PSECA, and this, quite frankly, feels like a defence of it.

I am disappointed. We've been through this process in June of 2009 when we made our report on the government's legislation, and I was looking for more. So I'm going to start trying to dig out some of what I was looking for.

The government's response to our report in June of last year indicated that the government was committed to “appropriately and meaningfully” consulting the stakeholders, including federal public sector employers, bargaining agents, and public sector employees. When and with whom did the government consult? Are the consultations ongoing?

If something has come from those consultations, I'd like to see the discussion papers and the draft regulations. I'm wondering if we can have those tabled here so members of the committee can have a look at them and see exactly what the situation is at present.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

I will ask Ms. Bogden to give you a little more detail since she's been handling the consultations themselves, but I would say that we are making an extreme effort to make sure we are very inclusive and very detailed in our consultations. She will walk you through what we've done so far and what we're planning to do.

[Jacqueline Bogden, Executive Director, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

As Hélène mentioned, the regulations are intended to outline with a little bit more clarity the terms and obligations and the process that's provided for in the new act. We have been developing them through consultation. We've been working closely with the bargaining agents as well as more than 30 separate agencies, federal public sector employers, the RCMP, and the Canadian Forces to develop them.

Public sector employers, as well as the core administration, all organize and value work differently, so it's important that we work through that and take that into account as we develop the regulations. For the bargaining agents, it's important that we've also thought through how the process will work so that it's effective and that we don't contribute to any delays at the bargaining table. Above all, I think we want to make sure that we strike the right balance in developing the regulations to make sure they set out what they need to, but also ensuring that they can withstand the test of time.

To that end, we held a number of information sessions with all the affected stakeholders, starting in late 2009 and early 2010. Part of the intent behind that, of course, was to raise awareness and understanding among public servants and bargaining agents about the intent of the new act so they're prepared to talk to us about the technical part of the regulations.

We then had a two-day intensive consultation forum in April with bargaining agents and all the federal public sector employers. Following that, in June we came forward with draft policy proposals for the purpose of stimulating discussion on each of the important areas in the regulations, and we held another intensive two-day session with people then. We got a lot of feedback from people, to reflect further on some of our thinking, so that was very useful.

At the end of August, I believe, we received a number of extensive written submissions from bargaining agents and others, presenting their views and ideas of where we should go forward. We are in the midst of doing that analysis and are continuing to consult with a number of the stakeholders bilaterally right now to try to refine the policy proposals for the regulations.

Do I have a little bit more time? Should I stop there?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It depends on whether Ms. Mathyssen feels you've answered her question, because she only has another few minutes.

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

Yes, but I would like to see the draft regulations and the discussion papers. I think that would enlighten our discussion. I thank you for that.

I want to get back to something that Madame Boucher was talking about and that is the inadequacy of the complaint-based system. I don't think anyone here would dispute that. What happened to women was criminal, and I would like to point out the federal government challenged the settlement and put women in this precarious position.

However, the act we're discussing here today or reviewing with regard to the public sector does not parallel the proactive 2004 pay equity task force before it, and I don't think we can pretend that it does. It is lacking and it doesn't serve the needs of women. Having said that, I did have some questions with regard to the implementation of the bill. I wonder if it's affected by the current court challenges. Does that have an impact?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

Which court challenges?

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

There is a court challenge from one of the unions; I believe it's PSAC.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 15 seconds left.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

The work goes ahead as planned with respect to the implementation of the act and the court challenge is following its course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That's it. Thank you very much.

We could go to another round. We have members' business to do and that might take us a bit of time, but we could go to another three-minute round. If we stick to it, that would give us about 12 minutes more to deal with this issue.

I would like to see whether the committee would like to go another round. Or do you feel that you have had all your questions answered by these groups of witnesses? Can I get a sense from the committee? Do you want to go another round? Yes?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We will begin the other round, for three minutes only, starting with Madame Mendes from the Liberals.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Laurendeau. I would like to go back to the answer you gave earlier to Mrs. Boucher. It somewhat hurts me as a woman to hear that, during the case that was won allegedly in 1999, women came out winners. I don't think they came out winners; they finally got justice. It took 15 years for the justice system to grant them equal pay for equal work. It is not a gain, but rather accepting reality and recognizing a fundamental right for women. That is what really bothers me in this government bill.

That is why our leader, Mr. Ignatieff, brought forward Bill C-471, which is in no way designed to bring back the complaint-based process. That is not its objective at all. The purpose of the bill is to adopt the recommendations from the 2004 report and put in place a real proactive system that would make pay equity both regulated and supervised by a commission.

Right now, what you are proposing in terms of negotiating pay equity at the same time as negotiating the rest of the collective agreement is problematic because it will never do justice to the issues faced not only by women, but by all minority groups.

I don't understand how you can think that the bill in its current format or the act in its current format could resolve these fundamental rights issues for minorities, whether for women, Aboriginals or people with disabilities. Could you tell me how this could possibly solve these problems?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

All right. The question is about justifying...

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Why do you think that this bill will resolve the fundamental rights issues for these people when there are reasons for complaints and the collective agreement has not resolved them?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

The fundamental rights issues will be resolved proactively through the bargaining process and through ongoing transparency and accountability. That is the backbone of the new act. The idea is to ensure that, through a process that was held by the Supreme Court to be a protected process, a fundamental right... We are not deluding ourselves. Since the inception of proactive systems in Quebec and Manitoba, the Supreme Court has recognized collective bargaining as a protected mechanism, a fundamental right, an extension of the freedom of association.

The idea behind this legislation is to make sure that the issues...

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Excuse me, Ms. Laurendeau, but aren't banks governed by a federal charter? They don't have unions. There is not a single bank that has a union.

How are we going to make sure that women's pay equity rights are protected in banks when there is no union to protect them?