LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 TIME - 8:00 p.m. LOCATION - Wi nnip eg, Manitob a CH AIRMAN - Ms. M. Phillips ATTENDANCE - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Ans tett , Cow an, Harapiak, Mackling Messrs. Ashton , Banman, Enns, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Joh ns ton, Ms. Phillip s and Mr. Scott WITN ESSES: Mr. Ab e Arnold - Mani toba Associa tion for Rights and Liberties Mr. Gerry Doucet - Retail Council of Canada Ms. Deborah Carlson - Manitoba Asso ciation of Women and The Law Mr. Sid ney Green - Manitoba Prog ressive Party Ms.

Donna Lucas - Charter of Rights Coalition Mr. Ga ry Doer - Manitoba Go ve rnment Emplo yees ' Associa tion Ms. Susan Hart - Equal Pay Coalition of Manitoba Mr. Murray Sm ith - priv ate citizen Ms. Darlene Hildebrand, Ed Martens and Jona s Dubas - Winni peg Chamber of Commerce Ms. Darlene Dziewit - Manitoba Federa tion of Labour Mr. Herb Schulz - pr ivate citizen MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill No. 53 - The Pay Eq uity Act;

Loi sur l'egalite des salaires. MADAM CHAIRMAN: The time being 8 o'clock, I'll call the committee to ord er. We are considering Bill No. 53 , The Pay Equ ity Act, and we'll begin with presenta tions. The first delega tion to make a presenta tion is Mr. Abe Arnold on behalf of the Manitoba Assoc iation of Righ ts and Li berties. MR. A. ARNOLD: Thank you, Madam Chairpers on. The Manitoba Associa tion for Rig hts and Li berties, I think we're marking to <;lay the seventh anniv ersary of our first pres enta tion before a legisla tive comm ittee, so we have been here qu ite often .

I want to say that we are a bit con cerned about the proced ure and the fact that - well, this happened in 2 this morning's session particularly - there is sort of a desire on the part of some mem bers to hear people from out of town first. I think that is a reasonable desire, except that it would help if the Clerk's office would find out who was here from out of town and put them up at the top of the list to begin with so that people don't come expecting that they are goin g to be at the top of the list and then they have to sit all morning waiting for dozens of other people to be heard .

I would respectfu lly recommend to the Chair, and through the Chair to the members of the Legislature, that something ought to be changed to accommoda te people in a better way in the future. Now, with regard to this particular brief on The Pay Equ ity Act, we have reviewed this bill and wish to expr ess our concerns as follows: As a civil liberties organ ization MARL is comm itted to the elimination of discriminatory practices; therefore, we want to cong ratula te the go ve rnme nt on its in troduction of this prog ressive legislation.

We app rove of the bill, in principle, however there is one area which causes us some concern. Our conc ern is that the legislation does not extend , even minimal ly, to the -priv ate sector. We recogniz e the di fficulty that a governme nt faces in in troducin g pay equity into the private sector.

Although the Winnip eg Chamber of Commerce has stated , according to our und erstand ing, its general agreement with the principle of pay equity and, although the proposed leg islation would not apply to the priv ate sector, the Chamber has apparently taken a stand again st the imple mentat ion of the pay equity principle as outlined in Bill 53. Recen tly an American professor forcefully spoke to the Chamber of Comme rce again st pay equity. In at least one ins tance his argument was weak, or based on ins ufficient und erstand ing of Manitoba laws .

He suggested that the en forcement of Manit oba's anti­ discrimination laws - and I heard him on the radio - would be sufficient to cover the matter of pay ineq uity. In Manitoba's Human Rights Act, pay equity is not in cluded as a grounds for di scrim ination. The Human Rights Act does bar di scrim inat ion on the grounds of sexual discrimination. If someone made a pay equity complaint to the Human Rights Comm ission on the grounds of sex di scri mina tion, the present Bill 53 could well open the door to such a complaint.

There is a widely held view, however, that the indi vidual comp laint process is insufficient to deal with such issues as pay equ ity or affirmative action in emplo yment. A pay equity proposal is inclu ded in the pro posed revised Human Rights Code which is not, however, being in troduc ed at this Session. MARL and other organizations, and presumably the government, agreed that the imp lementation of of equal pay for work of equal value would be more appropria tely introduc ed as labour legisla tion, and the governme nt has followed this course by introducing Bill 53.

We would, therefore, suggest as a first step towards full pay equ ity, that the provisions of the act should be

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 extended to compan ies who are being awarded large government cont racts. A large company, bidding for a go vern ment contract, should indic ate to the gov ernment what cor;nmit ment it ha s made or is prep ared to make to the pri ncipl e of pay equi ty. We, therefore, recommend that the act should spe cifically set contr act complia nce guideli nes for gover nm ent cont ractors. In conclusi on, we would like to reiterate our belief in the need for this legis lation and exp ress our appr eciation to the government for its action in bringing this bill forward.

We believe that this does set a preced ent, and it's imp ortant in regard to exten ding equal rights to all the women of our communi ty. I should tell you that this bill was prepared by members of our Legislative Review Committee including David Matas, Diane De Gr aves and Sybil Shack, assisted by myself and by Lisa Caldwell. Thank you. MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Arnold. Are there any questions for Mr. Arnold? Seeing none, thank you very much. The next delegation is Mr. Je rry Doucet, Retail Council of Canada. MR. J. DOUCET: Thank you, Madam Chairperso n.

Members of the comm ittee, ladies and gentlemen , I am delig hted to be here on behalf of the Retail Council of Canada to add ress Bill 53, The Pay Equi ty Act. I have with me a numb er of people from the retail communi ty in Manitoba. I won't go through their name s right no w, but th ey represent a cr oss-sect ion of empl oyers in the retail field who actively participa te in the Manitoba economy.

In answer to a question from my good frien d, Mary Eadie, as I came in, why would we be here to talk about a bill that deals with the public sector, I simply want to say that, as a major empl oyer in Manitoba, as an association that represents 70 percent of emplo yment of retail sales by volume in Manitoba but, above all, as a major employer of women and part-t ime empl oyees, we are very conc erned and very inter ested in any legislation that any government in Canada brings in in this field and that appl ies to the subject of pay equity.

We have been very heavily involved at the federal level in helping the Federal Government devise its emplo yment equ ity legislation that was just recently brought in. We have participa ted in other provinces in helping them come up with legislation that is workable in the public sector, even though that doesn't impi nge on us di rectly, and we're del ighted to see that. But as a model for pr ivate sector activity, it would concern us if that type of legislation for the public sector were ill­ designed or were unrealistic. So we have some specific comments to make. I have distributed a short brief to you.

My comments are going to add to that brief, which was prepared in the shortness of time in the last couple of days and does not cover all the points I am about to make. Of course, we recognize the effort that has been made to excl ude the pr ivate sector from the design of this particular bill. We can see , from the previous speaker 's remarks and from remarks that have been made elsewhere, that it is a very easy exten sion of this 3 legislation for the public sector to include the private sector. We are somewhat worried about the des ign of the specific bill from that perspectiv e.

There is always the danger that it can be exten ded or could be used as a model for the priv ate sector. One of our main themes is that, whatever you learn about the appl ication or workings of this particular legislation in the public sector, it is not easy or even realistic to apply holus-b olus those lessons to the private sector and to expect the private sector, which operates under slightly different sets of guidelin es and objectives, to follow the same sort of norms .

I think that, if the bill is not meant to apply to the pr ivate sector, all referen ces to the private sector in the bill should be exclude d. Then we would have the confid ence and be able to rely fully on the remarks of the Min ister when he intr oduced the legislation that he is prep ared to see the private sector continue with its numerous ad hoc efforts to impl ement forms of pay equity and emplo yment equity in Manitoba and across the countr y, designed to reduce the income gap that does exist between women and men in the workplace.

I have people here this even ing, as I said earlier, who can attest to the fact of their own affirmative action programs, if you like.

They may not call them that, but that have prod uced in the retail food sector in Manitoba, for example, roughly 20 percent of the store managers in our particular association's membership are now women; which produc e such results as roughly 50 percent of the exe cutive comp lement of a very major retailer in Manitoba and working in all parts of Canada in its division headquarters here being women; and which show results in some of our other retail stores such as dr ugstores that, when women break out of the stereotyping and the traditional forms of education that have been pu rsued in the past and when they have the op portunity to work the same number of hours or close to the same num ber of hours as men in the workplace, they achieve management posit ions; they make prog ress.

One example is, for ex ample, tha t pharma cy grad uates in Canada, women outnumber men now. We are se eing women moving into the manageme nt posit ions of franchise and chain operations in the drugstore business at the management level, and that's a very good result. We see other examples in the retail merchandising field, the same sort of positiv e results of the marketpla ce working as it should.

I would be remiss though, Madam Chairperson, if I did not say that we find the legislation as dr afted ins ufficient in terms of its empha sis in working on the gap that exis ts in the in come levels between women and men. We can point to the Economic Counci l of Canada 's recent study on the Chang ing Status of Women, which was produc ed just at the end of 19 84. We can point to Judge Rosalie Abella's recent Royal Comm ission Repor t on Emplo yment Eq uity to show that equal pay for work of equal value as a concept, whether it's workable or not - and who can dis agree with the principle?

The issue is, is it workable. Will it achieve the objectives? - in fact will not impact on the income gap that does exis t between women and men as much as some people claim it might. I am not going to quibb le with what percentage of the gap it will close, but it's our firm belief that, unless we emp hasize education programs in the schools at

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 the levels of Grades 7 and 8 and so on to break down the attitudes of boys and girls about the types of work that women and men can pu rsue in our socie ty, the gap will remain as large as it is now. We will not make the prog ress that we want to make.

So we very heavily end orse the effort in Manitoba to develop open-door type programs ; to have those women and retailers co-o perate in such programs in other provi nces; to have women who studied non­ trad itional forms of educ ation; and to have women who are now in non- trad itional jobs go into the schools to exp lain to students how they have achieved this, to go into the scho ols to explain what is possi ble. lt is based on a very interesting survey that was done several years ago in Ontario where young boys were asked what they wanted to do and they said the usual stereotype things, and the girls said the usual stereotype things plus school bus drivers.

That ind icated that, if they were ex posed to the oppor tuniti es and the types of work that women can achieve in the workpla ce, they will seek out those types of work and , over time, the income gap will close. � Seco ndly , what I would like to mention is the major finding of the Abella Commis sion and the Economic Council, that the hours worked by women in our society are decl ining more rapidly than the hours worked by men. Of course, in the case of women , the hours worked have always been less than the hours worked by men in absolute terms.

Ob viously , one of the major ex plana tions of this is the problem of child bearing and , of course, child rearing and the inequality of the sharing of that burden between men and women. We, in the Retail Council of Canada, are working on pilot projects in a number of areas designed to promote the concept of workplace child care which will, we hope, contribute in a real way to the closing of this income gap that does exis t. We do not think the issue or the concept of equal pay for work of equal value will achieve this particular goal.

