Status of Women Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Before the witness answers that question, I would like to remind the member that, on a point of order, we should stick to the business of the day, which is about pay equity. So I will leave it up to the witness to decide whether or not he wishes to deal with that, but the issue here is pay equity.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Chair, I also believe in pay equity for women who are running businesses and I think they need to be represented at this table, but I thank you very much--

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It has nothing to do with the private member's bill we're discussing.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I would disagree, but thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Well, yes, you may, but I've ruled that it isn't a point in order here.

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

Well, I respect the ruling of the chair, but let me just say that as someone who also is proud to represent women who are small business owners in my own riding, I understand the pressures on them as fully as you do. It is a fabrication and a misrepresentation of the highest order to suppose that the Liberal Party of Canada wants to increase the tax burden on those hard-working women. It's just false.

We've said that the corporate tax breaks proposed by the Conservative government for large profitable corporations don't make sense when you're in a $56-billion deficit, and we're proud of that statement and believe in it strongly. But to extrapolate from that to the proposition that I propose to increase the tax burden on the woman selling candles in your business district or to increase taxes on the hard-working women who run businesses in my constituency is absolutely false. It's mischief-making.

We're here to promote fairness and equality for women. I'm as aware as you that women are the backbone of the small and medium-sized enterprises in our country. I'm immensely proud of the contribution they make. I want to do everything to help them, the same way you do. There are some things that don't need to divide our parties.

I know who employs Canadians. I know the important role they play. So let's tell them the truth about our party platforms in the next election, and let's work together, to the degree we can in this difficult environment, to promote small business ownership by women, women hiring other women, and women promoting women in the workplace. These are goals that I believe in passionately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you. The time is well over.

I'd like to turn to the NDP, to Ms. Mathyssen, please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Ignatieff, for being here.

I'd like to pursue a line of questioning based on what you said. You indicated that your vote for Bill C-10 was in the national interest, yet it seems to me you sent a very disturbing signal with that vote. Look at the reality of women: because they earn less, their pensions are less and their employment insurance is less. For a significant number of women, particularly single women, elderly women, they live in poverty. It all traces back to the lack of income security.

Now, you called Bill C-10 a “dumpster bill”, and yet you chose to support it. I'm wondering how that squares with this notion of the national interest. It would seem to me that it would be in the interest of women to have pay equity, and haven't you just made pay equity another bargaining chip? You talked about the evils of using pay equity as a bargaining chip, and yet it seems to me that it became a rather cynical bargaining chip.

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

I thank you for the work you've done promoting pay equity for women.

I just repeat our sense that when the government snuck this change in pay equity legislation into the Bill C-10 dumpster bill, they made a mistake, which we signalled at that moment. That's why I'm here. That's why we introduced a private member's bill--to correct that error, to reaffirm that pay equity is a human right, to set in place what for years commissions of experts have called for, which is a federal pay equity commission that will have a proactive mandate, plus a tribunal to deal with specific complaints.

We think this is the way forward. We think the way that the government has chosen turns pay equity into a labour relations matter and gives it to a commission that does not have the capacity to engage in proactive promotion of pay equity. I would have thought that this is the kind of project that your party, and you, should support given your record of verbal commitment on this issue.

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

Thank you, Mr. Ignatieff.

You used the word “snuck”. The government bill was there for all to see. It seems to me that a year and a half after the fact is too late. A great deal of damage has been done.

Indeed I do support pay equity. I have since I was an MLA in Ontario. I actually brought forward a pay equity bill based on the 2004 task force. If I ever have a chance to do that again, I hope you will support it.

About a month ago, you said that Bill C-308, a private member's bill, was dead on arrival; it wasn't going anywhere because it needed royal recommendation. Now, since part of Bill C-471 requires a royal recommendation, and my guess is that it's most definitely not going to be granted, I wondered, when you drafted your bill, did you consider setting aside that part--which has, in your own words, no hope--in favour of pursuing the consequential amendment that revokes the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act? In that revocation, it would take us back to the point we were at before the Conservative bill. Women then would have the ability to appeal to the Human Rights Commission, with fines levied against employers and unions. They're quite significant fines in the case of unions who want to advocate for their members. Also, it would remove pay equity from the bargaining table.

Had you thought about pursuing that as a way of actually achieving something substantive that we know would go ahead--or that had hope of going ahead, rather?

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

I think you've made some interesting suggestions. The decision about the royal recommendation is basically a statement by the government that it doesn't want to proceed, give action to, or give substance to pay equity as a human right. If the government took a different view, we could make progress.

If you're suggesting another way to make progress in this area that gets around this, my commitment and my party's commitment to pay equity is so strong that we're willing to work with you and other parties to advance it in the way that you suggest. We'd have to look at it in detail, but the fundamental direction we need to go in as a country is towards a federal pay equity commission that makes the Government of Canada, as the country's largest employer, the example that everyone looks to in advancing pay equity for Canadians right across the board. That's the objective. That's the goal.

