:
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
It's a little unusual for the leader of a political party to give testimony to a parliamentary committee. I've never done this before. It's a great privilege and an honour. I thank you for the opportunity to talk to you this morning and answer questions about Bill .
[Translation]
Though it may be a tad unusual for the leader of a political party to testify before a parliamentary committee, this is an honour. I am here to address your questions regarding Bill .
[English]
As a party, we start--and I start personally--from a simple proposition that pay equity is not an issue about labour relations; it's a fundamental human right.
Women in Canada, just to take that example of pay equity, earn 72¢ on the dollar compared to men. Women with children earn a little over 50¢ on the dollar. This private member's bill, Bill , is intended to do something about those statistics, which seem to us, and I think to many Canadians, to be unfair.
The Government of Canada is the largest employer. As the largest employer, we should be setting an example on pay equity. The federal government also has jurisdiction over crown corporations and a number of federally regulated industries, so this private member's bill is designed to promote proactive pay equity in all areas of federal jurisdiction.
[Translation]
The purpose of this bill is to promote pay equity in all federally regulated organizations: the federal public service, crown corporations and all employers that fall under the federal purview.
As the largest employer in Canada, the federal government must set a good example in the matter of pay equity. We think that the best way to do so is to create a federal pay equity board to promote pay equity in all federal entities. When I say that it would “promote”, I do not only mean that it would react to cases of abuse, but indeed promote active plans to achieve salary equity in all federal areas. We think that this is the best course of action.
[English]
The core of Bill as a legislative project is the idea that Canada needs the federal government, as the largest employer, to have a proactive federal pay equity commission with, if necessary, a tribunal to hear individual cases of abuse, but the role of a federal pay equity commission is to promote proactive pay equity reform across the federal service, the crown corporations, and all the employers under federal jurisdiction. We think that's the way to deal with the startling fact that Canadian women earn 72¢ on the dollar compared to men and women with children earn just over 50¢ on the dollar, and also that there are substantial examples of pay inequity in relation to aboriginal Canadians, Canadians with handicaps, and other disadvantaged minorities.
This proposal would reverse the way the Conservative government has gone on this issue. The Conservative government has judged pay equity to be basically a labour relations issue and has given it to the Canadian labour relations tribunal. Our view of that is that there's an objection of principle and there are some practical objections.
The objection of principle is that we think pay equity is a human right, not a labour relations issue. That's the fundamental issue.
The second issue is that the labour relations tribunal, in our view, does not have the competence to take a proactive stand on pay equity and promote pay equity as an active matter across areas under federal jurisdiction.
The other problem with the labour relations approach is that women are unable to bring representation to their case. For example, they're not allowed to bring their unions to defend themselves. We think that's a mistake.
We think, therefore, that a superior way to go here is to create a federal pay equity commission with a proactive mandate to establish and demand plans from all employers under federal jurisdiction to promote pay equity as a human right. That's the approach we take. We think it's superior to the approach taken by this government and we think it's extremely important for all Canadians to understand what's at stake here.
This society lives by equality: equality of opportunity and equality of remuneration. Equal pay for work of equal value is a human rights idea, not just a labour relations issue. We'd be very concerned if pay equity issues are put into the bargaining process and bargained away. We think Canadian women will go backwards, not forwards, if that happens. That's why we've taken the position we've taken on this issue.
Our recommendations on Bill follow from a task force that extensively studied this from 2001 to 2004. We haven't plucked these recommendations out of the air; they're the basis of consultation with stakeholders across Canada over three years. The Conservative government did not see fit to listen to that process of consultation and went their own way. We're trying to correct something that we think was a serious mistake.
[Translation]
Allow me to reiterate that we believe pay equity to be a fundamental human right. We believe that placing pay equity under the aegis of the Canada Industrial Relations Board is a mistake. This board does not have the jurisdiction needed to make pay equity related decisions. At this board, women do not have the right to ask for the presence of a union representative. We also believe that the Canada Industrial Relations Board does not have the power to ask federal employers for proactive action plans to settle these pay inequity problems in a general and strategic manner. It has the power to deal with individual cases but it does not have the capacity to act in a strategic and systematic way.