Finally, I would like to just refer to the Minis ter's speech when he intr oduced the bill.

I was delighted that he referred to the Minn esota experience, not because I am particularly knowledgeable about the Min nesota experience, I'll leave others to comment on it, but it is ironic that he refers to experience in other countries, and in particular to the State of Minnesota, when just this year the Un ited States Comm ission on Civil Rig hts on April 11 , 19 85 publ ished a study and rele ase recommending that federal civil rights enforcement agencies and Congress reject the concept of comparable worth in that country because of the mislead ing expecta tions that the concept produc es in terms of the in come gap that exists between women and men.

Does it, is it explained by this problem of equal pay for work of equal value or comparable worth? The answer is no, accord ing to them.

Second ly, because they argue that the conc ept of composite job ev alua tions for all sectors of the economy , across all types of work - and here I particularly think of the night mare of small business - because the conc ept of job evaluations appl ied across sectors can' t work and because the conc ept of composite evaluations where you have a value judgment or a subjective judg ment of skill, level of resp onsi bility, effort, and conditions of work which leads to some public figure or some bureaucratic figure to judge among jobs, they have rejected the concept.

I don 't 4 know if that will have any particular impact on Minnesota and I do n' t kn ow whether Min nesota 's costs of in troducing the conc ept can be laid at the feet of a roughly 4 percent change . I susp ect they can't. We are particularly conc erned that that particular model would lead to the type of legislation we have here in the pr ovince.

I am prepared , Madam Chairperso n, to answer any specific questions you might have on the brief or to get into some of the more detailed concerns we have about the job evaluation system that you foresee in the public sector, because we, and the peop le who are here with me, have had a lot of exp erience with job evaluation systems here in Manitoba in the private sector and we have some serious misgivings about whether they are workable. Thank you very much. MADAM CH AIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Doucet. Are there any questions from the commmittee? Seeing none, thank you very much for your presenta tion.

Miss Deborah Carlson, Go- Chairpe rson , Manitoba Associa tion of Women and the Law. MS. D. CARLSON: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. MADAM CH AIRMAN: Do you have a written brief to di stribute? MS. D. CARLSON: Yes, I do. Shall I begin? MADAM CH AIRMAN: Okay, proceed , yes. MS. D. CARLSON: The Manitoba Associ ation of Women and the Law is one of the member caucuses of the National Associa tion of Women and the Law. As it's a national association , the purp ose of Women and the Law is to prom ote women's rights to sexual equality through investigation, research and lobbying on legal issues affecting Manitoba women.

The views in this brief are exp ressed solely on behalf of the Manitoba Associa tion of Women and the Law. We would like to thank the members of this committee for the oppor tun ity to express our views on Bill 53, The Pay Equ ity Act. We applaud the efforts of the government to establish a pay equ ity system and, hopefully, to alleviate some of the problems that exist with the gap in the earnings between male and female traditio nal occu pational groupin gs.

However, we have very grave dou bts that the proposed legislation will have any effect like that and whether it will in fact sign ificantly reduce the wage gap. lt is MA WL's position that the proposed pay equity regime should pr ovide for equal pay for work of equal value that exte nds to the private, as well as to the pub lic sector, and to all sizes and classes of empl oyers. We must, therefore, protest the narrow scope of the pr esent bill. lt doesn't purport at all to deal with the pr ivate sector except for in terms of ed ucation and pr oviding in formation.

In addition, sign ificant portions of the public sector are exempted. For ex ample, there is a list of external agencie s that are listed: the health care facilities that are an Appendix in the back. Onl y the larger health care facilities are

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 listed ; many rural facilit ies are not on that list, which means that any women in rur al health care facilities will not have the benefit of the pay equity regime. We feel that that is a signi ficant except ion and should be remed ied . We advocate that the present bill should be revised to extend pay equ ity to the pr ivate sector and , as well, to change the defi nition of external agencies so that school boards, muni cipal ities and local government dis tricts should be include d, as well as all health care facilities.

I prop ose to restrict my comments just to the bill itself and not to the larger issue of women 's problems, unemplo yment and other appro priate remedies such as affirmative action , the problems of day care and so on. That being so, I will go through the bill and the problems that we have found with it. One problem is the way that a gend er-d omi nated class has been defined in the bill. Before a class will be consi dered to be gender - domi nated there must be 10 persons in the class and that class must be either 70 percent male or 70 percent female.

We are conc erned that these two compon ents of the defi nition will further limit the number of women who would be able to feel the effect of a pay equity system. We, therefore, reco mmend that the percentage of male and female empl oyees necessary to constitute a gender­ domina ted class be reduced to 60 percent. Now, I understand that there are provisions in the bill for where an empl oyer is less than 500, that the classes may be dealt with by a regulation and there are also provisions that the classes may be dealt with by negotia tions with the bargaining agents.

However, we feel that as with regulations, regulation may or may not be made. Simi larly, bargaining agents and the whole union process; it's a variable pr ocess and there are no gua ran tees tha t the women in volv ed will receive adeq uate protection. Ano ther potential problem related to the composition of the classes, is tha t under sections 9 and 14 of the pro posed bill, the classes are not req uired to be fixed until June 30, 19 86 for the Civil Service, and June 30, 19 87, for Crown entit ies and external entit ies.

We feel that this delay until the classes are req uired to be fixed , creates a potential for abuse. I don't know if it's likely to happen but there is that poten tial. We therefore recommend that the date of the fixing of the classes should be as of the date that the bill comes into force. lt is MAWL's position that a separate entity should be created to adminis ter a pay equ ity regime. We therefore suppor t the creation of a Pay Equi ty Bureau. However, we also believe that such an agency should have powers to in vestigate, to lay complaints, to refer matters to arbitration.

The powers given under the present bill to provide information, to monitor the prog ress of pay equity and so on, are far too limited . MARL recommends that the power of the Pay Equ ity Bureau be en larged to include the policing powers that I've just men tioned. Without those things, the bureau would have no teeth and would have very little effect. We strongly endor se the decision of the government to use a proactive appr oach in pay equ ity legislation.

In our view, it is desirable that it should be the emplo yer who has to show that it is following the pay equ ity system, rather than leavi ng the onus on the indi vidua l empl oyee to lay a complaint. 5 We also suppor t the inclusion of uni ons in the impl ementa tion of pay equit y. Un fortunately, it would be naive to believe that women 's in terests are always best protected by their unions. For this reason, we believe that the role of unio ns should be limited to negotiating how pay equ ity will best be impl emented.

Unions should not be able to nego tiate what constit utes pay equity and they should not be able to negotia te wage adjustments that are less than would implement pay equit y. We therefore recommend that

section 8( 1) which requires the govern ment to take the action necessary to implement pay equit y, be revised so that it is not subject to

section 8(2) and so that it is not subject to negotiation between bargaining agents and emplo yers. In respect of the dete rmina tion of value under the prop osed sec tion 6( 1) , it's our opinion that, while

section 6( 1) is okay as a general statement of how work should be valued , it isn't specific eno ugh. We feel that there are enough problems with subjective bias in determinin g how much women 's work should be valued. Therefore, the more detailed the system that is used to define the value of work, the more accurate the measurement will be. We would therefore advocate that a detailed system such as the Ai ken plan in Minnesota should be includ ed within

section 6 to provide those measuring steps. With respect to

section 6(2), it is our position tha t the comparison of rates of pay between male and female classes should be on the basis of the actual pay of each class, or on the basis of the average pay of each class. I don't think it is very accurate to measure the average pay of one class to the actual pay of the other class. I'm not quite sure what the intent of

section 2 is. lt is not very clear to me. We strongly protest the limitations that are placed on wage adjustments und er the pro posed

section 7(3). Four years is too long a time span to phase in the wage incr eases espe cially in view of the fact of the time span that is being used to impl ement the whole system as it is. Under the pro posed bill, Crown entities and external entit ies have until 19 88 to reach an agreement for the implementation of those wages. After that, women working for those entit ies have to wait another four years. The effect is tha t they have to wait until 19 92 to get pay equ ity. We feel that is far too long - that's nine years. We also object to the provisions in

section 7(3) that limit the adjus tments to a total of 4 percent - 1 percent a year over four years. The effect of this is that if the pay equ ity is such, the pay inequ ity is such that a 4 percent in payroll is not adeq uate to add ress the imbalance. That imbalance will be allowed to persist. The emp loyer is not req uired to adjust the inequ ity more than 4 percent. We therefore advocate that

section 7 be revised to remove those limitations. One final complaint - suggestion - is that for pay equit y to be effectively enforced , it requires sepa rate boards. We do not feel that the provisions under the bill of having it go to arbitration und er the Civil Service or going to the Labour Board will be effective in enforcing pay equi ty. There are many problems with that, espe cially with the Labour Board , the major one being the delay. The Labour Board is already very busy and we feel that, espe cially given the delays in other parts of the bill, disp utes that are going before the Labour Board , any parties who are affected by the

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 dis pute will have to wait even longer. We feel that pay equity is important enough that it should have its own board - a tripartite board to adjudic ate di sputes. We also feel that with a sepa rate pay equ ity board, we'd be able to get people who have enough expertis e in the area of pay equ ity to adjud icate the di sputes. One final plea is for adequa te funding. Pay equ ity is a very fine conc ept, but just like any other program that is ins tituted by govern ment, if you don't give it the money that is necessa ry, it will accomplish nothing.

Those are all the comments I have on Bill 53. I'll be happy to answer any quest ions. MADAM CHAIR MAN: Thank you, Ms. Carlson. Are there any questions? Mr. Banman. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you. I have one question. You mention in your brief that the union should not be able to negotia te wha t constitutes pay equ ity for their mem bers. In this particular bill, the major union that will be doing the negotiations is the Manitoba Government Empl oyees ' Associa tion. I wonder if you could tell us how you feel it should be hand led rather than through the MGEA. MS. D.

CARLSON: Well, I feel that pay equ ity is a conc ept and as such - how can I explain this? - uni ons should be able to negotia te how it could be impl ement ed , but not what pay equi ty is itself. Pay equity is a con cept that people who are doing work of equal value should receive that. I don't think it should be subject to the collective bargaining pr ocess where that par ticular item could be sacrificed for other positions that the union is taking. In a particular union where women do not have very much power, their rights could be sacrificed to the rights of other mem bers in the union. Does that clarify?

MR. R. BANMAN: I guess this is one of the di fficulties we all have with the bill. While in prin ciple we all agree with it, the difficulties in implement ing this type of legislation as the gentleman just before you spoke and indica ted, is that it becomes something that we all have to wrestle with to see if it is workable or not.

The quest ion - and I know there is no easy answer, and you've tried to answer it, but if you don't use the MGEA, what system within government when you're dealing with the union that is now repres enting all the emplo yees who I would believe is concerned about the welfare and well-being of all their employees who belong to their union . MS. D. CARLSON: Pre� umably, but not necess arily. That's the case that we have to guard against. MR. R. BANMAN: Not necessari ly. This is the di fficulty we. as mem bers of the Legislature, find ourselves in in dealing with this type of legislation.