Then, how we get there step by step in the parliamentary process as this goes forward is a matter on which I'm happy to have discussions with you and any members of the party, because what I'm concerned about is that women in Canada not go backward, that we go forward and we go forward together, and that this Parliament takes on its responsibilities to advance this agenda.

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

I thank you for that, Mr. Ignatieff, because I think it's very important to have that on the record. I'm pleased to see that you are indeed on the record in support of the kind of proactive pay equity that will make a difference so women don't face a future of poverty and economic insecurity, certainly the kind that we currently see in the Canadian reality.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Actually, I would like to congratulate the committee on being bang on time. It is now time to end this session. I would like to thank the witness, Mr. Ignatieff, for coming here, presenting to us, and answering all of the questions.

With that, I would ask that we suspend so that we can go in camera. Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We are going to resume the meeting. This was my mistake. We're not in camera, actually, as we still have some witnesses on the bill.

We will be dealing with the next group of witnesses from the Treasury Board Secretariat. We have with us Madame Hélène Laurendeau, assistant secretary, compensation and labour relations sector, and Jacqueline Bogden, executive director, compensation and labour relations sector.

Thank you for coming. I just want you to know that since you come from one entity, you have between you 10 minutes within which to present, and you can decide how you want to do that. I will give you a one-minute signal so that you know you have one minute left to wrap up and then we'll go into questions and answers.

Who begins?

[Hélène Laurendeau, Assistant Secretary, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

I'm going to be presenting the opening remarks. Ms. Bogden and I will be available to answer any questions the committee may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear once again to talk about equitable compensation.

I would like to provide you today with an overview of the key features of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and, more specifically, how it reflects the intent of the work of the 2004 pay equity task force, known as the Bilson task force.

As I stated the last time I appeared before you, we all recognize that the former pay equity regime in the federal public service was, by and large, reactive, lengthy, and costly--and adversarial on top of everything else. Actions under that regime have been ad hoc, based totally on complaints as they were framed. Furthermore, complaints were filed without any previous discussion of these issues, either at the bargaining table or in any other forum. Complaints could take between 15 to 20 years to be resolved under that regime. It definitely took a big toll on resources, on productive labour relations, and on women employees themselves.

This long and litigious aspect was underscored by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its 2001 pay equity report. The commission stated at the time that pay equity cases represented “less than 8%” of all its cases, yet they consumed about half of its total spending on legal services, a testimony to the complexity of how difficult it was to administer the previous regime.

In tackling these challenges over the years, the federal government learned a lot. The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act builds on this experience and learning. As an employer, we also learned from proactive provincial regimes and from the work of the 2004 pay equity task force, as well as from Canadian and international research.

Appreciating that the committee today is studying Bill C-471, it might be useful for me to outline briefly how the new act addresses some of the key recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force. I will focus on four key aspects of the task force recommendations.

The first aspect is that the task force affirmed that the existing legislation--that was section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act--was not effective. It recommended that new stand-alone proactive legislation be enacted.

The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act provides stand-alone legislation. The new act establishes a proactive regime for ensuring equitable compensation for federal public sector employees. It replaces a complaint-based approach with a proactive approach. As such, it brings the federal regime in line with a number of provinces that also require a form of proactivity, a feature that is supported by most experts.

Let me now turn to the second area of the task force recommendations that the new act addresses.

The task force recommended that new legislation provide for the maintenance of pay equity on an ongoing basis. It recommended the new legislation establish obligations on the employer but also on unions to ensure that pay equity is maintained when renewing or negotiating collective agreements.

The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act ensures that equitable compensation will be established proactively and that it will be maintained on a regular and ongoing basis. It does so by making employers and—for the first time—bargaining agents jointly accountable for ensuring that employees receive equitable compensation each and every time that wages are set.

The new act establishes robust requirements for conducting equitable compensation assessments and reporting results to employees in a transparent manner. In this way, the new act ensures that gender-based analysis is not an afterthought or fixed in a separate process or through litigation. Instead, it is embedded in wage-setting practices on an ongoing basis. In other words, the act provides that gender-based analysis must be done when salaries are set.

In making the employer and the unions jointly accountable, it recognizes the important role played by unions in setting wages. By establishing detailed obligations on both parties for how to attain and maintain equitable compensation, it will not allow the parties to bargain away this human right. On the contrary, the new act recognizes the long and positive history of achievement and the protection of human rights through collective bargaining, as recognized by the Supreme Court, which includes fair wages, hours of work and working conditions, including parental leave and occupational health and safety.

