Status of Women Committee on Dec. 8th, 2020

[Yves Giroux]

When a business or an employer takes a greater interest in staff or conducts an in-depth study of jobs, their value and the efforts required for each type of task or responsibility, employees appreciate it. Indeed, employees often feel undervalued when they are underpaid. In my opinion, greater recognition of employees is definitely one of the benefits that will come about as a result of implementing the Pay Equity Act.

Not only that, but the act will probably make certain types of jobs more attractive and increase the employee retention rate, another important benefit of implementation. If one category of jobs is filled mainly by women and the pay for this category is raised slightly, it should be easier for employers to attract, and in particular retain, people to fill these jobs and perform the tasks.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

There's been a lot of discussion of the impact of COVID-19 on women.

How could the application of the Pay Equity Act have helped women get through this crisis without so many negative effects?

[Yves Giroux]

That's a much more difficult question to answer, because the pandemic is an overwhelming and unprecedented event. It's therefore hard to imagine what the Pay Equity Act might have changed for women had it been fully in force.

Because many different groups were hit hard by the pandemic, I don't know how much of an impact the Pay Equity Act would have had on the employment market for women. It's unfortunately difficult to answer this question.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Okay.

You're saying that...

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Excuse me.

Now we'll go to Ms. Mathyssen for six minutes.

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

Thank you, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

I would have to say that I certainly agree with many of my colleagues that we're talking about something that was brought forward in a report to government 50 years ago. The fact that we still haven't seen the implementation of that legislation—which you commented on, bringing forward the problem—certainly delays women's being seen as having the same rights as men.

Ultimately it's important to stipulate that these are human rights and that the government, as an organization that brings in legislation and laws to change these things, is also an employer. It thus plays a dual role in the violation of these human rights.

You mentioned that when you did the study, the government withheld the information you had requested, and that this was somewhat unusual, considering that you were asking for statistical information, as far as I can understand. You weren't asking for confidential names or specifics about people. Could it be, then, that they were hiding the numbers a bit?

As a result, you were only able to capture 30% of the federally regulated workforce, is that correct?

[Yves Giroux]

Yes, that's correct. We captured only 30% of the federally regulated workforce, and that was the public service.

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

Right, and that 30% is the $621 million, then. You stated that what women are being short-changed currently would actually be closer to the $2 billion mark, given the fact that the legislation hasn't yet been implemented.

[Yves Giroux]

The $2 billion I talked about was something the government released itself as part of its regulations. It's over a 10-year period, and it is the net present value. It is the value in current dollars, applying the pay equity regime to the private sector.

Salma and Robert can correct me, if I'm wrong about the $2 billion.

I seem to be correct.

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

You are right, actually. That's great.

You also mentioned in the report that in some instances there was a short-changing of about $3 an hour. If, however, you were to take that over the course of someone's entire work lifetime, it would significantly impact a senior's pension and what they would have to live on in their senior years. Would that also be correct?

[Yves Giroux]

That is totally accurate. If somebody is earning $3 an hour less than they otherwise would have earned, it has an impact of about $6,000 per year, and over the span of their career it can easily get into the tens of thousands of dollars.

It also has an implication for the retirement pension of that individual through either the QPP or CPP or an employer-based pension plan, because those are nearly always based on career earnings. The lower your earnings, the lower your CPP/QPP benefits are when you retire, and the lower your pension is as well.

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

Of course, that legislation wouldn't be retroactive. We wouldn't actually be able to compensate all the women I think of who have worked in the public sector, even if it's the 30% referenced here, for that pay lost and that time lost.

It's interesting, too, that the postmasters union was actually successful in winning their pay equity court case, but they are now dealing with tens of thousands of claims because, for them, it was a 27-year battle to get some of that compensation. There's quite a lot going forward in terms of the actual implementation of that case and that win for them in terms of dealing with CRA, and they were actually able to get that retroactive pay.

In terms of a timeline, I think they quoted 42,000 claims that are problematic. For a much larger federal public sector, what would that look like for the federal government going forward, and would that significantly delay the benefits of the pay equity legislation, if it actually will be implemented in a reasonable amount of time?

[Yves Giroux]

Madam Chair, I'll probably ask Robert or Salma to jump in on the implementation timelines for the pay equity regime, keeping in mind that they have less than one minute to answer.

[Robert Behrend, Advisor-Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer]

Thank you for the question.

As soon as the act comes into force, which is expected in early 2021, the employers have three years to implement their pay equity regime. An employer may request a lengthening of the period, due to some difficulties or their size, but it would be for the pay equity commissioner to make that determination.

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

As a result of that delay, it could mean that we're looking at potentially another 10 years that women could be shortchanged that money, and there would be violations by the federal government, as an employer, of those human rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That's your time.

Now we're going to the second round of questioning, with five minutes for Ms. Sahota.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Recently, you've been giving reports on the status of our finances and the COVID spending. Given that this government has spent more than any other G7 nation and gotten the least in return, do you believe it will be able to fulfill its promises of pay equity in the next fiscal year, or will women continue to suffer from pay inequity under this Liberal government?

[Yves Giroux]

Madam Chair, this is legislation, so I would hope that the government will not go against its own legislation and will indeed abide by the legislation that has been voted for by parliamentarians such as you. I have no reason to believe the government will go against its own legislation and regulations and will not implement pay equity in a timely manner, now that it is legislation, a law of the land, and at least some of the regulations have passed.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

My colleague asked about the framework and why it was quicker in Quebec than Canada. You said it has to do with the willingness of the legislators.

Legislation passed in 2018. It is now the end of 2020, and there are still no regulations.

Can you elaborate on that? Could this have been done any faster? Why do you think it has taken so long?

[Yves Giroux]

Madam Chair, while I am no expert on pay equity and the implementation of the pay equity regime, I know a thing or two about government workings and regulation-making. It was the government's own legislation, so they knew this was coming. I'm convinced they could have drafted and implemented regulations more quickly and had an earlier coming into force.

Why that was not the case, I don't know. I think that's a question that only the minister and her officials could provide you with the real answers on. One can only speculate, but I cannot answer with any level of certainty as to the reasons for the time lag between legislation and implementation.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

You mentioned that the government still hasn't published regulations in the Gazette. What should be in those regulations, and when do you believe they should be published? Could that increase the cost, and if so, by how much?

[Yves Giroux]

Madam Chair, it's clear that regulations can increase the cost of legislation because, as we often say, the devil is in the details, and details are usually found in regulations.

I will ask Rob and Salma to jump in on the amount or the aspects of regulations that have not yet been published and what these should cover.

[Robert Behrend]

Madam Chair, these regulations were detailing some of the aspects of the methods that employers would be using to assess the value of employment for those job classes that are predominantly female against those that are predominantly male. Other aspects included in these costs were the enforcement and the maintenance of the programs. Employers will have to set aside resources to maintain pay equity on an ongoing basis once the regimes are set into place.

As for additional costs, the regulations do indicate that for the most part the federal government will be able to use the act. The framework is set out in the act for the federal government to implement it within the public service. It's again those extra details for the private sector—those with 10 or more employees that would have to implement this act.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Ms. Larouche, You now have the floor for two and a half minutes.