In conc ept, it is something that I think we can all support. lt is a matter of how you implement it and what the pitfalls are that we see. You indic ate that one of the pitfalls that you feel could cause some problems in implementing it is that a union would not necessa rily deal in the best 6 in terests of the women within that union. Would that be a fair comparison? MS. D. CARLSON: That is correct. MADAM CH AIRMAN: Are there any further questions? Thank you, Ms. Carlson. The next delegation is Mr. Sid Green , the Manitoba Progressive Party. Mr. Green, do you have a written brief? MR. S.

GREEN: No, I don't, but it will be . MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. S. GREEN: ... I gather, trans cribed , and you'll be able to read it then . Madam Chairman , first of all, I would like to at least correct one statement that I heard here tonight that is made by one of the mem bers of the Legislature. We use the royal "we" - we all agree with this conc ept. Let me at least indicate that there is one person here who does not agree with the concept. - (I nte rjection) - I am qu ite shocked , Madam Chairman. MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order , Mr. Enns. MR. S. GREEN: Quite shocked - (Int erjection) - okay. Well, that's fine.

I thought he was talking about the conc ept as being generally agreeable. In any event, Madam Chairman, I would ind icate that the first position vis-a-vis this bill that I wish to indic ate my opposition to, is that the bill is a sex ist bill. The bill says that where you have a group of females who are being paid less than work of equ al value that is being done by a group of males, you will in crease the pay of the group of females to the level that is obtained by the group of males. That is essen tially the theory of the bill.

The bill says noth ing about having a group of males who are being paid less than a group of females are being paid, and paying the group of males equal to the value of the work that they are doing in relation to the group of females. I supp ose, Madam Chairman, that we can have a group where seven out of 10 are males, perhaps garden ers at the Legislature, although I'm not sure. lt doesn't have to be that way. But if you hap pen to find a group of gardeners and seven out of 10 are males, that's a class of peop le, a male- domina ted class. Those garden ers are being paid at a certain rate.

Then they say that Minister 's secretaries who are a group of females, because seven out of 10 of them are females, are making higher pay and they want somebody to take a computer and value the garden ing as agains t the secret arial assistants to a Minister and come out - and , by the way, you can do anything with those keys, anything that you want to - and you come out with those keys that the gardeners should be making as much as the min isterial secretary. This bill is sexist discrimina tion agai ns t the ga rdeners, sexist di scrimi nation agains t males.

If you believe in equal pay for work of equal value, and only those who know what it is can believe in it - Mr. Enns has ind icated that all the MLAs know what it is and that's why they believe in it. I don't know what

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 it is, but I say to th ose who kn ow what it is that this is sexist legislation, it disc rimina tes against males. And, if I follow the tenor of some of the ridiculous things that are going on in th!'l other room, Roland Pen ner's consult ants would say that it's cont rary to the Charter of Rights because it places females in a different position to males. I notice they change d all the language, Madam Chairman. I have no difficulty calling you Madam Chairman because I have never regarded the term "chairman" as a male term; I regard it as the person who chairs a meeting.

I want to ind icate, Madam Chairman, that when I app eared before a judge of Court of Queen's Bench and I said, "My Lord , I have never regarded Your Lordship as being a male term, and if you wish me to call you Your Ladyship, I will do so." She said, "Mr. Green , I never regard it as a male term either, Your Lordship is perfectly satisfactory." But we are changing all the names and you know that's kind of harmless, but even we dr aw the line. The Land lord and Tenant Act is being changed , but it's not Land person and Tenant Act, it remains Landlord and Tenant Act even though that is a sexis t term.

So the fi rst argument that I have about this legislation is that it is blatantly, unashamedly sexist and that the governme nt of this province, and apparently all of the MLAs agr eeing, are adop ting sexist legislation. The second complaint, Madam Chairman, that I have about it is that there is not enough of it. I guess that subjects me to the criticism of the fellow who said that he went to a party and he came back and he was di sappoi nted . His friend said, what was the matter? He said the food was awful and the quantities were min iscule, that there was not enough of it, the food was awful.

If we are thinking - and you kn ow. there are people who say pay equ ity - and if you are agains t it, you are agains t pay equ ity, that the only way to establish pay equ ity is by legislation. We have had this thing happen now in several ins tances. If you are against what the Manitoba Peace Council regards as peace, you are for war; if you are agains t Mr. Trudeau's Charter of Rights, you are against rights; if you are agains t a statute which prop oses to do something which it will never do, then you are agains t pay equi ty.

I heard someone get to this mike and say that somebody from Minn eap olis came and spoke agains t pay equity. He never spoke against pay equity; he spoke agains t the conc ept that a Legislature can impose pay equ ity by somebody sitting down in front of a machine and figuring out what people are worth; that's what he was oppo sed to. But if you could do it, Madam Chairman. to all of you MLAs - the Member for Wood lands wants to ind icate that I am not one, and that's true and therefore I am not in tha t hallowed category. But you are! You are, you believe in this.

Why not pass a statute and go further, that there should be higher pay for work of greater value? Why stop at equal pay for work of equ al value? If we can determin e what wages should be paid by clicking into a machine, and the fountain of wisdom lies with members of the Legislature who are able to delega te to some bureaucrat who never did an honest day's work in his life, never prod uced anything of value, and is now going to say what other people should earn; 7 that's what they are going to do.

They are going to hire people who have never done anything, never prod uced anything, never given anything of value to anybody in society, and those people are going to sit in front of comput ers telling people how much they are worth. Madam Chairman, maybe they will have like spy versus spy, computer versus comput er. They should have another group punching keys to find out how much . the guys who are punching the other keys are worth. That will provide more jobs; that's good for the Jobs Fund to be advertised. But that's what is to happ en under this bill.

If you can do that, Madam Chairman, if you can establish equ ity by legislation , then why not punch out the keys and impose lower pay for work of lesser value? Why should people be getting the same pay if they are doing work of lesser value? So the notion that this is possi ble has astounding ramifications. Just look what laws can do. By laws we can make water run up hill; by laws we can decl are what is not to be a profit a profit. If Limestone doesn 't make a profit, it's easy to make one. I am sorry I didn't kn ow this; I could have made a profit out of Saunde rs.

All I said is that the expen ses shall not be includ ed and the income shall be incl uded , and if there is no inc ome we shall put money in and that shall rep resent a profit because we will say profit means everything tha t come s in plus what the gove rnment pays, elimin ating all expenses; that's a profit. You are now legislating what is equal pay for work of equ al value. Well, Madam Chairman , maybe I am being too critical, but I think I have reason to be. What is the history of this bill?

I know that the government doesn't know what it's doing, and I can prove to you that they don't know what they are doing. Six years ago we were sitting in the Legislature and hypocrite No. 1, Lloyd Axworthy, introduc ed a conc ept of equ al pay for work of equal value. He went to Ottawa - they never did it; they never did it, they still talked about it, but he said that it could be done immedia tely.

By the way, certain mem bers on our side of the House said it could be done immedia tely and they were very anno yed with me when I said this is a very di fficult con cept you people are talking about; we cannot suppor t this, we don't know what we are doing. But nevertheless it moved forward. Then almost four years to the day, perhaps less two months, there was a meeting conduc ted by the Status of Women, or an equ ivalent group in society, and I respect the efforts of those people. But, nevertheless, they had a debate amongs t those representativ es of the political parties . . MADAM CH AIRMAN: Excus e me, Mr.

Green , I have a point of order. MR. S. GREEN: Yes. MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mackling. HON. A. MACKLING: I hesitate, Madam Chairperso n, to int errupt my old colleague, but he referred to a member of the Legislature, as he then was a mem ber of the Legislature - the Honourable Member, as he then was, for Fort Garry - and he used the term "hypocrit e." My former colleague knows that, at least in this building,

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 and even in this committee, we do not allow people to be referred to in that derogatory term. I trust he will withd raw the remark. MR. S. GREEN: That is not my und erstan ding of the rule, Madam Chairman. If the commit tee makes me withdr aw, I will withd raw that. My unde rstan ding of the rule is that you cannot refer to a mem ber of the Legislature as a hypocrite. I'm not referring to a member of the Legislature. I'm talking about chief hypoc rite No. 1, Ll oyd Axworthy . He is not a mem ber of the Leg isla tur e; he's a mem ber of Parlia ment.

I am sugg esting to you that he is a hypocrite, that he went down on the basis of equal pay for work of equal value, stayed there four years and in troduced nothing. I will not withd raw the term. You want to kick me out of here. I will not withd raw the term. If the committee votes that I can 't continue because I referred to Lloyd Axworthy , who introd uced this thing in the Legislature, as a hypocrite, that is not my understa nding of the rules. HON. A. MACKLING: I think my former honour able col league may be right in respect to the rule.

I asked him whether he would withd raw the term, because I think it's offensive before a committee of the Legislature to be talking about anyone as a hypocrite, whether he be a friend or foe. MR. S. GREEN: Madam Chairman, I thank the honourable mem ber for saying that it's not agains t the rules. I respect his view as to what peo ple should be cal led. I know what I have been called and it's far worse than hypocrite, and I do not withd raw the term. I have been called that by mem bers of the Legislature sitting on the right side of this table. MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns. MR. H.

ENNS: Madam Chairma n, I would respectfu lly req uest that you note the objections of the Minister of Labour and consider that and come back with a ruling tom orrow. We'll carry on with . . . MADAM CH AIRMAN: Thank you. MR. S. GREEN: Madam Chairman, four years ago, there were repres entativ es of all the political parties at a group meeting in the Convention Centre where they were talking about women 's issues, which is always a problem with me because I feel that all issues are women's issues. But nevertheless, they were discussing what they define as women's issues.

Previous to the meeting, they had sent us all the ans wers. They sent us their posit ion papers on each of the questions. · ·here were three of the represe ntatives of the group , and they asked us the questions and we gave our answers. One of the questions had to do with whether there should be regulations for dome stics, and I said you can 't regulate baby-si tters. That's between husband and wife. Mr. Pawley said they should have the same regulations as everybody else. Then they scored us. Mr. Green gets 10; Mr. Pawley gets 10 0. And then they did the next qu estion. I said, just a minute.

I want the audienc e to know that I've got all these answers. We all ha ve. If I want 8 to get 100, all I have to do is read this paper , but canno t do that. Therefore, I want to tell you wha t think is true. Then they said, what about equal pay for work of equal value? I ind icated , Madam Chairman , this is a very di fficult con cept. Equal pay for equal work, we understand and can accept . That's not a di fficulty. it is easy to define and has been defi ned .