To our way of thinking, that is at the root of the problem. We think it is very important that the federal government, as the largest employer in Canada, set a good example in the area of pay equity. The best way to do that is to create a new national pay equity board with a tribunal. The federal level will be able to do what it is incumbent upon Canada to do, that is to say to set an example of good behaviour with regard to matters of pay equity for women, and for all those individuals who need equity in the federal system.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for having given me this opportunity to discuss my bill before you today.
:
I thank the honourable member for her question.
It is worth noting that this is the first private member's bill I've ever had the honour to introduce in Parliament, and I'm very proud personally to be associated with this issue. It's a statement of principle, not only on my behalf, obviously, but on behalf of the party that I have the honour to lead.
I'm just struck by those numbers. I'm just struck by the fact that women in our country do not get equal pay for work of equal value. We have not closed the gap. We've said we ought to. We've not done so.
So then the question becomes, how does the federal government lead? Many provinces have pay equity commissions. Why can't the federal government have a pay equity commission that says “let's get proactive about this”? Let's not just do this case by case when a woman has a complaint. Let's get out there and get a strategy led by a federal institution that says, “Show us the plan and show us how you plan to reduce these inequities”.
I feel ashamed as a Canadian to be in a situation where people with the same human rights as I don't get financial recognition for the value of their work. This is an inequity that needs to be reformed. We feel very strongly that the way that the actual government has gone about it, which is to turn this into a labour relations issue, doesn't create the machinery necessary to get this done on behalf of Canadian women.
So that's the path we've taken. It's a statement of our commitment to pay equity as a human right. It's a statement of commitment that the Government of Canada should be a leader in advancing pay equity for women right across federal jurisdiction. It's a statement of personal commitment on my part and it's a statement of commitment by my party.
Thank you very much for the question.
:
Thank you for the question.
The 2001 task force set out some very useful guidelines. We would go back to that, look at them in detail, and reconsult with stakeholders.
There are always things we can improve here. So first, you listen to stakeholders. First, you listen to experts. You go back to the task force. But basically I think the mandate is, first of all, that it has jurisdiction over crown corporations, the federal public service, and all of the sectors covered by federal legislation--that's a lot of people in Canada--and the basic mandate is to take a proactive stance with each employer.
The federal pay equity commission would go to each employer and say, “What's your plan?” It would ask how they would propose to reduce this gap that is affecting the rights of women, the rights of handicapped people, the rights of aboriginal Canadians, and the rights of any Canadian who's not getting equal pay for work of equal value. Give us the plan, it would say, and then let's set up some benchmarks together so that we close that gap over time, and so you can report to your employers and we can report to Parliament that we are working together to reduce that gap so Canada delivers on what it says it's going to deliver on, which is basic equality for men and women and all Canadians.
It's the proactive element of this that I think is the key mandate. In addition, I think there has to be a tribunal function so that someone with a specific complaint gets the right to make a complaint and have that complaint adjudicated swiftly and, above all, by professionals, by those whose only job is to deal with pay equity issues.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Ignatieff, thank you for being with us today. I have several questions for you, and also several matters I'd like to explore.
The first time the committee tabled its report on pay equity in 2001, one of the most pressing concerns did indeed involve the adoption of a proactive piece of legislation on pay equity. At that time, the government in power was a Liberal one. We had a budget surplus. It would have been easy to promote a proactive law on pay equity. And yet this was not done. At the time of the last budget, you unfortunately voted for Bill which put forward a very retrograde piece of legislation on pay equity, making pay equity a negotiable right.
Should your bill be interpreted as a sign of remorse that you abandoned women at the time for strictly electoral considerations? Today you are tabling a bill as if you had forgotten that you voted in favour of Bill . It is as though you wanted to renew your virginity by not mentioning that you are sorry that you voted for Bill C-10. You make no mention of the fact that you voted for Bill C-10, nor of the fact that that vote caused irreparable damage to thousands of women in the public service. That damage will not be repaired by tabling Bill .
