Status of Women Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It being 8:45, I will call this committee meeting to order pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Bill C-471, An Act respecting the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force and amending another Act in consequence.

We have our first witness here today, who is the Honourable Michael Ignatieff, P.C., MP for Etobicoke--Lakeshore.

Welcome to the meeting, Mr. Ignatieff. I will let you know that you have 10 minutes to present and then there will be a round of questions. Without further ado, I will ask you to begin. I will give you a one-minute notice when you have one more minute left in your presentation. Thank you.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

It's a little unusual for the leader of a political party to give testimony to a parliamentary committee. I've never done this before. It's a great privilege and an honour. I thank you for the opportunity to talk to you this morning and answer questions about Bill C-471.

Though it may be a tad unusual for the leader of a political party to testify before a parliamentary committee, this is an honour. I am here to address your questions regarding Bill C-471, An Act respecting the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force and amending another Act in consequence.

As a party, we start--and I start personally--from a simple proposition that pay equity is not an issue about labour relations; it's a fundamental human right.

Women in Canada, just to take that example of pay equity, earn 72¢ on the dollar compared to men. Women with children earn a little over 50¢ on the dollar. This private member's bill, Bill C-471, is intended to do something about those statistics, which seem to us, and I think to many Canadians, to be unfair.

The Government of Canada is the largest employer. As the largest employer, we should be setting an example on pay equity. The federal government also has jurisdiction over crown corporations and a number of federally regulated industries, so this private member's bill is designed to promote proactive pay equity in all areas of federal jurisdiction.

The purpose of this bill is to promote pay equity in all federally regulated organizations: the federal public service, crown corporations and all employers that fall under the federal purview.

As the largest employer in Canada, the federal government must set a good example in the matter of pay equity. We think that the best way to do so is to create a federal pay equity board to promote pay equity in all federal entities. When I say that it would “promote”, I do not only mean that it would react to cases of abuse, but indeed promote active plans to achieve salary equity in all federal areas. We think that this is the best course of action.

The core of Bill C-471 as a legislative project is the idea that Canada needs the federal government, as the largest employer, to have a proactive federal pay equity commission with, if necessary, a tribunal to hear individual cases of abuse, but the role of a federal pay equity commission is to promote proactive pay equity reform across the federal service, the crown corporations, and all the employers under federal jurisdiction. We think that's the way to deal with the startling fact that Canadian women earn 72¢ on the dollar compared to men and women with children earn just over 50¢ on the dollar, and also that there are substantial examples of pay inequity in relation to aboriginal Canadians, Canadians with handicaps, and other disadvantaged minorities.

This proposal would reverse the way the Conservative government has gone on this issue. The Conservative government has judged pay equity to be basically a labour relations issue and has given it to the Canadian labour relations tribunal. Our view of that is that there's an objection of principle and there are some practical objections.

The objection of principle is that we think pay equity is a human right, not a labour relations issue. That's the fundamental issue.

The second issue is that the labour relations tribunal, in our view, does not have the competence to take a proactive stand on pay equity and promote pay equity as an active matter across areas under federal jurisdiction.

The other problem with the labour relations approach is that women are unable to bring representation to their case. For example, they're not allowed to bring their unions to defend themselves. We think that's a mistake.

We think, therefore, that a superior way to go here is to create a federal pay equity commission with a proactive mandate to establish and demand plans from all employers under federal jurisdiction to promote pay equity as a human right. That's the approach we take. We think it's superior to the approach taken by this government and we think it's extremely important for all Canadians to understand what's at stake here.

This society lives by equality: equality of opportunity and equality of remuneration. Equal pay for work of equal value is a human rights idea, not just a labour relations issue. We'd be very concerned if pay equity issues are put into the bargaining process and bargained away. We think Canadian women will go backwards, not forwards, if that happens. That's why we've taken the position we've taken on this issue.

Our recommendations on Bill C-471 follow from a task force that extensively studied this from 2001 to 2004. We haven't plucked these recommendations out of the air; they're the basis of consultation with stakeholders across Canada over three years. The Conservative government did not see fit to listen to that process of consultation and went their own way. We're trying to correct something that we think was a serious mistake.

Allow me to reiterate that we believe pay equity to be a fundamental human right. We believe that placing pay equity under the aegis of the Canada Industrial Relations Board is a mistake. This board does not have the jurisdiction needed to make pay equity related decisions. At this board, women do not have the right to ask for the presence of a union representative. We also believe that the Canada Industrial Relations Board does not have the power to ask federal employers for proactive action plans to settle these pay inequity problems in a general and strategic manner. It has the power to deal with individual cases but it does not have the capacity to act in a strategic and systematic way.

