Status of Women Committee on Oct. 28th, 2010

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you.

I want to go back to this discussion of choice. I appreciate the answer from StatsCan, but it's been framed as that women earn less—there are pay gaps—because they are in and out of the workplace, and that this is by choice. I wonder whether you could comment on that, because it seems to me that it may not be exclusively by choice.

Ms. Cornish?

[Mary Cornish]

I think the issue of the structural and systemic discrimination that women face in their role in reproduction is something that's being dealt with the entire world wide. Certainly in my experience the fact that working women have children is one of the major pieces of discrimination that they face. Actually, the women doctors who start off almost immediately have troubles if they decide to have children.

That's a whole other piece, and it's a piece that's actually addressed by employment equity laws that deal with trying to figure out how women and how employers can address the needs for women. I would say it is a societal choice that we have children and families.

But that is separate and apart from the issue we face today, and that's the reason why this choice issue should not become mixed up in the issue of equal pay for work of equal value. Equal pay for work of equal value has nothing to do with the choice of whether a woman got this job or that job. What it's about is saying that it's the work women have—the work they're in, the job they have: you evaluate that job. The issue is that there's research that shows that the fact that women are associated with types of work has historically undervalued that work.

So the technique of equal pay for work of equal value is using a mechanism of skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions—the normal things employers use to value work. Job evaluation was actually an employer tool. Use that tool and compare that work—the work a woman is doing, not the work she might have gotten, should have gotten, or whatever, but the work she's in—and see whether it's comparable to other, male work in the workplace. And if it is comparable, what's the difference in pay?

It's a pretty specific technique, and the tool is to identify that discrimination where comparably valued work is paid less. It's considered that it's paid less because you've done this analysis: you've sorted out that the work is equal and employers are paying them less.

We know that historically, if employers aren't required to address the gap, they don't. Not only that, they actually don't do the analysis. When you have a proactive pay equity law, it isn't that the union doesn't sit down with the employer, as Ms. Gagné was mentioning. They do. I've been involved in these things for 20 years. You sit down—the union is there, the employer is there—you analyze the jobs, you see if there's a gap, and then the law says you have to close it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Thank you.

That finishes our three rounds.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses.

I have to say, the commitment to pay equity is a very important issue. Really, it becomes the deliberation whether Bill C-471 or the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act is the better way to get there.

But please be assured that we all, I think, want to achieve pay equity. Really, the debate is about the best way to achieve this. So thank you again.

I believe we now have a motion from Madame Demers that we'll be discussing.

We'll suspend for 30 seconds.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

I call the meeting back to order.

We had a motion by Madame Demers. It came back to the table to provide us with a little more information, so I don't think I need to read it.

Could I perhaps ask Madame Demers to start the debate on her motion?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would really have liked to include other provinces' demands in my motion. However, having made inquiries, the only demands that were available were those of Manitoba. However, there were some demands out of Manitoba that I could not support. For example, Manitoba was demanding that the Canadian government decriminalize prostitution, which is something I cannot support. As a result, I could not include the demands of the Manitoba Women's March in my motion. The only Women's March demands I was able to include were the four universal demands addressed to the Government of Canada by the Quebec Women's March, which were also UN demands. So, I was able to endorse them. That's the reason why I only included the demands brought forward by the Quebec Women's March.

There were no demands from the other provinces that were specifically addressed to the Government of Canada; the only ones were from Manitoba. I can read them to you, if you like, Madam Chair, but you will see for yourself when you read them that they were far broader in scope.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Everyone has these in front of them. Do we need to have them read out?

Is there any debate on this motion?

(Motion negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Just as a quick reminder, the members of the committee are asked to send to the clerk their proposed amendments to Bill C-471 by Friday, October 29, at 4 o'clock. And we will be doing clause-by-clause on November 2.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Could I be given the result of the vote, please?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

There were three in favour, and seven opposed.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

The meeting is adjourned.