Status of Women Committee on Oct. 26th, 2010

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. I think you've made very succinct the fight here and the issue of raising the value of women's work. Very clearly, that has been lost, I think, in the argument back and forth.

When I think about the reality of pay equity, I think about this government and its checklist. It has a checklist: let's create the impression that we've acted on real property rights for aboriginal women; let's create the impression that we're concerned and moving forward on missing and murdered aboriginal women; let's create the impression that somehow pay equity matters. It is going to put in this structure, this regime, and use all of the right words and all of the right spin and call it proactive, and somehow it will be.

I have my concerns. In creating this checklist, I keep wondering who benefits. Where are the disadvantages? I'm wondering if you could explain or if you have an understanding of the benefits of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act--and I rather like the acronym ECA--for employers. Why go through all of this effort if there is no benefit? If there is a benefit, what is the benefit to employers? You very clearly illustrated the disadvantages to employees.

[Helen Berry]

I can just speak almost to a technical sense on that, which is that because the employer has an awful lot of power, in this case, and because when you're looking at the legislation, we're not clear on what job group is or what job class is, for bringing forward the 70% predominance of female-dominated groups, right now we have no idea if a system can be put in place or may be put in place so that no group will actually reach a female-dominated 70% job group or job class.

It may be all irrelevant. The employer has the control over that. In essence, they could create a system such that there would be no pay equity even though groups may have come in at 69%. Clearly there's a pay equity problem, but they will not be addressed in this legislation. Or we would have groups that are at 55% under the Canadian Human Rights Act and there is a clear pay equity problem, but they will not be addressed in this legislation.

Depending on how Treasury Board and the government determine how those job classes get defined in the regulations, it is very unclear at this point as to whether they can just legislate themselves or regulate themselves out of ever having to deal with this.

[Andrée Côté]

I would like to add to that. If an employer--in this case, Treasury Board--does have a pay equity readjustment to make, with this Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act the amount of the money for pay equity would go into the same envelope as the money for pay raises that year. So instead of paying the pay equity readjustment and then bargaining a collective agreement with raises, it would all be put into one.

The employer will save money on the backs of women here. It will save money either by eventually bargaining lower raises or by eliminating pay equity at the bargaining table. One way or the other, the interest is for the employer, so there's a kind of conflict of interest here built into the bill, because the bill will ultimately benefit Treasury Board.

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

This is where the market forces come into play.

[Andrée Côté]

On top of it, too, the market forces will be used as leverage, perhaps to bring wages down. In the consultations, we have asked that we at least acknowledge that you can't use market forces to drag wages down, that if you're going to use them, at least it's only to drag it up. That wasn't reflected back in the framework we received. The market forces are clearly also a threat to pay equity and a threat in general to the level of wages.

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

I know that PSAC filed a communication with the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women requesting that the commission examine the pay equity situation under the 2009 PSECA in light of what you were talking about, Canada's international human rights commitments and obligations. I wondered what the reasons were for submitting the communication. Also, have you heard back from the United Nations Commission in regard to this?

[Andrée Côté]

The reason for submitting this to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women is that in CEDAW, on the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination, there are explicit provisions to guarantee and promote equal pay for work of equal value. The international instrument CEDAW recognizes it, and so does the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as does the ILO convention 100. We went to the UN because the UN explicitly recognizes the importance of pay equity, and we wanted to alert the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women to the situation in Canada.

This isn't a formal tribunal or complaints process; it's a communication. We simply inform the commission. The commission then writes to the government and asks the government to respond to the information. Then it's channelled through the processes of the UN and sent, if I understand correctly, to the economic, social and cultural rights committee, and they take this information to do the global assessment of the situation of where Canada is at.

To some extent, I think, Canada's shortfall on pay equity has been taken into account in the global assessment of Canada's performance in the international scene. I think this is why we see the results in how the international community is considering Canada right now, recognizing that Canada is no longer the human rights leader that it used to be and is no longer a champion of women's equality rights domestically.

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

Thank you. Now--

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That's it. Sorry, Irene.

I apologize that we have to stop now. We have a teleconference with some aboriginal women in Labrador. We need five minutes to set up and they are time certain, so please accept my apology.

[Barbara Byers]

You would encourage us to leave early is what you're saying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, we're trying to get rid of you, Barbara.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Simson.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Chair, I just wanted to interject. Because we didn't get a second round, which is most unfortunate depending on how you look at it.... The fact that we're having this discussion in 2010 just blows me away. It's shocking. I was wondering if I could table a letter I was going to reference with respect to my line of questioning, which appeared in the National Post. It was authored by Patty Ducharme, and it was the letter of the day on Friday. It indicates that Ignatieff's plan is of real value to working women.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Simson. If you table that with us, then everyone will get to read it.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming and for, as usual, being clear and lucid in everything they had to say. It's a pity we couldn't stay longer.

Thank you again.

We will suspend so that we can set up for the teleconference.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

The meeting is resumed.

We have only three of the persons who are meant to be witnesses; there are another three who are probably still trying to get on. They can come on once we start. We are going to start so we can get this teleconference rolling.

I would like to welcome Ms. McGee, Ms. Benuen, and Ms. Hancock. Thank you for coming on. I know how difficult it is to take time out of your day to have a meeting like this. We do appreciate your coming on.

I would like you to introduce yourselves, but I would also let you know that we are on very strict timelines and you have three minutes in which to say what you need to say. I think you may just want to tell us who you are: Germaine Benuen works for the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation; Carmen Hancock works for Violence Prevention Labrador; and Joanne McGee works for Mushuau Innu First Nation.

I'd like you to start with your presentations. We're timing you here for three minutes, and I'll indicate when you have only 30 seconds left. Thank you.

Perhaps we will begin with Ms. McGee.

[Joanne McGee, Health Consultant, Mushuau Innu First Nation]

I'd rather not go first. I'd like Carmen or Germaine to go first, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Germaine, would you like to go first?

[Germaine Benuen, Director of Operations, Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation]

I would prefer that Carmen go first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Well, Ms. Hancock, you're it.

[Carmen Hancock, Executive Director, Violence Prevention Labrador]

Hi, everyone. I was part of the initial meeting in Lab West back in June.

My name is Carmen Hancock. I'm with Violence Prevention Labrador. Our background is to create public awareness and attitudinal change about some of the fundamental dynamics that help to foster and cause violence. In our initial meeting, just to give a backgrounder to Joanne and Germaine, we discussed issues and barriers facing women who experience violence in aboriginal communities.

While Violence Prevention Labrador covers the Labrador region, we didn't have voices of experience at the table, that is, women from aboriginal communities. We felt that it was important that the standing committee hear from women in Labrador and we've since recruited quite a few women to join in on this call.

We appreciate the standing committee taking the time to do this as well.

I wonder if you could, Ms. Chair, just give Germaine and Joanne—because they haven't had any kind of backgrounder into what you might expect from them—some idea of what they might provide you with today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is that all, Ms. Hancock?

[Carmen Hancock]

Yes. Thank you.