I'm certainly going to vote for Bill , because I want women to obtain pay equity. Unfortunately, this bill is way too little and very much too late. Unfortunately, women have already suffered from the fact that you voted in favour of Bill .
What do you have to say to that?
:
I thank the honourable member for her question.
As I said in the other official language, you can't have an election every time you have a disagreement with the government. That's number one. I think you yourself acknowledge that in a minority Parliament that's actually a reasonable position to take.
Secondly, Bill , the budget bill we are discussing, is what in common parlance is called a “dumpster bill”; you pile a lot of stuff in there. In our view, that is an absolutely terrible way to do parliamentary legislation. If the Conservative government had decided to introduce this bill on a stand-alone basis, they would have had a different result, and I think they knew it.
So it is our view that going forward, as we seek to make parliaments work, these kinds of dumpster bills, in which you load a lot of stuff, are a terrible way to do good legislation in the Parliament of Canada. Remember that we were in a very difficult financial situation, in a global recession. There were reasons to pass that budget, but we said at the time that we were holding our noses over pay equity—
:
Thank you, Mr. Ignatieff.
You used the word “snuck”. The government bill was there for all to see. It seems to me that a year and a half after the fact is too late. A great deal of damage has been done.
Indeed I do support pay equity. I have since I was an MLA in Ontario. I actually brought forward a pay equity bill based on the 2004 task force. If I ever have a chance to do that again, I hope you will support it.
About a month ago, you said that , a private member's bill, was dead on arrival; it wasn't going anywhere because it needed royal recommendation. Now, since part of requires a royal recommendation, and my guess is that it's most definitely not going to be granted, I wondered, when you drafted your bill, did you consider setting aside that part--which has, in your own words, no hope--in favour of pursuing the consequential amendment that revokes the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act? In that revocation, it would take us back to the point we were at before the Conservative bill. Women then would have the ability to appeal to the Human Rights Commission, with fines levied against employers and unions. They're quite significant fines in the case of unions who want to advocate for their members. Also, it would remove pay equity from the bargaining table.
Had you thought about pursuing that as a way of actually achieving something substantive that we know would go ahead--or that had hope of going ahead, rather?
Thank you for the opportunity to appear once again to talk about equitable compensation.
I would like to provide you today with an overview of the key features of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and, more specifically, how it reflects the intent of the work of the 2004 pay equity task force, known as the Bilson task force.
As I stated the last time I appeared before you, we all recognize that the former pay equity regime in the federal public service was, by and large, reactive, lengthy, and costly--and adversarial on top of everything else. Actions under that regime have been ad hoc, based totally on complaints as they were framed. Furthermore, complaints were filed without any previous discussion of these issues, either at the bargaining table or in any other forum. Complaints could take between 15 to 20 years to be resolved under that regime. It definitely took a big toll on resources, on productive labour relations, and on women employees themselves.
This long and litigious aspect was underscored by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its 2001 pay equity report. The commission stated at the time that pay equity cases represented “less than 8%” of all its cases, yet they consumed about half of its total spending on legal services, a testimony to the complexity of how difficult it was to administer the previous regime.
In tackling these challenges over the years, the federal government learned a lot. The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act builds on this experience and learning. As an employer, we also learned from proactive provincial regimes and from the work of the 2004 pay equity task force, as well as from Canadian and international research.
Appreciating that the committee today is studying Bill , it might be useful for me to outline briefly how the new act addresses some of the key recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force. I will focus on four key aspects of the task force recommendations.
The first aspect is that the task force affirmed that the existing legislation--that was section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act--was not effective. It recommended that new stand-alone proactive legislation be enacted.
The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act provides stand-alone legislation. The new act establishes a proactive regime for ensuring equitable compensation for federal public sector employees. It replaces a complaint-based approach with a proactive approach. As such, it brings the federal regime in line with a number of provinces that also require a form of proactivity, a feature that is supported by most experts.
[Translation]
Let me now turn to the second area of the task force recommendations that the new act addresses.
