[Translation]
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to talk about the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. This is a piece of legislation that, as its preamble states, will proactively provide women in the public sector of Canada with equal pay for work of equal value.
Today, I will provide you with a brief overview of the underpinnings of the act and outline some of its features.
[English]
We all recognize, I believe, that the former pay equity system in the federal public service was reactive, lengthy, costly, and adversarial. Action has been haphazard, based totally on those who choose to file complaints. Further, complaints were filed without any previous discussion at the bargaining table.
The complaints-based system approach led to discussions that regularly turned into endless debate about methodologies, regression lines, and statistical reliability, debates that would not be recognizable to mainstream employees. With this reality and without hard deadlines, disputes often drag on for years and years.
The 15 to 20 years it can take to resolve complaints has taken its toll, generally speaking, on resources, on productive labour relations, and on our women employees. In one recent case, a union had to abandon its complaint because it had exhausted its internal resources.
[Translation]
This long and litigious nature was underscored by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its 2001 pay equity report. They found that pay equity cases represented less than 8% of all their cases, yet consumed about one half of its total spending on legal services.
[English]
In tackling these challenges over the years, the federal government has learned a lot, and the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act builds on this experience acquired through the years. As an employer, we have also learned from provincial proactive regimes, from the work of the pay equity task force, and from Canadian and international research.
Ontario, Manitoba, and Quebec have regimes that require a form of proactivity, a feature that is supported by most experts in this field. However, these regimes do not oblige employers and unions to actually address pay equity considerations every time wages are set.
The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act tackles this head-on by requiring employers and unions to do exactly that. The legislation sets out robust requirements for transparency, information sharing, and recourse, and for the regular conducting of equitable compensation assessments.
The act will not allow parties to bargain away this human right. Rather, it details parties' obligations for regularly determining how to attain and maintain that right. In so doing, the act recognizes the long and positive history of the achievement and protection of human rights through collective bargaining, which is itself a fundamental right.
Collective bargaining has a rich history of achievement in matters such as fair wages, hours of work, working conditions, including parental leave, and occupational health and safety. It is not surprising, then, that several Canadian studies, including ones done for the International Labour Organization and one for the Canadian Labour Congress women's symposium, have included recommendations to achieve pay equity through collective bargaining.
This role for collective bargaining in achieving pay equity also supports Canada's obligation to the ILO's 1951 equal remuneration convention number 100. Article 2 of that convention effectively requires members to incorporate equal pay for work of equal value in existing methods of determining remuneration.
Closer to home, in a 2005 response to this committee on the pay equity task force report, the Ministers of Justice and Labour felt that the relationship between pay equity and collective bargaining, as well as the obligations of employers and unions, needed to be part of what they referred to as the “backbone” of effective pay equity legislation. The new act provides this backbone.
[Translation]
The transparency and accountability requirements in the act include obligations to proactively inform employees of their rights under the act. These obligations are designed to reinforce accountability for results.
[English]
Further, both employers and unions need to jointly and transparently take their obligations under the act seriously. To this end, both the employer and the bargaining agent are subject to fines if they do not comply with this provision of the act, in the judgment of the Public Service Labour Relations Board.
The act also maintains the right of employees to lodge individual complaints through the PSLRB, an independent body with quasi-judicial status that currently administers the Public Service Labour Relations Act. This act contains many safeguards, including the union's right to unilaterally select binding arbitration to resolve bargaining disputes.
It is a critical feature of the act that boards of arbitration will henceforth be obliged to rule on equitable compensation matters. Looking into the near future, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act will come into force once the regulations are established through the Governor in Council. The regulations will be developed through a consultative process and will provide greater definition and clarity to the terms, obligations, and processes that are provided for in the act.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I want to state that the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act will not only protect the right of equal pay for work of equal value, but it is also the best way to achieve and maintain it for the future.
[English]
Thank you very much. Those are my opening remarks.
Mr. Danagher and I are ready to answer questions.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thanks to both of you for being here.
I have many questions. Some are from before, and some are on your representation, Ms. Laurendeau.
You commented at the beginning that it's sometimes difficult to read what's written for you, and I must confess that I'm having some difficulty understanding some of what's been written for you. I'll come back to that.
