Go ahead.
Evidence of meeting #33 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pay.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #33 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pay.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)
Employers don't disagree with a proactive approach; in fact, we support it. In a nutshell, employers believe it's important to identify gaps where they exist, identify the reasons for the gaps, and develop a plan to close the gap. Understanding why the gap exists is most important, and also enlisting, in a unionized environment, the assistance of the union to work with the employer to achieve agreements and address issues that will close the gap.
We cannot set wages in collective bargaining unilaterally. We are compelled to set wages and benefits in conjunction with the unions. They have to share with us the responsibility to understand what needs to be accomplished and work with us to achieve it. This is really one of the main points that we wish to make to this—
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Then what I'm hearing from you is that you are very strongly endorsing pay equity as part of the bargaining process rather than as a human right.
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)
Pay equity is a human right and pay equity is also part of the bargaining process. We can't change the labour laws that exist in this country. We have to operate within the confines of those laws. An employer cannot change the terms and working conditions of unionized employees without the involvement of the union, without fair collective bargaining, and without the give and take that is necessary to find solid solutions to complex problems.
Pay is a very complex problem. Pay equity is certainly a complex problem to solve, but it's all part and parcel of a very difficult process of setting wages and benefits and compensation in the workplace, so we have to work to solve the pay equity pay gap and at the same time manage our businesses in accordance with compensation arrangements that make sense.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thank you.
I want to hear from Ms. Pageau, but what I am hearing from you is it is a human right that can be bargained.
Ms. Pageau.
9:20 a.m.
Human Rights Director, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada
I totally disagree that pay equity, as a human right, can be bargained. You cannot bargain away a human rights issue. It's fundamentally accepted that you can't do that. Unions do not control the budgets of the employers. They hold the purse strings.
If you want to see the success of pay equity with proactive legislation, you should look at the Quebec model. Their pay equity is about 11 or 12 years old, and they just finished a study, an audit, about a year ago of their pay equity throughout the province. It was very interesting to see some of the results. Of the employers, 82% said they wouldn't do pay equity unless they were legislated to do it, but 100% of the employers in Quebec said they did not close their doors because of pay equity. There was a collaboration between the unions and the employers and that model worked really well because it was a proactive, legislated model.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
9:20 a.m.
Senior Consultant, Opus Mundi Canada
Thank you.
Very quickly, one of the features of most proactive legislation is that it is legislation separate from normal collective bargaining, and in my experience it is extremely positive to get people around the table talking about the common goal of equity. Even though there is some conflict, there is not the same dynamic at all as there is in collective bargaining. It's a very positive exercise.
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much for appearing today. My first question is addressed to you, Ms. Michaud. I would first like to express our gratitude for all the work you do at Statistics Canada.
Why are the data you have presented so old? You presented data going back to 1997. For one thing, it seems to me that the situation, as well as the data relating to women's education have changed considerably. So, I am not sure that these data are accurate, compared to the image we have of women in the labour market. Things may have evolved over the last 13 years. The data we have on educational attainment date back to 1997, which makes them very old.
Ms. Pageau, I would like to know whether you are concerned about possible repercussions if we are not able to pass Bill C-471 fairly quickly. Do you think there will be consequences for public sector employees if, for some reason, the House were to be prorogued or Parliament were to be dissolved before we were able to pass Bill C-471 and if, unfortunately, Bill C-9, which has been passed, were to go into effect in January, as planned?
I would like to hear first from Ms. Michaud, and then, Ms. Pageau.
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Education, Labour and Income Statistics Branch, Statistics Canada
Thank you.
Not all the data date back to 1997. If you look at the first slides on the trends in the various compensation ratios, you will see that the data go up to 2008. When we're explaining certain sophisticated models based on the effect of a number of factors, the data do in fact go back to 1997. However, we have a study that should be released in December; it is not completed yet. When we have more up-to-date results, we will be very pleased to forward them to you.
9:25 a.m.
Human Rights Director, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada
Thank you.
As far as I'm concerned, the consequences are quite clear. How many years now have we been waiting for action on pay equity? If this falls through in the next few months, the women of Canada at the federal level will not have pay equity. There will be two systems of pay equity for two different groups of people, which means that you will be removing pay equity as a human right. I cannot imagine anything worse. So, the consequences are huge. At the federal level, women, as you know, don't have the means to defend themselves, because their unions will be punished if they try to support a complaint. But when it comes time to pay wages, the union is on an equal footing with the employer. I simply can't understand the reasons for that. As I said earlier, the unions are not the ones that control the budgets or manage these companies; therefore, we have to separate negotiations on pay equity—given that it is a human right—from normal negotiations, which are ongoing.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Why do you think that some employers are still confusing equal pay with pay equity?
9:25 a.m.
Human Rights Director, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada
Paul can answer that question.
9:25 a.m.
Senior Consultant, Opus Mundi Canada
Thank you.
The equal pay principle is far simpler: you simply compare almost identical work. However, when it comes to pay equity, the comparison is made based on the value of the work done. So, it's a lot more complicated and it means that you are comparing all the work done by women, rather than simply considering the same kind of simple tasks—for example, office cleaning and another very comparable task. So, it's much broader.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
How can the Treasury Board possibly believe that this new legislation will replace a complaints-based system with a proactive process, and that the federal system will not be like the one in effect in many provinces that require a proactive approach? Ms. Laurendeau told us that this is actually a practice supported by most of the experts in this area. How is it possible that the government, through Ms. Laurendeau, could possibly believe that?
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Senior Consultant, Opus Mundi Canada
I will be very brief. At this point in time, the federal government cannot implement pay equity under current laws. It's impossible.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
October 28th, 2010 / 9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a lot of questions. I'm not likely to get them all in, in seven minutes.
I want to first of all address a question to Statistics Canada. We talked about the factors explaining the gap in wages. I'm wondering if this is going to change exponentially as we see more and more women going into higher-paying professions, such as technology, medical, any of those.