Equal pay for work of equal val ue im plie s th at somebody can deter mine that a tackle on a football team is worth more than the quarterback, but you can get only one quarterback for 20 tackles, and you have to pay accord ing ly. That was my answer. Mr. Pawley said, we believe in it and we will impl ement it. That was four years ago. He got 10 0; I got zero. Now four years ha ve come and four years have gone. The pe ople who said that they could do it for four years did nothing.

The Status of Wo men who complai ned about Mulroney because, in the first year - he hasn 't been there a year yet, and they condem ned him for breaking their pr omises. I never heard the Status of Women in Manitoba condemn the NDP for having said they would do that four years ago and as it happens, Madam Chairman, brought in this bill so that it, in all likelihood , would not be implement ed during their term of office. Because they brought it in at this Session of the Legislature, there would have been no implementa tion of the bill during the four years that they sat.

If they were lucky, they would have a chance to renege in the next four years, but they pro bably wouldn't be lucky so it wouldn't make any difference anyway. So this bill is a sham; this bill is a betrayal. This bill is a demons tration that, when the NDP was talking about that for four years, they had no intention of doing anything about it, couldn't do anything about it, and bring in this legislation which does noth ing.

Are the mem bers of this commit tee aware - yes, I have to give credit to the Leader of the Oppo sition - everything in this bill could be done without the bill? it only refers to the public service. If the government wants to go to Gary Doer and say to him we would like to pay some of your empl oyees more money on the basis that they should get eq ual pay for work of equal value, I tend to think that Gary Doer will not say up your nose. He will take it. That's all this bill says. They could set up their commis sioner . They could set up their po licymen.

They could do everything that is in this act without legislation. Why the legislation? Because they have betrayed a few people. They have told people within their own group that they're going to do things that they didn't do. Th ey, like some others, think that the way you remedy a betrayal is to enact a piece of legislation that preten ds to say something but, in effect, says nothing. This bill could be implemented by the Government of Manitoba tomorr ow if it were oppos ed by every mem ber of the Legislature. The government could implement it. The Cabinet could implement it, if they wanted to.

They could merely say we're going to set up a bureau - and the words are right, what is it? - Pay Equ ity Bureau. There are going to be bureaus all over with people sitting and telling other people what to do and not prod ucing anything by themselves. But they could set up that bureau. They could tell the government negotiators, you are to find seven out of 10 pl aces where there are women and, if they're getting

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 less value than what somebody who punc hes into a computer says they should be getting, then you 're to incr ease their wages. What is the necessity of this bill? This bill is self- imposed and, therefore, need s no legislation. This bill is window dressing. This bill is to try to salvage the betrayal of those people that Mr. Pawley betrayed and the NDP betrayed when they said four years ago, it's a cinch. Anybody who says it's a difficulty doesn't know what he's talking about. We will implement it.

One year passed , no implementa tion; two years pass ed , no implementa tion ; three years passed , no implementa tion. This is the end of the fourth year. This bill would not have any effect on the NDP Govern ment, and doesn 't have any effect and doesn 't req uire them to do anything . lt is in that respect exactly the same as The Freedom of In formation Act . They said they would do it immediately.

They have now en acted a bill which is not a Freedom of In formation Act. it's a pos sibility of keeping information secret act, and it won't affect this government at all. it's supposed to affect the next government, because it's ena cted at the last leg of the term of the govern ment, and that's what was intended . Now, they will pro bably hang on for dear life a little longer. They will pro bably try to hang on till 19 86 and there's good reason for that, but it wasn't in tended to do that. Madam Chairman, in that resp ect, it is in the same category as the Treasury Branch is.

In 19 73, we went to the people, and we said we would en act Treasury Branches. Then we went to the Legislature and fought it out. 1t was a terrific fight, and we had all the credit unions agains t us. Do the mem bers of the government party know that the act is still on the books? They could enact, they could create Treasury Branc hes in the Provinc e of Mani toba without a singl e piece of legislation? But those who became control lers of the organ ization decided all we have to do is pass the act. We don't have to do anything. That mentality governs with respect to this bill. This bill is totally unne cessary.

There isn't a singl e feature of this bill that canno t be implement ed with government action, with gover nm ent poli cy, with gover nm ent dir ection, without a singl e pi ece of legislation. You can create a bureau. You can go to arbitration. You can agree with the union to pay them more money. You can do everything that this act provides. But the government knew that what they were propo sing was a pro blem. 1t took them a little while to find out and therefore they said it wouldn't apply to anybody in the pri vate sector. Well, that wasn't a pr omis e of the NDP Government.

The promis e was equal pay for work of equal value. Anybody who di sagrees with that has got to be agains t pay equ ity. He has got to be some type of Neander thal. They dis agree with it for the gr eat majority of empl oyees in the Provi nce of Manitoba, don't they? If they don't, why don't they ena ct it? Why don't they put into this bill that this act shall apply that every employer has got seven out of 10 women in a certain area has to go to a bureau and watch the keys being typed in and has to change the wages of the empl oyees. Why don't they do it? Because, they, Madam Chairman, have fully examined it.

They see the impos sibility of this pos ition. The reason I talked to the young lady who add ressed the group just before me, the reason that the scales are so low 9 is they want it to have as little effect as pos sible until the election and to deal with the subject in one of two ways afterwards. If they lose the election, it's the next govern ment's problem ; if they win the election, if it is a problem , they can always change it. In the meantime, we have a cosmetic windo w-d ressing bill and I regret, Madam Chairman, and I say this to former colleagues - Mr.

Enns wants to remind me that I am a former colleague, okay, former col league - that there is some respo nsibili ty on an oppos ition in the government. When they see something wrong, they should not be carried away by the psy chology, we can 't appear to be opposed to pay equit y. You heard me in the Legislative Assem bly saying then what I am saying now. I did not change the posi tion. The fact is that for four years, the ND P, which said that it was as simple as rolling off a log, did nothing. The reason they did nothing is that they couldn't do anything.

They had misreprese nted fraudulently to a bunch of people that they could do this and it was a simple conc ept. Anybody who was agains t it was a fascist reactionary. Well, they're against it. They have been there four years and they didn't do it, and they're still not doin g it in the priv ate sector. Why not? Are you fascist reaction aries? Why aren't you legislating? We have, Madam Chairman, the power. Just imagin e. We have the power in Manitoba to create a heaven on earth. By legisla tion, we can provide equal pay for work of equal value - 'tis a consummation devoutly to be wished . Why don't we do it?

We have the power. We have the members. We have the concu rrence of the oppo sition. Do it. Madam Chairman, the reason it is not being done is tha t it is not as it was represented to be. 1t is not a simple proposi tion; it is a very difficult proposi tion. If it were simple, it would be done without this pie ce of legislation. Madam Chairman, I think that the way to judge wha t happe ns in this type of situation is not by what is said.

I remem ber there was a football coach who used to tell his players that they shouldn't smoke; they shouldn't drink; they shouldn't stay up late; they shouldn't carouse and other things. Then they watched his coach. He smoked like a fien d. He drank till he was dead drunk. He did everything else and they said, how come? He said, "I am the coach. Do as I say, not as I do." Now look at what this government has done. 1t talked about women 's rights. They say they want women in the public service. They want affirmative action. They want to promo te it to higher levels within the service.

Well, let's take an actual case. In this case, I merely recite the facts because it will be before the Court of App eal. it was before the Court of Queen's Bench. Here is a woman who was 17 years in the public service. In her depar tment, she was the most senior empl oyee of anybody und er the Deputy Minister level. She had been prom oted to the posit ion of SO 1, so she was prom oted out of scope. Mr. Doer knows about it. She was prom oted out of scope. Two years ago, the govern ment said, we want you to lay off three people in this depart ment.

So they went to the depart ment - and by the way, her man ager, her boss, who was a male, probably a chauvenist pig, he said, I could get two for your price. So th ey named three people to be laid off and she was one of them. The reason they said that she was to be laid off is that she was the only S0 1.

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 Although she outran ked everybody else in the Civil Se rvice and had been there 17 years, she was an S0 1, so she was the most junior perso n. lt is un believable. That is what happened . They said that she is the most junior person because there is only one S0 1, therefore, she is the most senior and the most juni or. We will lay her off and the other two. Then the gov ernment came back and said, no, you are not to lay anybody off who is within the bargaining unit of the MGEA. She had been pro moted out of scope.

Here is the ideal posit ion, a woman, got there by herself, needed no affirmative action, an economist, worked her way up, got to the highest posi tion. This is where you want them. She is the only person in the department who was laid off. Do as I say, not as I do. You have a situation now, Madam Chairman - and this will be dealt with , and I happen to be dealing with this in my professional capacity - you have the geologists and certain other professional people and the engi neers who all were at the same level of pay in 19 82.

So we have established their level, probably did it better than a com puter would do it. They were all making the same amount The other people were part of the MGEA and got certain incr eases. The government wouldn't give them to the engine ers. So the engi neers have fallen behind by several thousand dolla rs as against these other people. They say, we would like to have equal pay for work of equal value. The government says, you're a small uni t You haven't got much power, therefore you are not going to get much mone y. That's pay equit y. This is a search for pay equi ty. The words "pay equ ity" mean nothi ng.

The legislation means nothing. What you have to obs erve is how the government behaves, not what it puts on the Order Pap er in Englis h and in Fren ch, but as it behaves. I say to you, Madam Chairman, that this bill is a sexist pi ece of legislation. 11 is an unn ecessary piece of legislation. lt is a fraudulent pie ce of legislation, and that thousands of people throughout the provi nce will have wrong illusions about what is achievable in the Province of Manitoba by virtue of the psychology that is attem pted to be created.

I am here, Madam Chairman, hopeful ly, to di spel some of that illusion that is attemp ted to be cast here for years after the event - and it is four years. I'm hoping, Madam Chairman, that the people of the Province of Manitoba do not fall into the category of substituting a suggested massiv e bureaucracy of so­ called experts to deal with how much is the value of a human being and his efforts as against freedom, a system which has worked very well. If you say people of one sex have found that it has not worked well for them, I say, Madam Chairman, you're not able to ascribe to that freedom.

You are dealing with part of the cultural traits of our socie ty which change from time to time. When I practise law now in the courts, I would say that one out of four people that I'm dealing with is a female counterpart . That di dr.'t come about through any legislation; that came about, Madam Chairman, because women are not inferior to men and this legislation says that they are. MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Green. Are there any questions? Seeing none, thank you. Ms. Donna Lucas, Charter of Rights Coalition. 10 MS. D. LUCAS: Good evening, Madam Chairperson, members of the comm ittee.

The Charter of Rig hts Coalition (Manitoba) has been organ ized here, as elsewhere in the country, to educ ate women on their rights and potential rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freed oms and to advocate for legislative change s which will reflect the princi ples of equali ty as set forth in

section 15 of the Charter. We are pleased to present our respons e to Bill 53 this eveni ng. The brie f contains comme nts and recomm endations to various specific sections of the act and we would urge the commit tee to giv e consi deration to these. We wish however, at the outset, to commend the government for taking action on the issue of equal pay for work of equal value. We feel that this is an issue whose time has come.