You talk about Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. From everything I know about those provinces, this legislation is not consistent with theirs. In the short time we have I'd like you to identify both the similarities and the differences.
We know there was no consultation prior to the implementation of this act and pay equity within the budget. You ended your comments by indicating that the regulations will be developed through a consultative process that will give greater definition and clarity to the terms. I'd like to know a little more about that.
There are a couple of points in here that I just don't understand, such as number 13, and particularly number 14. You cited in number 12 some studies that recommend pay equity through collective bargaining. Many studies and many of the presentations we've had here at the committee speak out against pay equity as part of the collective bargaining process. Were they considered when this matter was developed?
I have more, but I'll see how much time I have left.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Laurendeau, Mr. Danagher, thank you for being here this morning. I was astonished by your testimony, Ms. Laurendeau. When you testified before the Senate Committee on Human Rights last May 25, you stated that the ministers responsible at the time had written to Parliament to say that they would not be following the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force. But ministers Irwin Cotler and Joe Fontana formally testified to the Committee on the Status of Women in November 2005 and formally promised to introduce a pay equity bill in the spring of 2006.
We know that the government has changed, but, at the time, they indicated that the bill would essentially follow the direction suggested by the Pay Equity Task Force chaired by Ms. Bilson. I find it strange that you now tell us that they wrote a letter saying that they would not be introducing the bill when they had testified before us that they would. If they wanted to introduce a bill in the spring of 2006, I assume that they would have some draft legislation already put together in November 2005, and that officials from the departments of Labour or Justice would have already begun to develop the bill. You do not promise to introduce a bill in two or three months if you have not already started the process.
I would like to hear your comments, Ms. Laurendeau.
:
Thank you very much for asking that question. In fact, that is one of the aspects of this bill that seems hardest to explain. The complaints process taught us one thing: we have a collective bargaining process that is established under a labour relations act that imposes very clear obligations on the parties. The labour relations process is based on a deep faith in the democratic nature of the union movement and a belief in the need to negotiate labour issues, including salaries, in good faith. The process is very well established, with clear obligations. It comes with a complaints process if negotiations are conducted in bad faith or if employees are not well represented by their union.
[English]
So there's a body of legislation that exists to govern that.
[Translation]
Along with that, we had a pay equity complaints process that allowed salaries that had already been negotiated to be reconsidered and that allowed the bargaining agent to file complaints without necessarily having to be consistent with the positions that he had put forward at the bargaining table. We want to make sure that the process is thorough and quick. With this bill, Parliament expects the parties to put all compensation issues onto one specific bargaining table, whether they deal with competitiveness or pay equity.
Collective bargaining cycles come around every two or three years, not every 15 or 20 years, as was the case with the pay equity complaint process. The process requires parties to discuss all the issues on a regular basis. The parties also have to produce an equitable compensation assessment report in order to inform employees about the way in which the issues have been examined. Employees who ratify a collective agreement will also ratify the pay equity issues report in a full, quick and transparent way, benefiting from all the safeguards for the bargaining process in the Public Service Labour Relations Act.
The intention behind this legislation is to make sure that matters dealing with pay equity for women are not handled completely outside the collective bargaining process, but as one of the key issues in that process. That is the fundamental change, in our view. Even the proactive processes in Quebec and Manitoba still leave these issues outside.
[English]
The underpinnings of the legislation were to ensure that those key fundamental issues were at the heart of the democratic process of how unions come forward with their requests at the bargaining table.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much for being here today.
This is a very important review, and this committee is quite concerned. I think there's a real recognition and commitment to complete our work here, so we can let Parliament know what we've heard. I'm very encouraged by that commitment and glad you could make it today so we can wrap up our work today and Thursday. I do have some questions, though.
We heard from the Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications, a Mr. John Farrell, who came here. I asked him about the issue of market forces and about including them in the new act. In terms of the new act, he said he expected there would be a lot more pressure to press wages down, because of market forces and the reality we're in. He expects wages may very well go down.
I wonder if you had some thoughts on that. Do you expect wages for women in the public sector to indeed go down as a result of this act?
I wanted to come back to some things Madam Neville touched on.
