Status of Women Committee on Feb. 25th, 2021

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

Minister, some provinces have their own pay equity system. In Manitoba and the Maritimes, they cover the public sector. In Ontario and Quebec, they cover the public and private sectors.

Would you be able to comment on the lessons learned from the rollout in these provinces that explain why we would not want to rush this legislation?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

This is a very important point. This legislation is going to cover 1.32 million workers across this country.

As I said in my opening remarks, it is complex. We are moving forward. It talks about equal pay for work of equal value. It's not a situation where you're looking at crane drivers, male and female, and paying them the same amount of money. You're looking at different job classes and then trying to make a comparison. You're looking at the crane driver and the clerk. You're looking at the secretary and the caretaker or janitor.

This is a complicated and complex evaluation that needs to be done by employers. It is critical that we get it right, which is why, for example, we appointed the first pay equity commissioner, Ms. Jensen. I know she's been in front of this committee and has testified. Her work and that of her team is going to be invaluable, because it's going to support the employers that are going to be implementing this legislation.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

I know that our government is committed to ensuring effective implementation and enforcement of proactive pay equity for federally regulated workplaces.

Minister, what steps have already been taken to ensure pay equity is done the right way?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

This would go to the work that Ms. Jensen and her team are doing. This is about coming up with tools and supports for employers, so that when it comes time for them to prepare their pay equity plans, we are supporting them in a way that is going to make this successful.

As I have said, this is transformational legislation. This is going to impact generations to come. It is critical that we get this right, which is why Ms. Jensen's team is so important. They will be providing employers with the support and the tools they need, so that whichever approach they take in terms of the method of doing the calculations is supported, and they will be guided every step of the way. We have a very significant opportunity here, and it's critical that we get it right.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

As you have said—and all members of our committee would agree—Canadian women are among the world's highest educated, and education could be one of the greatest tools to increase labour participation and pay equity.

What further investment into education and training for our young women and girls do you believe is necessary to unlock this economic potential, as Canada is set to begin its post-COVID economic recovery process?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

That's an excellent question, because what it demonstrates is that this is one part of a package. There are many layers to this.

At the end of the day, we want to ensure that women are supported every step of the way so that their full potential can be realized in the workforce. When we do that, the gains are going to be exponential. Not only do we have personal gain for a woman who is given the opportunity to fulfill her full potential, but there are also the impacts that we're going to feel across this country. I am very excited about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That's your time.

We'll now go to Ms. Normandin.

Good morning, Ms. Normandin.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Minister, for being with us.

It's a pleasure to join your group at the last minute to ask a few questions. The first one is about the plan that employers are going to have to put in place. To do this, they'll need to establish job categories that will group positions according to certain criteria, such as similar duties or responsibilities, similar skill level, compensation or rate of pay, for instance.

I draw a parallel with bargaining units in the union world. When, for example, someone considers that they aren't part of the right bargaining unit, there's a process in place and that challenge can go to court. I'd like to know if there's something similar in this case.

What options are available to workers who consider themselves to be in the wrong category?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

This is an excellent question.

Thank you very much for your question.

This is a part of ensuring that we get this right. What is required in workplaces is that employers, if there are 100 employees or more, or a union, if there are 10 to 99 employees with a union, have to set up a committee at the workplace. That committee will work together to ensure that this important work is done right. Issues such as what mechanism is going to be used, whether we are going to do an equal average or we are going to do the regressive line and how we will evaluate the conditions of the work or the value of the work are all part of this planning committee, and the pay equity commissioner will be there to support the work. She and her team are providing tools to the employer and the employee committees so that they can come together with a response that works. This is where the time is required, because, as I said before, you're comparing completely different occupations, and we want to ensure that the voices are heard so that we get that comparison right. The pay equity commissioner will oversee the implementation and the enforcement of the act, and she and her team will be there at all times to assist.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I'd like to pursue my question further.

I imagine it won't always be perfect and there won't always be an agreement between the committee and the employer, for example. There may be differences of opinion that can't be reconciled.

In cases like that, is there a mechanism in place to address the issue or, at the very least, to impose certain categorizations in a more coercive way?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

The hope, of course, is that these parties can come together and that they can reach an agreement, and this is why we are affording them the time in order to do the work. The pay equity commissioner will be giving them the tools, so it's not that they're going to sit around a table and not have any support. They will actually have tools in place that will help them with these evaluations. The idea is to provide them with all the supports that we can to get them to a place where agreement is made.

