Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pay Equity
With respect to pay equity, the committee considered whether pay equity should be included in the Human Rights Act or whether it should be the subject of a separate piece of legislation. Currently the Fair Practices Act provides for equal pay for the same work between men and women in the private sector. Bill 1 proposes to extend this protection to include all grounds of prohibited discrimination so that it is not limited to differences in pay based on gender.
As noted previously, the NWT has not been granted an exemption from application of the federal human rights legislation. Consequently, the pay equity provisions under section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act govern employees of the Government of the Northwest Territories.
Several presenters were unsatisfied with the "equal pay" provisions in Bill 1. They argued that the Human Rights Act should provide for pay equity. Pay equity refers to the application of the principle of "equal pay for work of equal value". Alternatively, Bill 1 prohibits differences in pay based on any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination for work that is the same or substantially the same.
The Fair Practices Act and the proposed Human Rights Act are premised on the principle of "equal pay for same or substantially similar work". The application of this principle requires that where a male employee and a female employee perform the same or substantially similar work, they are to be paid the same wages. Whether work is the same or substantially similar is determined by considering the skills, responsibilities, effort required for each job and the working conditions under which the work is performed.
Mr. Speaker, pay equity refers to the application of the principle of "equal pay for work of equal value". This principle is reflected in a number of other statutes, including the Canadian Human Rights Act. Equal pay for work of equal value acknowledges that women and men are often segregated into different occupations in the workforce, and are paid different wages based on that segregation. This means that there are jobs in the labour market that are predominantly performed by women, and others that are predominantly performed by men. Studies show that jobs predominantly performed by women are paid less than jobs predominantly held by men, resulting in a "wage gap".
It is believed that this gap in men and women's wages is based, at least in part, on the undervaluing of "women's work". Although there are a number of factors contributing to the wage gap between men and women, pay equity assumes that the appropriate way to address these inequalities is to address the inequality in the valuation of work performed by women. Thus, the focus of this approach is the value of the work performed.
Determining whether female employees are being paid the same as their male counterparts for work of equal value is a complex process. It requires employers to evaluate female-dominated job classes and male-dominated job classes and to assign a value to each job. The value of a job is determined through examination of the skill, effort, level of responsibility and conditions of the work. Once the jobs are assigned a point value, the female-dominated jobs are compared to male-dominated jobs of the same or similar point value. Wage discrepancies between the two groups are addressed through wage adjustments; however, only the female-dominated job class is entitled to a wage adjustment.
Mr. Speaker, the Status of Women Council argued that systemic gender discrimination in pay would not end unless the government adopts proactive pay equity in the NWT. They asked the committee to extend the pay equity provisions beyond gender to include all the prohibited grounds of discrimination. We were told that extending the protections beyond gender would facilitate the recognition of other valuable skills such as traditional knowledge.
The committee was asked to amend the legislation to implement proactive pay equity in both the private and public sectors. Presenters suggested that the committee adopt the approach taken in Ontario. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, requires employers with 10 or more employees to implement pay equity in their workplaces. Alternatively, one presenter, a small business owner, cautioned the committee from implementing pay equity in the private sector because of the significant costs associated with evaluating and comparing jobs. In his view, Mr. Speaker, pay equity places too great of a burden on small employers.
The Government of the Northwest Territories has informed the committee that it is working on amendments to the Public Service Act that would implement pay equity in the public sector. The government is of the opinion that because pay equity is a complex and a highly technical process, it is necessary to enact it in separate legislation.
Pay equity schemes can be proactive or complaints-based. Of the jurisdictions in Canada that have implemented pay equity, most do so by requiring the affected parties to negotiate pay equity in the workplace. Only Ontario and Quebec have implemented proactive pay equity schemes requiring employers to meet statutory standards of pay equity. The Canadian Human Rights Act, the Fair Practices Act and Bill 1, Human Rights Act, all rely on complaints-based systems. This means that while discrepancies in pay on the basis of gender are prohibited, employers will not be held accountable until a complaint is laid.
Most jurisdictions that provide for pay equity do so in separate legislation; therefore, many human rights statutes do not include these initiatives. Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have all enacted separate pay equity legislation. The federal government and the Yukon are the only jurisdictions to have pay equity in their human rights legislation.
Of the six jurisdictions that have enacted separate pay equity legislation, all but two (Ontario and Quebec) apply to the public sector only. As a result, PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have all enacted separate "equal pay for same or similar work" provisions in their human rights legislation or employment standards legislation. These provisions, Mr. Speaker, are similar to what is provided in Bill 1.
Saskatchewan has implemented the Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value and Pay Equity Policy Framework within the public sector. Newfoundland has implemented pay equity in the public sector through collective bargaining. Of the jurisdictions without any form of pay equity, all include "equal pay for same or similar work" in their human rights or employment standards legislation. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is similar to the standard provided in our legislation.
The committee is concerned about applying a "made-in-Ontario" model of pay equity in the NWT. Accordingly, the committee inquired with presenters whether they thought it was appropriate to apply the Ontario model to the NWT given the significant differences between the two jurisdictions. The committee also pointed to the problems that both Ontario and Quebec were facing with non-compliance, particularly with smaller establishments.
The responses received by the committee did not address the concerns raised. Many presenters were unable to offer any suggested alternatives to the committee on these issues. Furthermore, of the presenters that answered this question none were able to supply the committee with information that would support the inclusion of pay equity in the Human Rights Act as opposed to including it in separate legislation.
The committee is satisfied, Mr. Speaker, with the contention of the Government of the Northwest Territories that pay equity should not be included in the Human Rights Act at this time. We have assurances from the Government of the Northwest Territories that pay equity legislation for the public sector is forthcoming. We trust that this will be sufficient to warrant an exemption under section 66 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Acknowledgements
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Social Programs gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice officials in the review process.
The Standing Committee on Social Programs would like to thank all the individuals and organizations who made their views known to the committee at public hearings or through written submissions. The quality and detail of the presentations and written submissions demonstrate the effort and time dedicated to their preparation. The public input received by the committee greatly enriched the review process, and has resulted in changes to the legislation.
The Standing Committee on Social Programs gratefully acknowledges the exemplary service of its Clerk, researcher and Law Clerk throughout the course of our review.
Mr. Speaker, that concludes the report of the Standing Committee on Social Programs' review of Bill 1, Human Rights Act. Therefore, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for North Slave, that Committee Report 10-14(5) be moved into committee of the whole for consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
-- Applause