The task force recommended that new legislation provide for the maintenance of pay equity on an ongoing basis. It recommended the new legislation establish obligations on the employer but also on unions to ensure that pay equity is maintained when renewing or negotiating collective agreements.
The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act ensures that equitable compensation will be established proactively and that it will be maintained on a regular and ongoing basis. It does so by making employers and—for the first time—bargaining agents jointly accountable for ensuring that employees receive equitable compensation each and every time that wages are set.
The new act establishes robust requirements for conducting equitable compensation assessments and reporting results to employees in a transparent manner. In this way, the new act ensures that gender-based analysis is not an afterthought or fixed in a separate process or through litigation. Instead, it is embedded in wage-setting practices on an ongoing basis. In other words, the act provides that gender-based analysis must be done when salaries are set.
In making the employer and the unions jointly accountable, it recognizes the important role played by unions in setting wages. By establishing detailed obligations on both parties for how to attain and maintain equitable compensation, it will not allow the parties to bargain away this human right. On the contrary, the new act recognizes the long and positive history of achievement and the protection of human rights through collective bargaining, as recognized by the Supreme Court, which includes fair wages, hours of work and working conditions, including parental leave and occupational health and safety.
The role for collective bargaining in achieving pay equity also supports Canada's obligation under the International Labour Organization's 1951 Equal Remuneration Convention, which requires members to incorporate equal pay for work of equal value into existing methods of determining remuneration. That is precisely what the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act does.
As you are probably aware, in their 2005 response to this committee on the Pay Equity Task Force report, the ministers of Justice and Labour indicated that the relationship between pay equity and collective bargaining, as well as the obligations of employers and unions, needed to be part of the “backbone” of effective pay equity legislation. The new act provides this “backbone”.
The task force also recommended that non-unionized and unionized employees be involved in achieving and monitoring pay equity. This is the third key area of the task force recommendations that I would like to outline today.
The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act contains robust reporting and transparency requirements to proactively and regularly inform employees of their rights and inform them of what has been done to ensure equitable compensation before their wages are set. These obligations are designed to reinforce accountability for results. Unionized employees can also participate through collective bargaining and I would add that they may also express their opinion through ratification votes on the agreements in principle concluded between the employer and their bargaining agent.
[English]
The fourth area that I will discuss is the task force recommendation that the new legislation contain specific provisions establishing a process for complaints.
Under the new Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, both employers and unions need to jointly and transparently take their obligations very seriously. The new act maintains the right of employees to lodge complaints through the public sector labour relations board. This is an independent body with quasi-judicial status that currently administers the Public Service Labour Relations Act. For 40 years, the board has helped resolve issues around wages. The board also currently has authority to interpret human rights issues.
The new act contains many safeguards, including the union right to unilaterally select binding arbitration to resolve bargaining disputes. It is a critical feature of the new act that boards of arbitration will be obliged to rule and determine equitable compensation matters.
These are just some of the ways in which the new act reflects the intent of the recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force and builds upon them.
Looking forward, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act will come into force once the regulations are developed and established through the Governor in Council.
As we speak, the regulations are being developed through a consultative process. They will provide greater clarity to the terms, obligations, and processes that are provided in the new act.
We have been consulting and working very closely with the bargaining agents and nearly 30 separate agencies, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Canadian Forces to develop these regulations. We expect them to be very well advanced, if not ready as planned, in 2011.
In conclusion, I'd like to state that the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act will not only protect the right to equal pay for work of equal value but also will be the best way to achieve and maintain--and I insist on maintain--equitable compensation on a proactive and regular basis for the future.
I'd like to thank the committee very much. I will be pleased to answer questions, and so will my colleague Ms. Bogden.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I listen, it's very clear that everyone and all parties at this table do want to accomplish the same thing, which is pay equity for women. Really, I think the only disagreement I'm hearing is how we best accomplish that goal. Certainly, our government believes that we have accomplished that goal with our Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, and I think, as per Mr. Ignatieff's bill, he believes there's a system that would accomplish it in a better way.
