Status of Women Committee on Dec. 8th, 2020

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Excuse me, Madam Chair, but I think it's the Liberals turn for their five-minute round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Yes, you're right.

It's Ms. Hutchings for five minutes.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

I would like to thank my colleague across the way and the witnesses for being here today. It's wonderful to hear the Conservatives finally onside with pay equity, because they did vote against this in the budget implementation act. It's great that my colleagues are onside with this very important act.

Mr. Giroux, before our government passed the Pay Equity Act, women who felt they were being underpaid compared to their male counterparts were required to make a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and despite this system many women continued to be underpaid. In 2019 for every dollar a man earned in Canada, we know that women only earned 89¢, as measured in hourly wages for full-time workers. Could you speak to the differences between the previous complaint-based system and the new proactive pay equity system that our government will bring into force in 2021?

[Yves Giroux]

Madam Chair, unfortunately I cannot speak to the differences between the two regimes, not being very well versed in the pay equity regime myself.

Maybe my colleagues Rob and Salma could expand a bit on that.

[Robert Behrend]

Madam Chair, the pay equity regime codifies a set of steps, a set of processes. Employers will need to implement the regime within their workplace, and that would be, of course, a benefit to the employees. Codifying this takes away some of the burden of employees make a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, as it would be a process. There's an office now set up, an office of the pay equity commissioner, that can really focus on the work or the complaints associated with this.

Secondly, now in the federally regulated workforce there's a level of transparency. All employers would have this pay equity regime, so all employees would know that equal pay for work of equal value would be a characteristic of the federally regulated workforce.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

In your report, you estimate that the increase in public sector employee compensation in 2021-23 would be $477 million, with an additional $144 million in pensions and benefits. That's $621 million that women had been underpaid. That certainly had other spinoff economic impacts.

Why were these costs never adjusted under the system that was previously in place, the complaint-based system of pay equity?

[Yves Giroux]

Madam Chair, I can only speculate, given that Madam Hutchings asked an earlier question about the previous regime, that it was probably way too cumbersome for individual employees, mostly female, to complain and have recourse. That's probably why the pay was not adjusted previously. It was because of the difficulty in getting the points heard, and maybe also the lack of awareness of what it means to have work of equal value as opposed to identical work. It's a very complex concept. It's also very complex, when you don't know the intricacies of pay equity, to complain and to get your point across.

I can speculate that these are the reasons. I don't think my speculation would be far off from the truth.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Great. It's interesting, because Mr. Harper said pay equity was a “rip-off”. I'm glad we're addressing it now.

One of the next studies this committee will be working on is the impact that rural women face versus other sectors or other areas of our country. Do you have any comments on that? In your work on the act, did you focus anywhere on the differences? Did you lump everything together in wages and benefits or did you carve out and look at the impacts this would have specifically for rural areas?

[Yves Giroux]

I don't think we did carve out rural versus urban.

Salma, you can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Salma Mohamed Ahmed, Research Assistant, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer]

No, that is correct. Our population of interest was only women who were working in the core federal public service.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

How much time do I have left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

You have 20 seconds.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Oh. Well, thank you.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move on to the Bloc Québécois.

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Giroux, you answered a question earlier about pay equity. We had said that the Pay Equity Act does not yet do anything to address the consequences for older women. As women often live longer than men, they find themselves on their own and have not built up savings to the extent that men have.

In your brief, you said that parliamentarians may wish to encourage the federal government to provide estimates of expected increases to federal public service employee salaries, along with analysis of potential impacts on pensions and other future benefits, including for women.

Why is it important for parliamentarians to have access to these data?

If a cost analysis were carried out, what impact might it have on our work as parliamentarians?

[Yves Giroux]

Thank you.

This kind of analysis could have major repercussions on the information you have. As I mentioned a little earlier, we were not given access to information held by the government because it was identified as being part of confidential Cabinet deliberations.

Our estimate is therefore based on public data, but the government has much more detailed data. Consequently, the government estimates, if they've been done well, would probably be more accurate and allow for an assessment of how the application of the Pay Equity Act would affect prospective increases for those employees who would benefit. It's a prospective act that would have no retroactive impact.

Based on the demographic profile of those who would benefit from the act, the government could also identify the impact on future income and the income of these employees, by which I mean employees of the federal public service, most of whom are covered by a pension plan. The additional pay would also have an impact on the pension benefits of these employees.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Giroux.

Earlier, I referred to a Quebec study that reported on other impacts on private sector businesses. Of these 1.3 million employees to whom the act might apply…

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I'm sorry. That's your time.

Now we're going to Ms. Mathyssen, for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you.

In your report, you also talked a little bit about the pay equity commissioner. You stated that she was brought on board in late 2019-20. Now you state in your report that “We assume that the Pay Equity Division will likely be fully staffed by 2020-21.” Is that is line with the speed of bringing that on board? Did that seem in line with the slower progress compared to the regulations and so on brought forward by this government?

[Yves Giroux]

Salma, can you speak on the assumptions regarding the onboarding of the pay equity commissioner?

[Salma Mohamed Ahmed]

I believe that maybe Robert has more information on that than I do.

[Robert Behrend]

With the passage of the act in December 2018 as part of the budget implementation bill, the pay equity commissioner was first appointed in September 2019—so roughly nine or ten months later. I understand that she was re-appointed for a second term this past September. The office is continuing to ramp up its capabilities with respect to tools for employers. However, the office is still waiting for the act to come into force before it can really fully get itself involved—

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

So they too have been delayed by the regulations.

Based on that study, do you believe that the pay equity commissioner will have the appropriate resources to take on the role that has been set forward by this legislation?

[Yves Giroux]

I believe that the amount will probably need to be readjusted depending on how rigorously and how quickly federal organizations do indeed implement a pay equity committee, and how fast they are in enacting and really implementing the pay equity regimes they are supposed to enact. It could well be that the pay equity commissioner will need more resources, depending on how fast and rigorous employers are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Now we will go to Ms. Wong, for five minutes.