To our way of thinking, that is at the root of the problem. We think it is very important that the federal government, as the largest employer in Canada, set a good example in the area of pay equity. The best way to do that is to create a new national pay equity board with a tribunal. The federal level will be able to do what it is incumbent upon Canada to do, that is to say to set an example of good behaviour with regard to matters of pay equity for women, and for all those individuals who need equity in the federal system.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for having given me this opportunity to discuss my bill before you today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ignatieff. You were just bang on time.

Now we'll get to the questions. I would like to remind all members and the witness that there's a seven-minute round. Those seven minutes include the question and the answer, so I'm going to try to be as rigid with my timing as I possibly can.

We begin now with the Liberal member, Ms. Simson, for seven minutes.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to share my time with my colleague, Ms. Mendes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'll let you know when you...?

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Yes, at the midway point. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ignatieff, for appearing today. We really appreciate it.

This committee has studied the whole issue of pay equity at some length over the past number of years. We welcome the chance to review your piece of legislation in the coming weeks.

Of all the issues you could have chosen to tackle using your private member's bill privilege, you chose pay equity. Can you briefly explain to the committee why you consider pay equity to be such a priority for Canadian women right now?

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I thank the honourable member for her question.

It is worth noting that this is the first private member's bill I've ever had the honour to introduce in Parliament, and I'm very proud personally to be associated with this issue. It's a statement of principle, not only on my behalf, obviously, but on behalf of the party that I have the honour to lead.

I'm just struck by those numbers. I'm just struck by the fact that women in our country do not get equal pay for work of equal value. We have not closed the gap. We've said we ought to. We've not done so.

So then the question becomes, how does the federal government lead? Many provinces have pay equity commissions. Why can't the federal government have a pay equity commission that says “let's get proactive about this”? Let's not just do this case by case when a woman has a complaint. Let's get out there and get a strategy led by a federal institution that says, “Show us the plan and show us how you plan to reduce these inequities”.

I feel ashamed as a Canadian to be in a situation where people with the same human rights as I don't get financial recognition for the value of their work. This is an inequity that needs to be reformed. We feel very strongly that the way that the actual government has gone about it, which is to turn this into a labour relations issue, doesn't create the machinery necessary to get this done on behalf of Canadian women.

So that's the path we've taken. It's a statement of our commitment to pay equity as a human right. It's a statement of commitment that the Government of Canada should be a leader in advancing pay equity for women right across federal jurisdiction. It's a statement of personal commitment on my part and it's a statement of commitment by my party.

Thank you very much for the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 30 seconds.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Briefly, if you established a pay equity commission, what kind of mandate would it have? Would you give it enough teeth to really make it worthwhile?

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you for the question.

The 2001 task force set out some very useful guidelines. We would go back to that, look at them in detail, and reconsult with stakeholders.

There are always things we can improve here. So first, you listen to stakeholders. First, you listen to experts. You go back to the task force. But basically I think the mandate is, first of all, that it has jurisdiction over crown corporations, the federal public service, and all of the sectors covered by federal legislation--that's a lot of people in Canada--and the basic mandate is to take a proactive stance with each employer.

The federal pay equity commission would go to each employer and say, “What's your plan?” It would ask how they would propose to reduce this gap that is affecting the rights of women, the rights of handicapped people, the rights of aboriginal Canadians, and the rights of any Canadian who's not getting equal pay for work of equal value. Give us the plan, it would say, and then let's set up some benchmarks together so that we close that gap over time, and so you can report to your employers and we can report to Parliament that we are working together to reduce that gap so Canada delivers on what it says it's going to deliver on, which is basic equality for men and women and all Canadians.

It's the proactive element of this that I think is the key mandate. In addition, I think there has to be a tribunal function so that someone with a specific complaint gets the right to make a complaint and have that complaint adjudicated swiftly and, above all, by professionals, by those whose only job is to deal with pay equity issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Ignatieff.

You have two minutes, Ms. Mendes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Ignatieff. I think that we have already broached this issue; the government considers that pay equity is a matter that should be settled at the negotiation table.

According to you, why will the fundamental issue of pay inequality never be settled in that matter?