You say the new act will not allow parties to bargain away the pay equity human right, yet that is absolutely contrary to most of the testimony we heard. I think the only exception was the employers group.
Then, in paragraph 12, you went on to say that the Canadian Labour Congress had indicated that pay equity should be achieved through collective bargaining. Unfortunately, this is not what we heard from the CLC. This is not the entire story.
If there is pay equity considered at the table, it is a separate table. And it's a separate table set there specifically to ensure there is fair bargaining around pay equity, so that it's not included with all of the other bits and pieces. So their purpose is to be very careful that women are not victimized by the wholesale process of stacking up wages and benefits against their specific needs.
Could you clarify that for me, since it seems to be a contradiction?
:
I will ask my colleague to answer the piece about the Canadian Labour Congress, because he has done extensive research on that.
I would just say one thing, though, which is that for any other terms and conditions of employment, the notion of joint accountability between employer and bargaining agents exists. Section 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act makes it very clear that for any other working conditions the employer and the bargaining agents are not allowed to discriminate. What the equitable compensation act is doing is extending the same protection to the portion that is wages.
I would just say that with respect to other working conditions, it is working quite effectively. When you're sitting at the bargaining table, you can look at your partner across the table straight in the eyes, sometimes on demands that you either don't know or don't realize may be discriminatory. If you can sit across the table from them and say, listen, we're going to have to talk this through because this analysis demonstrates to me that X, Y, and Z may have a negative impact on women or people with disabilities, then you have a joint obligation to talk it through and find a solution. All I'm saying is that to extend the same thing to wages would be healthy in having a debate that is fulsome.
With respect to the reference to the Canadian Labour Congress, my dear colleague has the reference here.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for joining us again after last Thursday.
As we move along this process, I think no one is disagreeing that the old system didn't work. But there are perhaps some issues in terms of how the new system has been designed, and I'm really pleased that you're here speaking specifically to those issues. You've already had an opportunity to talk about many of them.
One issue is that this is not a bargaining away of human rights. The other is why it's very important to marry the two together. You were cut short on your last question, so I'd like to allow you to respond in more depth to Ms. Zarac's concern regarding the marrying of these issues.
The other thing we've heard, which I think would be nice to hear you address, is the concern that the Public Service Labour Relations Board won't have the expertise to deal with this issue. I note that only 80% of the workload of the Human Rights Commission dealt with this issue, but I presume that there are some strategies and you have confidence in the ability of that group to gain the skills and expertise to move forward to deal with this effectively.
Perhaps you could talk on those two issues.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have not had the opportunity to meet with many of the witnesses, but those I have talked to said that this was a regressive piece of legislation that does not advance the cause of pay equity. On the hand, you claim that this legislation is proactive. The sole obligation of the employer under the current act is to inform the union. The employer is not required to work with the union on the study or assessment of equitable compensation matters. However, as everyone well knows, employers have a great deal of confidential information on file that is needed in order to achieve pay equity. So then, when you claim that the act takes a proactive approach, I do have some reservations about that contention.
You also maintain that the act is proactive, given our experiences with the current legislation and the studies done by PSAC and Treasury Board. It took almost four years to establish the rules of the game, rules which are now clear. Now you're saying that equitable compensation matters will be resolved through collective bargaining. Prior to the adoption of pay equity legislation, collective bargaining had caused wage disparities in all provinces. With this legislation, the government is taking a step backward and linking pay equity with collective bargaining. Basically, what the government is doing is reinstating wage disparity.
I have one final question for you. If I have any time left, I will have some additional questions for you. Why does the legislation apply to federal employees, whereas federally owned enterprises are exempt? The government says it is changing the system for federal employees because of certain shortcomings, but that for federally owned enterprises, the system works just fine.
I will call the question now.
All right, we have a tie vote.
I will vote in favour of the motion, and I will explain why.
Any committee could and should, if it wishes to, ask for full disclosure and for certain documents available under Standing Order 108(1) that are available to committees. What the committee does with that is going to be, as Ms. Neville said, decided on by whoever wishes. If members wish to read all the documents and eventually feel that something will come out of doing so, that is going to be told later on. But committees have the right to seek documents that are available to them. So I will be voting in favour of this motion.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: We are now moving in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]