I wish he had been present to hear your testimony, because I think he would feel very reassured that, indeed, we will be accomplishing the goal that is intended through the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.
Of course, as we look toward setting an example, which we talked about earlier, yes, we have jurisdiction over the federal government, but if we're looking at examples that can be used throughout Canada, we need a system that is proactive at many—whether it be private sector—bargaining tables, so really I think we have a model that could be an example for all employers.
I have two quick questions. I think I have a little bit of time.
When we talk about 72¢ on the dollar--
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to Madame Laurendeau and Madame Bogden for being here.
I understand that this is rather a difficult situation for you, and I'm going to try to not make it more difficult. However, I do have some questions, and I have to be very, very blunt. When I asked for people from the bureaucracy to come to explain this to us, I was looking for technical information regarding the PSECA, and this, quite frankly, feels like a defence of it.
I am disappointed. We've been through this process in June of 2009 when we made our report on the government's legislation, and I was looking for more. So I'm going to start trying to dig out some of what I was looking for.
The government's response to our report in June of last year indicated that the government was committed to “appropriately and meaningfully” consulting the stakeholders, including federal public sector employers, bargaining agents, and public sector employees. When and with whom did the government consult? Are the consultations ongoing?
If something has come from those consultations, I'd like to see the discussion papers and the draft regulations. I'm wondering if we can have those tabled here so members of the committee can have a look at them and see exactly what the situation is at present.
:
As Hélène mentioned, the regulations are intended to outline with a little bit more clarity the terms and obligations and the process that's provided for in the new act. We have been developing them through consultation. We've been working closely with the bargaining agents as well as more than 30 separate agencies, federal public sector employers, the RCMP, and the Canadian Forces to develop them.
Public sector employers, as well as the core administration, all organize and value work differently, so it's important that we work through that and take that into account as we develop the regulations. For the bargaining agents, it's important that we've also thought through how the process will work so that it's effective and that we don't contribute to any delays at the bargaining table. Above all, I think we want to make sure that we strike the right balance in developing the regulations to make sure they set out what they need to, but also ensuring that they can withstand the test of time.
To that end, we held a number of information sessions with all the affected stakeholders, starting in late 2009 and early 2010. Part of the intent behind that, of course, was to raise awareness and understanding among public servants and bargaining agents about the intent of the new act so they're prepared to talk to us about the technical part of the regulations.
We then had a two-day intensive consultation forum in April with bargaining agents and all the federal public sector employers. Following that, in June we came forward with draft policy proposals for the purpose of stimulating discussion on each of the important areas in the regulations, and we held another intensive two-day session with people then. We got a lot of feedback from people, to reflect further on some of our thinking, so that was very useful.
At the end of August, I believe, we received a number of extensive written submissions from bargaining agents and others, presenting their views and ideas of where we should go forward. We are in the midst of doing that analysis and are continuing to consult with a number of the stakeholders bilaterally right now to try to refine the policy proposals for the regulations.
Do I have a little bit more time? Should I stop there?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Laurendeau. I would like to go back to the answer you gave earlier to Mrs. Boucher. It somewhat hurts me as a woman to hear that, during the case that was won allegedly in 1999, women came out winners. I don't think they came out winners; they finally got justice. It took 15 years for the justice system to grant them equal pay for equal work. It is not a gain, but rather accepting reality and recognizing a fundamental right for women. That is what really bothers me in this government bill.
That is why our leader, Mr. Ignatieff, brought forward Bill , which is in no way designed to bring back the complaint-based process. That is not its objective at all. The purpose of the bill is to adopt the recommendations from the 2004 report and put in place a real proactive system that would make pay equity both regulated and supervised by a commission.
Right now, what you are proposing in terms of negotiating pay equity at the same time as negotiating the rest of the collective agreement is problematic because it will never do justice to the issues faced not only by women, but by all minority groups.
I don't understand how you can think that the bill in its current format or the act in its current format could resolve these fundamental rights issues for minorities, whether for women, Aboriginals or people with disabilities. Could you tell me how this could possibly solve these problems?