The role for collective bargaining in achieving pay equity also supports Canada's obligation under the International Labour Organization's 1951 Equal Remuneration Convention, which requires members to incorporate equal pay for work of equal value into existing methods of determining remuneration. That is precisely what the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act does.

As you are probably aware, in their 2005 response to this committee on the Pay Equity Task Force report, the ministers of Justice and Labour indicated that the relationship between pay equity and collective bargaining, as well as the obligations of employers and unions, needed to be part of the “backbone” of effective pay equity legislation. The new act provides this “backbone”.

The task force also recommended that non-unionized and unionized employees be involved in achieving and monitoring pay equity. This is the third key area of the task force recommendations that I would like to outline today.

The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act contains robust reporting and transparency requirements to proactively and regularly inform employees of their rights and inform them of what has been done to ensure equitable compensation before their wages are set. These obligations are designed to reinforce accountability for results. Unionized employees can also participate through collective bargaining and I would add that they may also express their opinion through ratification votes on the agreements in principle concluded between the employer and their bargaining agent.

The fourth area that I will discuss is the task force recommendation that the new legislation contain specific provisions establishing a process for complaints.

Under the new Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, both employers and unions need to jointly and transparently take their obligations very seriously. The new act maintains the right of employees to lodge complaints through the public sector labour relations board. This is an independent body with quasi-judicial status that currently administers the Public Service Labour Relations Act. For 40 years, the board has helped resolve issues around wages. The board also currently has authority to interpret human rights issues.

The new act contains many safeguards, including the union right to unilaterally select binding arbitration to resolve bargaining disputes. It is a critical feature of the new act that boards of arbitration will be obliged to rule and determine equitable compensation matters.

These are just some of the ways in which the new act reflects the intent of the recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force and builds upon them.

Looking forward, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act will come into force once the regulations are developed and established through the Governor in Council.

As we speak, the regulations are being developed through a consultative process. They will provide greater clarity to the terms, obligations, and processes that are provided in the new act.

We have been consulting and working very closely with the bargaining agents and nearly 30 separate agencies, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Canadian Forces to develop these regulations. We expect them to be very well advanced, if not ready as planned, in 2011.

In conclusion, I'd like to state that the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act will not only protect the right to equal pay for work of equal value but also will be the best way to achieve and maintain--and I insist on maintain--equitable compensation on a proactive and regular basis for the future.

I'd like to thank the committee very much. I will be pleased to answer questions, and so will my colleague Ms. Bogden.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Now we begin to move into the question part, for seven-minute rounds. I would like to remind everyone that those seven minutes include questions and answers.

We'll begin with Ms. Simson from the Liberals.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for taking the time to appear before this committee today.

Just before you arrived, we heard testimony from the leader of the opposition, who has put forward a private member's bill with respect to pay equity. That's currently what we're studying. He made a rather interesting observation that he personally sees pay equity as a fundamental human right.

I'm going to address this to both of you. Just in one word, do you see pay equity as a fundamental human right? It's yes or no, because I have limited time.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

The courts have already determined that, so the answer would be yes.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you.

Now, based on that response and the fact that the courts have ruled on this, do you think a human right should actually be utilized as a bargaining chip in labour relations? Is that something that should be even considered--that you could bargain away in labour negotiations a fundamental human right?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

There are many other fundamental rights that are protected through collective bargaining. Furthermore, I would add that the underpinning of this bill is not to bargain away any human rights; it is in fact to actually put at the heart of wage determination the issue of gender-based analysis and, answering that, the employers and the bargaining agent must live up to complying with that fundamental right.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I'm going to address this to you, Ms. Laurendeau. When you appeared before this committee on June 16, 2009, on the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, you testified that even the proactive processes in Quebec and Manitoba still leave issues of pay equity outside the collective bargaining process, and you referred to this as a fundamental change.

You also told the committee:

We must recognize that the forward thinking that they have experimented with in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba has produced results. Their legislation has produced positive results, but it still has growing pains when it comes to maintenance of pay equity.

Why do you think the government chose to rewrite the book instead of building on this foundation of proactive pay equity legislation that was already in place and adopted by those provinces, while still keeping pay equity separate from the collective bargaining process?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

I hope I understand your question correctly. What I was aiming at in my appearance on June 16 was that there is significant value in answering that we deal with pay equity issues in a proactive manner; I also said that there were some very good results that came out of those provincial models to which you referred. I also said, though, that none of them was very specific on how to maintain it.

To answer your question, I would say that the process by which we determine that equal pay for work of equal value has been achieved can be married to the process by which we determine wages. Not only can they be married, but the underpinning of the equitable compensation act is that they should be married to make sure that the analysis occurs at the time of setting wages and that issues are addressed at that point in time.

It goes further than the provincial legislation, because it also provides for an obligation to maintain pay equity in the same way. Whenever you review wages, you actually have to re-address, if need be, any equitable compensation issues that may have arisen.