Thanks, Tom.
Did you know that currently there are no provisions for maternity leave at Pacific coast ports, beyond legislated minimums? The same holds true for paternity leave. Also, there are no child care provisions. Waterfront workers do not have any workplace policies that make it easier to care for elderly parents or for dependent adult children.
As you know, these family responsibilities of caring for young and old family members frequently fall to women to fulfill. The absence of these kinds of supports helps to explain why the waterfront is less attractive as a workplace of choice for our daughters, our sisters, and our mothers. The waterfront is less attractive as a workplace for women and men because there are significant barriers that block access to benefits, such as long-term health and dental care, for new workers.
There are other troubling indications of gender inequality on the waterfront that constitute serious barriers to women. From a variety of reports and hearsay, it would appear that the workplace environment drastically needs to change for women and probably for most men. Although many reports have been done, recommendations in these reports have come from a somewhat subjective process. A proper human rights audit needs to be done to ascertain what is and is not going on in 2010.
An audit should assess harassment, drugs and alcohol, violence, sanitation, graffiti, etc. Once a clear and current picture emerges, policies and procedures can be designed to improve the environment. There is no point in engaging in a huge recruitment process without simultaneously improving the environment.
The union has attempted over and over again to work in conjunction with the employer. That's the way I'm most used to advising people: having an employer and union working together. But it's not to be in this case, because the employer is not cooperating. So we've decided to put together a table of women who work in the union, and the CLC, and me--an expert in human rights--and seriously look at how we can help our women members succeed. We're also pleased to say that Transport Canada has agreed to fund an audit, which I think is the first most critical thing that should take place before we try to change anything else in the workplace.
It's my understanding that the employer, the BCMEA, has now put forward a proposal to place 200 women at the top of the hiring list. This would create a separate class of worker and would have the effect of bumping everyone else 200 spots down the list that determines access to work. I cannot tell you what a disastrous effect this would have. Queue-jumping is not employment equity; it's discrimination. Human rights law does not allow for placing one person by removing another. Further, the women and many men who are seen to take part in this or to support it could be the victims of retaliation.
We know that the committee has already heard testimony that this approach is counterproductive to the retention of new female recruits. One-step efforts do nothing to stop systemic discrimination. The correct tool is an ongoing, continuous process, such as a 50% hiring goal. Such a process would ensure that an equal number of men and women get to the starting gate. In addition, this inadvisable proposal would bump current female employees out of the active workforce.
I'd like to say a couple of extra things, too. I'm sure you all know that the federal jurisdiction is the only one where we have employment equity, period, so there are probably more women in longshore than anywhere else. Certainly in B.C. you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of women in alternate work.
Employment equity has shown itself to be a really good tool in the federal jurisdiction. I have to say that I've never seen a proposal that says we want a 50% equal rate at the start-up. You may remember that the Supreme Court of Canada said, in Action Travail des Femmes, that one in every four women should be selected, up to 17%, I think it was, so this is a huge going away from those very low numbers.
Tom, I'll hand it back to you.