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you for the question. I respect the Canada Industrial Relations Board. I don't want to make any negative comments about it, but it has no specific jurisdiction in this area. Pay equity is a matter which in our opinion should be dealt with outside the arena of labour negotiations and contracts. We believe that pay equity is a human rights issue. We think that the Canada Industrial Relations Board cannot intervene in a proactive and strategic manner to ask employers to prepare a plan to systematically redress pay inequalities in the public service, in other crown agencies and other federally regulated employers. The matter of pay equity, especially for women and also for other groups, is so important that there must be a specific institution devoted to promoting women's equality within federal bodies. That is our perspective on the matter.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Ignatieff.

Now we'll move to the Bloc Québécois.

Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Ignatieff, thank you for being with us today. I have several questions for you, and also several matters I'd like to explore.

The first time the committee tabled its report on pay equity in 2001, one of the most pressing concerns did indeed involve the adoption of a proactive piece of legislation on pay equity. At that time, the government in power was a Liberal one. We had a budget surplus. It would have been easy to promote a proactive law on pay equity. And yet this was not done. At the time of the last budget, you unfortunately voted for Bill C-10 which put forward a very retrograde piece of legislation on pay equity, making pay equity a negotiable right.

Should your bill be interpreted as a sign of remorse that you abandoned women at the time for strictly electoral considerations? Today you are tabling a bill as if you had forgotten that you voted in favour of Bill C-10. It is as though you wanted to renew your virginity by not mentioning that you are sorry that you voted for Bill C-10. You make no mention of the fact that you voted for Bill C-10, nor of the fact that that vote caused irreparable damage to thousands of women in the public service. That damage will not be repaired by tabling Bill C-471.

I'm certainly going to vote for Bill C-471, because I want women to obtain pay equity. Unfortunately, this bill is way too little and very much too late. Unfortunately, women have already suffered from the fact that you voted in favour of Bill C-10.

What do you have to say to that?

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madam. I thank you also for all the work you have done on pay equity for Canadians. I salute you, Madam.

It is absolutely certain that we can't renew our virginity. It isn't possible. However, neither can we trigger elections whenever we disagree with the government. That was our position on Bill C-10. From the outset, from the very moment we voiced formal objections against the government's attempt to modify the pay equity regime and even since that vote, we have said that we had to vote for the budget in the national interest in order to avoid triggering unnecessary elections. However, we also said clearly that what the Conservative government wanted to do in the area of pay equity was a mistake. We were clear. And that is precisely why I introduced this bill.

I'm very heartened by the fact that you said that you would be voting in favour of the bill, as this means that you recognize, as much as I do, that the Conservative government's approach is the wrong one. This means that we must never treat pay equity as a simple labour negotiations matter that can be settled around a table. It must be considered as a human right that must be protected and promoted in all areas of federal jurisdiction.

You have no doubt noted that other provinces have pay equity boards. We must have one at the federal level. That is our main message. I'm very happy to know that you will be supporting our idea for progress in this area.

Thank you for your question.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Ignatieff, do you consider that equity is limited to remuneration or do you also think that it should also apply to other benefits?

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Yes, it should. However, you would have to tell me more about what you have in mind.

I consider that equity is not simply an economic matter. It concerns working conditions, respect, the proper functioning of an office, for instance, where women must be respected for their work and treated with respect.

I suppose that that is more or less what you had in mind.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

No, it isn't. Rather, I had in mind the fact that currently, approximately 5,000 women signed petitions tabled in the House of Commons, asking that their right to preventive withdrawal be recognized. Women who work for a federal entity in Quebec would like to have the right to preventive withdrawal, just as women who work in Quebec for a provincial body have a full and complete right to preventive withdrawal.

I wonder whether you would be open to concluding an agreement with Quebec in this regard.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I need to study this matter in depth. That is what you have done and I congratulate you on your commitment to women. I am quite ready to have my party work with yours to ensure that women obtain justice. If it is possible for Ottawa and Quebec to work jointly on this file, I am quite willing to do so to ensure that all injustices be redressed.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have one minute, Nicole.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

In addition to that, would you be willing to have special measures brought in to see to it that women be compensated for the sums they lost during the period when pay equity was not respected?

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Pay equity has a proactive aspect, which is forward-looking, but it is also possible to see it as having a retroactive aspect aimed at correcting certain injustices which transpired in the past. I am considering measures that look both to the future and toward past injustices. If there are past instances of unfairness that must be redressed, we must do so.