The implementa tion of this principle, in conc ert with a compr ehens ive affirmative action program, adeq uate universally accessi ble day care and other changes to facilitate the full participation of women in the paid workforce must take place. In biblical times, according to Leviticus, women of working age were valued at 30 silver shekels, while men were valued at 50. This ratio is basically unchanged tod ay.

While the coalition does not believe that the mere impl ementation of pay equ ity legisla tion will automatically end this unconscionable situation, we do suppor t the implementation of the principle and urge its syste matic, effect ive and efficient pra ctical applic ation . The ini tiative shown by this government in proposing to legislate a proced ure for the orderly implementa tion of pay equ ity is, as stated earlier, to be commended . However, we feel that this propo sed legislation does not go far enough in establishing pay equity in Manitoba. The scope of the legislation is far too restrictive.

The coalition feels strongly that it should be extended to include not only the entir e public sector, but the private sector as well. We are well aware of the hue and cry raised by some sectors at the introduction of the bill into the House. The arguments used to attempt to dis suade both the government and the general public from suppor ting the conc ept are very simila r to those used agai ns t all advancements made in the field of employment law in the past .

If it had been left up to the marketpla ce, to the law of supply and dema nd, or the emp loyers to assess the opportune time, we submit that changes to child labour laws or the sharecropping system in the Un ited States would have been an awful lot longer in coming. These arguments are scare tactics which must not be allowed to dis suade this government from implementing this bill and, in fact, from going further to pr ovide access to equal pay for work of equal value to all Manito bans.

I believe as well that it's not enough to educate women in schools, to pr ovide them with access to non ­ traditional or male domina ted roles. As there will always be a sign ificant number of women in traditional jobs, there will always be that work to be done and by virtue of women choosing that, they should not be penal ized with lower pay for so-called traditional jobs. We have specific comments in the following sections : You've de fined "external agency" in the Definition Section, and we believe that the legislation should apply to the private sector as well, but certainly at the very

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 least at this time, the bill should cover all of the pu blic sector and pro vide for, if ne cessa ry, timed en try of munici palities, the local government dis tricts, school boards, health care fa�iliti es other than those named in

Schedule A. We have concerns about "female domi nated class." The percentage of 70 per cent is high. We believe it ought to be 60 percent or assessed at a figure lower than 70. Our conc ern is that assess ing the percentage of a domi nated class at such a high level may, in effect, restrict the number of pe ople and the number of job classes which qualify for the pay equit y legislation. We have also some concerns with regard to empl oyers of under 500 empl oyees. They have access that other classes may be defined in regulation and not in the same manner as for emplo yers of more than 500, which is through negot iation process or agreement between the two

part ies. Agai n, the same comments would apply to "ma le domina ted classes." The establishment of a pay equ ity bureau as a separate division to de al with the issue of pay equity is commanded . We would stress, however, that it's necessary to pro vide adequ ate funds to the bureau to enable it to carry out its tasks effectively and efficiently. Without mone y, we feel that the bureau itself may not be able to offer the assis tanc e that it is legislated or that it is to provi de in the legisla tion. We have some conc erns with regard to the powers and the duties of the exe cutive di rector.

We feel that the legislation limits those to that of adviser and information seeker or giver and there appear to be no powers given to this pe rson to either investigate, lay complaints or to generall y have any defi ni te effect on the process. The exe cutive di rector can file a complaint with the Labour Board if there is a refusal to provide her or him with information as req uested . That process, in terms of the filing the complaint, is to be outlined in regulations. In

section 6( 1) - the points outlin ed for dete rmination of value of job classifica tions are good, but we have a concern that there should be as many spec ific criteria to be used to value jobs as possi ble, thus reducing the risk of jobs being classified in very broad terms. While the actual selection of the job classifica tion system to be used is de ter min ed in 9( 1 ), th at is, through negot iations between the two

part ies, our concern is that what may be int ended to be a minimum number of criteria outlined in

section 6( 1) , may in effect become the maximum. The provisions in 6(2) concern us greatly, as it appears to allow the comparison of actual to average salaries. This process is not one which is accep table to us. Comp arisons should only be allowed on the basis of spec ific or average to average salaries. Protections provided in sect ions 7( 1) and 7(2), with regard to wages not being able to be reduced , no one losing pay or no one lowered in classific ation are good. However,

section 7(3), we find

part icularly offensiv e for a number of reasons. The word ing in subsection (

a) appears to provide that less than 1 pe rcent of payroll can be required to be paid out in a year or can be negoti ated to be paid out in a year in taking steps towards achieving pay equi ty. That concerns us, that 1 perce nt does not appear to be a minimum. lt is, 11 however, clearly stated as a maximum and we find that that maximum is far too low. We accept that a phased­ in process needs to be put in pl ace but there should not be a maximum that's 1 perce nt of salary if, in fact, there ought to be that provision there at all. The provision in subsection (

b) which basically limits the length of time that the legislation will be enforced to four years is, in no way, acceptable to our group. The placement of this artificial ceiling on the costs that can be required of an empl oyer to implement pay equity is not in keeping with the princi ples of pay equit y. The conc ern we have with regard to the 4 percent total cost project ion that is placed in the legislation is that the figure is based not on Manitoba figures, but on outside jurisdictions on the und erstan ding that process or that in vestigation hasn 't taken pl ace here.

However, we have a conc ern that the 4 percent may not turn out to be adeq uate, and legislation would deem that's all that could be placed on the pay equity process. With regard to the Civil Service section, sections 8(2) and 8(3) provide for a proc ess of negotiation to take place in good faith and with disclosure of in formation. That is to be commanded , and ought to happen in any case. However, it should be some where clearly stated that the negotiations must result in a plan which conforms to the princi ples of pay eq uity, as outlined in this legislation. The time frames outlined in

section 9 seem to be rather lengt hy. Assu min g that the full time available is used up, no change s will take place prior to Septe mber 30, 19 87, and it will be 1991 before even a 4 perce nt pa yroll cost benefit, in effect, reaches any workers. There must be amend ments made to either shorten this process or, in 7(3), to manda te higher amounts of money being made available for pay equity in terms of minim ums. The exe cutive dir ector in

section 10 (2) is given power to refer the matter to arbitration. In fact, the legislation says "shall refer," which is a manda tory pro vision. We commend that. There ought not to be the ability of the two parties for whatever reason, and I hope that wouldn't ever happ en, to delay the process of solving the issues past the time lines which, as we've said , we feel are already more than adeq uate. There is a di scretiona ry factor in

section 10 (3) with regard to referring to arbitration the failure to implement plans that have already been negotiated . The word "m ay" is used there, as opposed to "shall" in 10 (2). This causes us some concern in that there is no manda tory pro vision that, if in fact implementa tion is not taking place, someone can make sure that it goes to arbitration to be dealt with. The powers given to the arbitration board in this

section to effect an award are good, except again we would indic ate our conc erns with the maximum in that the board is bound by not awarding an amount in excess of what is now in there as 1 perce nt of payroll per year. The provi sion for the orde ring on ret roa ctiv e adjustments is also commanded. We are all well aware of just how lengthy the arbitration process can be, and workers should not be penal ized for that. In the sect ion on Crown entities and exte rnal agencies,

section 13 (1) in its word ing appears to allow for a separate system to be negotiated and implement ed in each external agen cy. Our concern is not that this may be necessarily bad, but it may lead to inequ ities

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 within the public sector with regard to the valuation of job classes. In sect ion 15 ( 1 ), the Labour Bo ard has been desi gna ted as the body to which the matter will be referred if there is no agreement. Even though

section 19 (

f) provides for the establishm ent of "spec ial panels" of the board to deal with the pay equity issues, we would recommend that there be a separate board to deal with this issue. Perhaps a rhetorical question on 15 (6), there is a duty given to the exe cutive di rector, if negotiations break down in Crown entit ies and external agencies, to provide a report to the Labour Board . This is not reflected in the Civil Service section. it's perh aps a rhetorical ques tion, but why not? There is an obligation in

section 16 pla ced on the Crown entitie s and external agencies to co-operate with the bureau, and we agree with that obligation. Sect ion 18 (1) ind icates that other external agencies can be added to the list. That oppo rtunity to incr ease the number of workers covered by pay equity legislation � is com mended but, as we stated earlier, we feel there ' should be provi sions clearly sp elled out within the legislation which would cover all of the public sector as a minimum at this time. Thank you for listen ing, and that ends my comments unle ss there are questions. MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Lucas.

Are there any ques tions? Mr. Rans om. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. Lucas, I believe earlier on in your pres enta tion you said that you didn't believe that this legislation went far enough, and that all Manito bans should be able to benefit from pay equ ity legislation. Are you referring there to women outside of the pu blic service, or are you making a more general statement? MS. D. LUCAS: I said all Manitobans. I believe that pay equity legislation will not simply benefit only women in the public sector. MR. B.

RANSOM: Are you taking the po sition that this should apply to all people in Manitoba, and that the bu reau should have ju risd iction over other job cl assifica tions beside s th ose that are occupied pre domi nently by women? MS. D. LUCAS: I think the way the legislation is set up, as I read it, there will be female-d omina ted classes ide ntified and male-domi nated classes ide ntified , and there will be comparisons made. So, in effect, chan ges can occur in either of those classes, dep ending on the values pl aced on them . lt won 't si mply be on the basis of sex.

We have said in our brief that we feel it ought to apply to the priv ate sector, yes. MR. B. RANSOM: Do you think that there are inequ ities within job categories occupied by either men or women wit hin categories that would be pred omina ntly women or within categories that would be pre domi nantly men that should be addressed ? MS. D. LUCAS: You mean, if you compared two female­ domi nated classes to each other in terms of value? I 12 would think, once the valuation system is set up and assess ed, each job class that's ident ified through the legis lative process as of that

part icular date will have a value pl aced on it. Then there will be a look at what that job is currently earn ing in comparis on to other jobs of simi lar value. So I would say I don't know but perha ps, yes, there may be that effect. MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? Thank you, Ms. Lucas. MS. D. LUCAS: Thanks. MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gary Doer, President of the Manitoba Government Empl oyees' Associa tion. MR. G. DOER: I believe the comm ittee has copies of the brief. MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will di stribute them. Proceed. MR. G. DOER: Good evening, Madam Chairperson .

The Manitoba Government Empl oyees ' Associa tion welcomes the opport unity to present its views on Bill 53, The Pay Equ ity Act, to the Law Amendments Comm ittee. As the unio n which represe nts by far the majori ty of empl oyees pot entially affected by this legislation, the MGEA is clearly an interested party. The Manitoba Government Empl oyees' Asso ciation sup ports the con cept of pay equi ty. During the past 10 years, we have negotiated with the government pay in creases which have incorporated both flat dollars and percentage amounts.

This app roach has had the effect of upgrading lower-pa id classifications in relative terms. We have, over the years, also negotiated spec ial pay adjus tments for lower-paid classifications. In many ins tances, the classifications that had been benefited most from our efforts at the bargaining table have been female domi nated .