I will turn to my officials now to ask if there's anything that I have missed which might be part of the regulations, which could be added to my response.

[Barbara Moran, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Labour Program, Policy, Dispute Resolution and International Affairs Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thank you, Minister.

What I would say is that you are exactly right. The pay equity commissioner is there to help support the parties in reaching consensus if they aren't able to.

I would actually turn to Lori Straznicky to see if she can add anything from the legislation itself that can provide greater details.

[Lori Straznicky, Executive Director, Labour Program, Workplace and Labour Relations Policy Division, Department of Employment and Social Development]

I'm happy to.

If there is a dispute between the parties at committee, then there are mechanisms for the parties to ask the pay equity commissioner and her team to provide them with dispute resolution services to help them work through the dispute and then come to a decision with the pay equity commissioner's support.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

So my understanding is correct, that there are other dispute resolution mechanisms that can be used, but there's no final forum when an agreement isn't reached.

Is that correct?

[Lori Straznicky]

The pay equity commissioner would be able to issue a decision if one was needed and the parties weren't able to arrive at an agreement through the alternate dispute resolution mechanism.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

That decision would have the force of law, as I understand it.

[Lori Straznicky]

It would be. Then questions of law could go to the human rights tribunal, if there were concerns there.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Great.

I'd like to ask you one last quick question. Employers have been given three years to come up with a plan. Why three years?

That can be very long for some companies and very short for others. There could have been a shorter time frame for small companies.

Why is it three years?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

I think that's the outside time. We are allowing companies three years to come up with this plan. As I have said, the reason for that is because of the complexity.

It doesn't stop agreements from being made and a plan prepared and posted earlier than that. I would say that, particularly with the pandemic, there have been many federally regulated employers and workers who have been hit very hard by this. This three years is important because it ensures that the supports are there and the time to do this right is available. It ensures that, at the end of the day, the plans that are posted are going to be wholesome plans that are reflective of the goal we are trying to reach, which is that women are going to be paid equally.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you, Minister.

We're going to Ms. Mathyssen now for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the minister and the departmental officials.

Clearly, there's a lot of frustration. It was only a few months ago that we were celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Pay equity was mentioned then. In 1977, equal pay for equal work was enshrined in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Then, of course, we had to wait until 2018 for legislation to be introduced on pay equity. We've now waited an additional three years for regulations to come into play. These were promised in January. When I asked the question in the House, we were told it would be later in the fall. You've repeated that again today.

You've also said that this is a moral and economic imperative. For me, this is a clear and continued violation of human rights. Women are not paid equally for work of equal value in those federally regulated workplaces.

When you say later in the fall, that vagueness is extremely unhelpful. Do you have any more of a specific date that you could provide this committee, that you know of,when we would actually stop violating those human rights?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thanks, MP Mathyssen, for that question. I appreciate your passion on this.

From the outset, I have indicated the importance of getting this right. There is no question of our government's commitment to move forward on this. Because of the impact that this can have for future generations, it is critical that we get it right.

I challenge you in terms of the timing piece. The 2004 Bilson report came out. Since we took office, we had a special parliamentary committee on pay equity, which was in 2016. Following that, we had consultations. This is a file where consultations are important. We want to work collaboratively. We want to ensure that everyone has a say because it's critical that we get this right—

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

You know, I can understand that absolutely—

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

In 2018, we provided the consultation report, the “What We Heard Report”, and in 2018 we passed the legislation.

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

I can understand that you want to be comprehensive, however, the laws are clear. We've known this information for a great deal of time. We've known for over 50 years now. Study after study doesn't help women get past this violation of human rights.

Employers now have three years to draft plans. There's an additional potential five years. This means that pay equity could actually potentially take until 2029-30. This is significant. This doesn't just have an impact on an individual's paycheque or month-to-month salary. This actually has longer term consequences. We saw that the Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association filed their complaints in 1992 and it took almost 30 years to rectify. They're still dealing with these cases. In a lot of the cases, the estates of these women are being awarded back pay because they've died in the meantime.

Could you tell this committee what your government's plans are to rectify this injustice and to take into account the long-term impacts for women on their pensions and on their benefits? What are you going to do to reduce the long-term costs because of your continual delays?