The MGEA recogn izes however that, in spite of the prog ress made to date, pay inequi ty still exi sts in the government service, largely due to the unilateral powers of the Civil Service Commission regarding classification , select ion and promo tion. lt is for this reason that the MGEA proposed and successfully obtained in the recent round of ne gotia tions a joint unio n-m anagement comm ittee to deal with the issue of pay equity in the Civil Service. The proposed legislation reinforces the comm itment of the parties to pay eq uity, and provides parame ters in terms of time and money for achieving equ ity.

The legislation provides for pay equ ity to be established through the process of collective bargaining. This is cons istent with the posit ion taken by the MGEA at a joint council meeting on June 3, 19 85, where the con cept of pay equ ity was discussed . The gov ernment is commended for resisting the temp tation to usurp the collective bargaining process by having pay equ ity determined by a bureau and/or a compu lsory system of point rating and "s cattergrams." I would submi t that this bill, as an aside, will allow us not to be a computer in the collective bargaining process, Mr. Green.

We will, I assure you, go to the table discus sing this issue with our membership in the tried and true collective bargaining system.

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 We further believe that the time frames and financial gui del in es of 1 perce nt of payro ll per year are reasonable parameters within which the

part ies can work. The MGEA also has' some suggested amend ments to the exis ting and proposed bill.

Section 7( 1) , the government has assured the MGEA that it is not the intention to achieve pay equity for some empl oyees at the exp ense of others. Sect ion 7( 1) of the bill provides that: "No public sector empl oyer shall red uce the wages of any employ ee in order to implement pay equ ity pursuant to this Act." I might also add that this is the message our mem bers heard at the press conference and in verbal messages over the media from the Honourable Muriel Sm ith and the Honour able AI Mackling. At first glance, this

section would app ear to provide the necessary protect ion for empl oyees. lt is unc lear, however, whether prov iding that no emplo yer shall reduce wages would still allow a third party, arbitration or Labour Board , to effect wage reductions in order to achieve pay equit y. I would say through classifica tion freezes, and I'll go on to that later. Secondl y and more impor tantly, a pot ential problem exists within the appl ication of

section 9( 1.1) of The Civil Service Act and 11 (6) of The Civil Service Act quoted below. I won 't read those sections, but I'm sure members here are very knowledgeable of those sections and their implications. We'll explain that as we go along. Moving on to Page 3, these above sections were in trod uced as amend ments to The Civil Service Act in 19 74, behind the pu blicity of politic al rights for public empl oyees or civil servants und er

section 44.

Section 11 (6). in particular, was opposed by the MGEA at the time as it allows for the unila teral downgra ding of classifica tions and salaries. In simple terms, these sections mean that an employ ee can be dem oted for other than dis cipl in ary reasons and have his or her rate of pay reduced , "un less otherwise approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Counc il." Demotions for other than di scipl ina ry reasons could conc eivably occur in order to achieve pay equit y. In our op inion, the prima cy

section of The Pay Equ ity Act,

section 4, in conjunction with

section 7( 1) , would preclude a reduction in wages in such cases. lt is also our respec tful submiss ion, however, that the pro visions of The Pay Equ ity Act, as pres ently drafted, would not pre clude the freezing or red-ci rcling of salaries on approval of the Lieutenant-Governor -in-C ouncil. In deed , Order -in-Council 21 8/80 gi ves the Civil Service Comm ission prec isely that authority to freeze wages on non-dis cipli nary demotions.

That Order -in-Council is appe nde d for your informa tion. lt is somewhat ironic that same Order -in- Council resulted from the desi re of the Civil Service Commission to protect the salary of one of its own staff mem bers. The authority granted in Order-in-C ouncil 218 /80 has since been used in conjunction with

section 11 (6) of the act to downg rade classifications and freeze the salaries of other government empl oyees. For example, in 19 84 during the peak fire season - and the Mintster will be aware of this - some 25 fire rangers had their classifica tions reduced and their salaries frozen by the Civil Service Comm ission. Th ese demotions were im pleme nted unila teral ly, retroactively , and the empl oyees weren't notifie d until they received their 13 paycheque that they, in fact, had been frozen and downg raded .

Given the pote ntial for such ind iscrimi nate use of sect ion 11 (6) of The Civil Service Ac t, it is unde rstan dable tha t some Manitoba Government Empl oyees' Associa tion mem bers are nervous about the implementa tion of pay equit y. The morale problems created by the exis ting wage-f reeze pract ices would be comp ounde d tremendously if red-ci rcling were used to implement pay equi ty. lt is the MGEA's posit ion that the freezing of salaries constit utes a wage reduction in real terms. lt affects not only their present wages, but it also affects their pe nsion in future.

In order to alleviate the concerns of the MGEA in this regard, it is suggested that

section 7( 1) of The Pay Equ ity Act be amended to read: "N o employee shall have his/her wages or classification reduced in order to implement pay equ ity pursuant to this Act." We believe that this word ing would elimina te any ambiguity as to whether a third party could effect wage reductions through these classification changes. The reference to classification maintenance would ensur e that empl oyees would not be demoted and suffer a wage freeze in order to implement pay equit y.

If the government is sinc ere in its belief that employees should not be adversely affected by the implementa tion of pay equit y, then the act should so state in clear and unambiguous terms. In the absence of such a statement , the MGEA canno t wholly endor se this legislation. I might add, we have just stud ied some states in the United States where male classifications were frozen .

While everybody talks about Minnesota, there are other states in the Un ited States where the "s cattergram" approach was used to move salaries to one constant lin e. lt caused tremendous morale problems, and the empl oyees used the Constitution of the Uni ted States to break off into various uni ons in the same pu blic service with tremen dous problems for both the public service, the services the public receives and the employee groups and the governments.

We believe that our proposed amend ment provides the necessary protec tion for emplo yees, while leaving the empl oyer with the latitude to use 11 (6) of The Civil Service Act and Order -i n-Council 21 8/80 to deal with legitimate non-dis cipl ina ry demotions, i.e., in the case of a physical in capac ity to perfo rm work at a certain classification level. Our conc ern with the potential for abuse of the broad powers granted by 11 (6) is a matter for another forum.

In 19 81, the Premier suggested that it would be desirable to set up a joint govern ment­ MGEA task force to make recommendations on labour rela tions leg isla tion. We sti ll look forward to this opp ortuni ty, and the battle of 11 (6) can be fought at that time. A second concern und er (b), dis pute settlement mechanisms,

section 10 of the proposed act pro vide s for arbitration in the event that the parties fail to reach agreement on the implementa tion of pay equ ity in the Civil Service. The MGEA is optimistic that the arbitration process will not have to be used , but it is a sensible way of dealing with an impasse if it occurs. We, therefore, support the con cept of settling pay equity dis putes by binding arbitration. We would, however, offer comment as to how the dis pute settlement procedu res in the act might be

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 amended to better serve all parties concern ed. Fi rstly, the governme nt should consider the pos sibili ty of devel oping a list of ag reed -u pon arbitrators for pay equit y, either to be in clude d as a sched ule or to be includ ed as a sched ule appended to the act. In this way, the legislation would enh ance the pro bability that arbitrators will either have some expe rtise on pay equity or will de velop it. In any event , if an agreed-upon list could be developed in advance, unnecessary time delays and haggling over the selection of an arbitrator could be avoided.

Second ly, the government should con sider extending the arbitration provision to Crown corporati ons and external agencies. The current

section 15 proposes that pay equ ity dis putes in these jurisdictio ns would be referred to the Labour Board . We suspect that Crown entities, agencies and bargainin g units concerned would want their rights to be consi stent with those which exis t for The Civil Service Act. We would suggest that the governme nt con sult with the groups conce rned before � making any such change.

I' I can say that we have consulted our membership at the Public Insu rance Corporat ion, at the Liquor Co mmis sion, a num ber of other smal ler Cr own corporati ons and a num ber of health care facilities that we represent on Sched ule 6, for health care facilities on Sched ule A, and they too would prefer that system of dispute resolution settlement. Apart from the consistency aspect, it is our respectful subm ission that the Labour Board already has ample statutory respon sibil ities without becomin g embroiled in pay equity dis putes.

We see no need for the Labour Board to attempt to duplic ate the exp ertise which may exist in the Pay Equ ity Bureau and among the arbitrators who may be exp erienced in this area. Con clusion. The MGEA is prepared to accept a lead ing role in establishin g pay equ ity for empl oyees in the Manitoba public service. We believe that the path chosen by the Manitoba Government , in putt ing its faith in the collective bargaining process to produce pay equ ity will be prov en to be correct. The legislation is sound in principle.

We believe that our sugges tions, if impl emented, will facili tate the impleme ntat ion of pay equi ty to the benefit of all

part ies concern ed . The Manitoba Gov ernme nt Emplo yees' Associa tio n is confide nt that the Manitoba model will be a working mo del - one that will be worthy of emulation by other governm ents and the pri vate sector. Tha t's respec tfu lly subm itted on behalf of the mem bers of the MGEA. MA DAM CHAIRMAN: Tha nk you. Are ther e any que stions for Mr. Doer? Seeing none , thank you very much. Ms. Susan Hart, the Equal Pay Coalition of Manitoba. MS. S. HART: Madam Chairper son, the Equa l Pay Coalition of Manitoba is very pleased to add ress you about their views on Bill 53 - The Pay Equ ity Act.

We are very pl eased that this governme nt has taken steps to redress the dis crim inat ion that working women have been subject to for years. We are pleased that the bill recogniz es our internat ional obligations as well as the guarantees within the Canad ian Charter of Rig hts and Freed oms. 14 Under the fi rs t sec tio n of the act , which is "D efinitio n s," we have one concern as a coalition, that has been brought to our attention and we would like to bring it to yours.

Under the defin itions of "female dom inated class and male dom inated class" there was concern among mem bers of the coalition with regard to Su bsection (iii) which defin es those classes in the case of a public sector empl oyer which empl oys less than 500 empl oyees.

We are concerned that they may be defined in the regulations and we would like to ensure that where a pu blic sector empl oyer empl oys less than 500 empl oyees there need not be a cap on the numb er of incum bents, i.e., if a public sector emplo yer has 20 empl oyees we would hope that there is not a need for there to be 10 janitors of whom 70 percent or more are men in order to co mpare them to the day care workers of whom 70 percent or more are women. If this legislation is to be meanin gful we must ens ure that it reaches all public sector empl oyers regardless of size or num ber of empl oyees.

We are concerned in

section 3, titled "Ap plic ation of the Act" that the priv ate sector is not inc luded under the act. Women working in the priv ate sector suffer much more from dis crim ination which affects their wages than do women in the public sector. The public sector is largely uni onized and statistics show that uni onized women have a lesser wage gap to contend with than non -uni onized women. The pri vate sector is largely non -uni oniz ed and women are in the lowest positio ns within both of those sectors.

There is an in justice in the way that wages are given to women and we feel that the injustice must not only be corrected in the public sector, but also in the pri vate. We have heard represent atives of the pri vate sector over and over di scuss how they believe in the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, or at the very least, equal pay for equal work . But very few have moved to im ple ment such a phil osophy within their own wor kplaces.

We need legislation in the pr ivate sector because voluntee rism on behalf of the pri vate sector has si mply not corrected the pro blem that exi sts for work ing women. We would also like to see a dea dlin e within the legislation for them to be inclu ded by. We must be aware that if the pri vate sector is in clude d under The Pay Equ ity Act ·that there will need to be further legislation to add ress some of the sp ecific problems that exist within the priv ate sector tha t do not exist within the public sector.

An example of this is exte nd ing the power of the Execut ive Director of the Pay Equity Bu reau to be able to initia te pr oc eed ings if the agreements reached in the workpl ace do not really achieve pay equi ty, since the priv ate sector is largely unorga nized . We feel tha t school boards and munici palitie s, as part of the pu blic sector, should also have been included in Bill 53. In

Part 1 of the act, "P ay Equity Bureau and other Provisio ns" the Equal Pay Coalition of Manitoba would like to ensure that the Pay Equity Bureau will have sufficient fund in g and personnel to perfo rm the duties as described. We have had a concern that where eq ual pay for work of equal value legislation has existed elsewhere in Canad ian jurisdic tions that it has been doomed to failure because it has not been sufficient ly funded to make it have any meaning whatsoever. There is noth ing worse than creating wonderfu l legislation

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 and then not being able to follow through on it because there's no mone y to do it. We are pleased that the Execut ive Director has the power to file a complaint with the board if there is failure to negotiate a plan of wage adjustments or failure to implement that plan . We are also very pleased that under

Part 2 and

Part 3 of the act the parties bargain to reach agreement respect ing the implementa tion of pay eq uity. We feel that the development selection or appl ication and implementa tion of a job evaluation system that is not bargained and agreed to by both side s is a formula for failure. This recogn izes the differing needs and concerns of emplo yers and giv es employ ees and empl oyers the right to tailor make the system to meet tho se needs rat her than bei ng in flexible and impos itional.

We have a problem though under "Cr own Entit ies and External Agencies" in that when proce edings are in itiated , they are referred to the Labour Board . The position of the Equal Pay Coalition was that there was to be a three-p erson Pay Equ ity Board established. We do not want matters referred to either the Labour Board or the Human Ri ghts Commi ssion for basically two reasons. Si nce the labour legislation in trod uced and passed by this govern ment has come in to effect, the Labour Board has been very busy with test cases to that legislation.

The Human Rights Commission takes a great deal of time also to get a date set for hea ring a complaint. We don't want to tie up the Labour Board or the Human Rights Comm ission with pay equity referrals. We would li ke a th ree-pe rson board esa tablis hed keepi ng in mind the gove rnment's affirmative action program to hear pay equ ity cases. The Labour Board and the Human Rig hts Comm ission both are experts within their own jurisd ictios, one being the Human Rights Code, the other being The Labour Relations Act.

This does not ne cessarily mean that they will be comfortable or in formed on pay eq uity and we have concerns about their expertise on this matter. With the Labour Board we also realize that there are management representativ es hearing the cases and , quite frank ly, we have little faith in management 's comm itment to this ph ilosophy, as we can see by the opp osition in the media to pay equi ty. We feel that this is necessary to ensur e cred ibility in the eyes of those filing the complai nt, tha t a fair and just remedy has been reached .

The Equal Pay Coalition of Manitoba still would like to have a sepa rate Pay Equ ity Board to deal with complaints and referrals and to have the remedial power necessary to enforce the legislation. The Equal Pay Coalition would like to be no tified of the regulations conce rning pay equity and hope that we can have some input as well into the regulations. With these concerns in mind, the Equal Pay Coalition of Manitoba is still pl eased that steps have been taken to implement pay equity for workers in Ma nitoba.

We will assume that this is the first step of what we hope is justice for all workers in this provi nce. This legislation, though it may not be perfect , is by far more mean ingful than any legislation we have in any other jurisdiction in this country. Onc e again, all eyes are on Manitoba and we feel this government can be proud that they have taken inn ovative steps to correct a social and economic injus tice. 15 We would like to thank you for your time in hearing our concerns, and we urge you to make the amend ments that the Equal Pay Coalition recommends to this bill. MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Hart.

Are there any qu es tions? Seei ng none, thank you for your pres enta tion. MS. S. HART: Thank you. MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Murray Smith. Do you have a written brief, Mr. Smith? MR. M. SMITH: Not on this occa sion, Madam Chairper son. MADAM CHAIRMAN: Fine, proc eed . MR. M. SMITH: On this occasion, I'm app earing as a pri vate citizen. The society I represented on some other occasions has poli cies support ing equal pay for work of equal value in child care and would like to support it in other areas, but to date it lacks expressed general po licy.

However, as for my house, comp rising of five still youthful women and myself, we support this bill as a sign ificent start in the right direction. I wish to make but three points. First, equal pay for work of equal value is not a new idea hatched last week in the fertile brain of some hare- brained academic. it was part of career couns elling courses more than a decade ago. In 19 74, the Health Scienc es Centre agreed with the Canadian Union of Public Empl oyees when a job evaluation program for the 400 different jobs held by the 2,0 00 HSC empl oyees in that union.

I have an outline of that program in this document which was pu blis hed in '77. I happe ned to chair the centr e's board while that program was put into effect, and although there were some difficulties it was generally well accepted and overall very success ful. it raised some rates of pay, for example, among child care workers; and it red-ci rcled others. Throughout, results were generally received in good spi rit. One in teresting encou nter which remains with me very vividly was between the pay increases called for and the guideli nes of the anti-i nflation board.

The AIB ordered a roll back order saying, in effect, that the centre could not implement a contract which it had neg otiated with its unions. The centre and the union made a joint appe al agains t this order . The AIB accepted the evidence that these incr eases were to correct historic discrimination and restored the rates that had emerged from the evaluation process. I take that as evidenc e that the process itself was convi ncing and that the evidence it turned up of systemic discrimination in wage rates was understood by the anti-infla tion board who proceeded to reverse themselves on that important issue.

That the centre was satisfied with the princi ple of job evaluation and the processes used is borne out by a submission which the centre made to the provi ncial task force on the subject in 19 76. Secon d, the equal pay for work of equal value need no t inv olve massiv e gove rnment bureaucracy or govern ment inter ference in job evaluation programs.

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 Ther e's value in a provi ncial bureau to offer advice and provide training in job evaluation techniqu es much as Workpl ace Safety and Health provides assistance to local joint comm ittees. Both the Health Scienc es Centre Prog ram and the Steelworkers Program in Thompson were really co-o perat ive efforts by management and empl oyees. Basically, this commitment and co- operation are what make the unde rtaking succeed . Within our own province th ese examples are evi denc e th at compar ability and pay equity are thoroughly prac tical.

Third, certai nly red ucing the effects of centur ies of gender stereotypi ng will cost mone y. If it wouldn't cost mone y, it would have happe ned 10 or 15 years ago or 50 years ago. Jobs traditionally domina ted by women and und erpaid because "women 's work" has always been unde rvalued exce pt in the emotional terms of Mother's Day are now the main reason why on average women mu st also work Monda y, Tuesday and Wedn esday of the next week to earn what men took home on Frid ay. If this cost is rather larger than some antic ipated , this shows only that the inequ ity is greater than some thought.

This di scovery is hardly grounds for not acting; rather it adds to the urgency of proc eed ing to eliminate the in eq uities. Thank you. MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions for Mr. Smith? Seei ng none, thank you very much. Darlene Hildebrand and Ed Martens for the Winn ipeg Cham ber of Commerce. MR. E. MARTENS: Madam Chairman , I will intr oduce the subject and then Darlene Hildebrand will make the main pres enta tion on behalf of the Chamber and she has copies that she will di stribute to all of the mem bers. Madam Chairman, the issue before us is a very complex one.

We started to study the issue just about a year ago when we realized that Manitoba would be facing it and we appo in ted a task force some two, two­ and -a-half months ago un der the leadership of Darlene Hi ldebr and. Tha t task force ga th ered as much in formation as it could, consu lted with non- experts in the field and as recently as last week had John Tice (phonetic) from Washing ton here to di scuss the issue with busine ss people and with the pu blic. We feel the issue has not had the pu blic de bate and rational open dis cussion that it warrants.

The quic k-fix legislation that we have before us, we believe will not do the job. Yes, Mr. Green, we too believe in the princ iple of pay equit y. Empl oyers and empl oyees alike have worked in that di rect ion for many years. This go ve rnment, it's in teresting to note, has put forward some what we would even call good legislation, believe it or not, and some bad legislation.

We point to the mov e that you took in the area of technolog ical change where ins tead of heavy leg islation, you decided that a consultation route with ma nagement and the empl oyees , go vern ment's assis tance and the Inno vation Centr e that has been establish ed was the best route to look for solutions to pro blems brought forward by te chnolo gical change. In the same vein, und er the perso ns working alone regulations, you decided that even when a person's life was at stake that regulations and joint di scussion between the parties was the most reasonable, sensi ble, lon g-term solution.

Un der affirmative action, you did n't 16 establish a bureau of affirmative action; you gave that as a manda te to Deputy Ministers and Ministers to report to the Legislature on how they were impleme nting affirmative action in their depart ments. We think that is the posit ive way of going. With that, Madam Chairman, I would like to introduce Darlene Hildebrand and she will make the pres entation and we'll answer any questions later. MS. D. HILDEBRAND: Madam Chairperso n, thank you very much for the oppo rtunity for the Winn ipeg Chamber of Commerce to prese nt their views to this comm ittee.

On the outset, I would like to once again under score and make the very critic al point that we in busine ss in Winn ipeg savour equal pay for equal work. There is no question about this. What we di sagree with here is the method that this proposed legislation intends to deal with the situation facing some women in society tod ay. We feel that the difference in wages that have been cited as evidence for the need for this legislation are not, as some people tonight have poi nted out or tried to suggest, the result of systemic di scri mina tion.

We do no t bel ie ve that busine ss has syste mically dis crimina ted agains t women, but that this whole issue is such a complex social issue that it is really beyond the scope of this legislation. To the extent that inequ ities exist, we feel that the legislation is not the means to effectively deal with such inequiti es. I will expl ain our posit ion by addr essing some of the key issues which have pro mpted the govern ment to in troduce Bill 53. Fi rst of all, that legislation is even necessary to elimi nate gende r di scri mination in wage sett ing.

To the extent that such discrimination exists in the Civil Service, remedies are already available through human rights legislation. If the government has not been effectively enfor cing these laws, we feel the answer is proper enforcement not further legis lation. The means within the Civil Service is already there. it simply needs to be impleme nted . This legislation is sup posed to reduce the wage gap between males and females, which the government claims is currently 44 perce nt. We would like to clarify this. Manitoba civil servants are already among the highest paid in Canada.

The wage gap in the Manitoba Civil Service, based on hourly rates, decr eased by 28.8 percent already, between 19 73 and 19 84; and this is 12 perce nt less than the national wage gap between males and females.

Female wages in the Manitoba Civil Service incr eased by 364 percent in this same time pe riod, 19 73- 1 984, which is a rate 89 perc ent greater than the in crease in male wages. it should also be poin ted out that the median length of service for men in the Civil Service is 44 percent longer than the average length of service for women in the Civil Service of Manitoba; and we po int this out only to make the point that a si mple comparison of wage differentials are simply not meani ngful. We are not comparing the same thing.

However, as the figures that I have already pointed out will show, if the trends are to continue, and they are continuing, legislation is a very costly way to achieve some thing that is already happ ening on its own. The government admits that the wage gap is primarily caused by the fact that 70 percent of women empl oyed

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 are emp loyed in lower paid occupations. However, the government views the use of training as a method to decr ease the wage gap as too costly and too time cons uming. We take great exception to this. When one conside rs that the number of women enter ing post-seco nda ry educ ational in stitut ions is growing at a rate eight times that of men, and that many more career oppor tunitie s are open ing up in the professions, it would seem that the wage gap is being corrected .

In fact, when one consi ders that, nationwide, the number of female doctors grew from 3,000 to 6,5 00, over 10 0 percent, between 197 1 and'81 and the number of female of lawyers grew from 770 to 5, 000 over the same period , we can see that women are quickly joining the ranks of professionals at an accelerated rate. Although it may take long er, pay incr eases gained this way reflect increases in the prod uctivity of the workforce and are therefore justified .

If money is to be spent, in the view of these facts it would seem better spent on educational programs which incr ease our province's labour prod uctivity than on wage adjustments which provide in creased payment for no incr ease in output. These educational programs would also help to funnel women into job classifi cations that would naturally pay them higher levels of wages. The government claims that women will benefit from this legislation. Although some women may benefit in the short term from ini tial pay incr ease, rising wages in the public sector will in evitably raise wages in the private sector.

This undou btedly was part of the purp ose of the legislation. However, our concern is that this could force some organiza tion to reduce the num bers of the se jobs avai lable to women , creating mor e unemplo yment among the very group that the legislation is attempting to help. How do es a woman benefit, if her $20,0 00 a year job is evaluated at $30,000 a year, but then di sappears? In the government, women who have worked hard to reach the top of their pay scale, may have their wages frozen to help to pay for the in creases given to lower paid women.

How does a female accountant benefit from her years of training if her wages are frozen? We would also like to point out the experience of pay equ ity leg islation in Austral ia where it was introd uced in 19 72. lt defini tely warrants scruti ny. After this legislation was intr oduced it was found that female unemployment in Australia actually in creased and the rate of women joining the workforce dec reased, along with an incr ease in the amount of female part-t ime labour.

The pay equity legislation didn't help incr ease the wages of women; it sim ply forced them to take other forms of emplo yment that were available and didn't, overall, change their situation. Furthermore, women are provi ncial taxpa yers and they will have to shoulder the burden of escalating pro vincial expen di tur es for incr eased wages.

Any legislation, and I think this is very impor tant, particularly for all the groups here, I feel and we feel that legislation which perpe tuates the stereotype of women as helpless creatures need ing government aid and protection is detrimental to the image of women as a whole. Women can take care of themselves and they are taking care of thems elves, if given a chance. The Provi ncial Government believes that a Civil Service job has an in trinsic value to Manitoba and that this value can be ascertained through job evaluation, 17 which is alr eady the process used by many large firms tod ay.

To the extent that job evaluation is used in the private sector, jobs which are important and valuable to the organ ization are ident ified and pric ed accord ing to the going rate for those jobs. These rates are then used to gauge the pay for other jobs within the company . In this way, unlike Bill 53, a market relationship for wages is maintained. lt should be poi nted out that Minnesota which has been used as an example for this legislation uses market rates for hard- to-fi nd jobs under its legislation. One has to ask, are market rates important to Manitoba? We feel the ans wer is yes.

If one consi ders that 36.7 percent of Manitoba's Gross National Product depends on exports, this relationship appears crucial. One need onl y look at the auto ind ustry to see what happens when competit ive forces are ignor ed. Many of our man ufacturing ind ustries, particularly ind ustries such as the garment indus try, which are heavily female domina ted , are defi ni tely going to be affected by this type of legislation. The idea of intrinsic value is also question able. We have to ask, value to whom? Wha t would espe cially qu alify a pay equity comm issioner to deter min e this in strinsic value?

How does one equate 10 poin ts for exposur e to hazard ous waste to 10 poi nts for educa tional background? Put another way, how does one deter min e the value of a Wayne Gretzsky to the Edmon ton Oi lers? Often, it's only by the marketplace. This con cept does not consider that one employee may be more produc tive than another and, therefore, simp ly worth more to her empl oyer. How are merit and sen iority to be incorporated into the evaluation process? What happens when a person with special skills is needed and an emplo yer must pay more to get her?

Does the emplo yer then have to give a raise to all other empl oyees holding posit ions with the same number of pay equity points, or does he not pay her what she is worth and, therefore, he doesn 't get a good emplo yee? Even with the di sclaimer for cont ract workers, grievances could obviously result. The U.S. National Academy of Scienc e conclude d that it is very di fficult, if not impossi ble, to apply job eval uation techniqu es con sistently , and this is the concern.

This lack of consis tency is borne out by the fact that very often evaluators in the U.S. have rated the same job di fferently because it is a subjective evaluation. In Io wa, rating systems have caused problems by raising some part-t imers to salaries and ratings higher than full-ti mers and some subordina tes being rated equal to their supervisors. Ano ther point. The government claims the legislation is meant only for the public sector and rel ated organ izations. We would ask, if this is the case, pay equity is simpl y a matter of perso nnel pol icy and legislation is unn ecessary.

The means to do this is already within your perso nnel practices. As well, all references to the priv ate sector, uniqu e to this bill in Manitoba, we feel, should be removed . The Pay Equ ity Bureau can effectively mon itor pay equ ity advancement and educate the private sector. Government departments should be able to effectively gauge and report themselves on the process of exist ing

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 resources within their own depart ments. The cost of the Pay Equ ity Bureau and its staff is unne cessa ry. If one concedes a need to educate business in this area, the small busi ness sector would be the prim ary target as large organ izations alr eady know about job evaluations and have them implemented within their organiza tions.

We feel the Wi nn ipeg Cham ber of Commerce and the Personnel Association of Manito ba, whom we have already spo ken with and have agreed to work with us, could educate the business communi ty, using to advantage our extensiv e exp erience in the area of small business. No new Civil Service Department and pos itions would be necessar y. Propo nents say the cost of this bill is mini mal - about 4 perce nt of total payr oll. In the Minnesota exp erience, which has been used as the example so often , the cost has mushroomed to well over 10 percent of total payroll.

Sinc e the Minnesota program is onl y half implement ed , no one is certain wha t the bottom line and final figur es will be. Furthermore, Min nesota has a substantial surplus in its budget making it easy to pay for these incr eased costs. Ma nitoba, unfortunately, is not in this enviable posi tion. The government should be addr essing the problem of moun ting deficits and una ccep table unemployment levels, rather than in troducing legislation which will red irect government funds to Civil Service salaries and, we might add, to Civil Service salaries for peop le who are already emplo yed.

Si nce dis putes will be settled by arbitration, in some cases, and by the Labour Board in others, costs will rise due to the use of the court system and resulting jurisp rudence. A U.S. example of the effect of this is the case where the San Jo se School Board was forced into bankruptcy over the pay equ ity issue by a jud icial decis ion. We do not want to see this happ ening in Manitoba. The uni que in clusion of fringe benefits in Manitoba would also seem likely to rais e the cost well beyond 4 per cent.

There's a great deal of past exp erience in the area of pay equ ity legislation upon which to draw, espec ially in Minnesota. So are the claims. What limited exp erienc e there is has been far from successful. Florida , Illin ois and Nor th Carolina have categorically rejected the concept in their Legislatu res. The U.S. Civil Rig hts Comm ission will not hear cases based on equal pay for work of equal value. Most states studying the issue have put a di sclaimer on the intende d use of their studies due to an undecided case in Washington State.

The Iowa exp erienc e has led to qu es tionable compensa tion pract ices; e.g. super visors making less than their empl oyees. The City of Los Angele s and the Un iversity of Yale experiences were just exercises in collective bargaining, far different from pay equity action. In Minnesota, the cos t has more than tripled as the program has grown . Pol ice and fir emen have opted out of the agreement due to fear of wage compr ess ion. No reference to the pri vate sector is made in the Min nesota law.

In formally, reports have come from Minnesota saying that . for example, it is becoming di fficult to recruit a secretary for the pr ivate sect or becaus e the best qua lified potential empl oyees prefer to work in the public sector, at artificially higher wages. Pay equity is the best solution to the wage dis parity between the sexes. 18 This , of cou rse, is wher e we have our bigge st dis agreement with the leg isla tion.

Adequa te enforcement of exis ting la ws and education programs which emphasize career plan ning would provide a more product ive workforce and are, hence, we feel, better long-term solutions. Ano ther solution would be to implement pay equi ty orient ed resource materials on compensa tion polic y for busine ss. This could best be done through exis ting empl oyee and employ er organ izations. The government claims this act will help ensur e pay equi ty. Since who gets the pay incr eases will be negotia ted, the entir e process will be very subjective.

There is no guarantee that pay equity will be the logical result. In his addr ess prior to second reading, the Minis ter expressed the desir e to red ress the past ills of capit alism. Courts have long held that the imposition of collective guilt on the desc endent represe ntatives of any group, including busine ss, is impr oper. This legislation ignor es this position, making today's genera tion of busi nesswo men and men respo nsible for the bad perfo rmance of their ances tors. We can not be held resp onsible for what happ ened in the past anymor e than this governme nt can be held responsible for past abuses.

The problem must be exami ned in the con text of today's business and government envi ronment. In summar y, the Winn ipeg Chamber of Commerce favours equal pay for equal work. We would rather see tax doll ars spent on training and education programs. You can see you've done a very good job in confusing this issue within everybody's minds. The semantics have been very cleverly used by this government to confuse us all. We would rather see tax dollars spe nt on training and education programs, rather than in the forms being suggested in this legislation.

We would rather see enforcement of exis ting legislation than the creation of a new bureaucracy. We would also urge that, in future, the govern ment include the priv ate sector in the role of enhancing the role of women in the economic sector, rather than the use of a one-sided pay equ ity bureau and one-sided legislation in which priv ate ind ustry had no say at this time. Thank you very much. MADAM CH AIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Hildebran d. Are there any questions? Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: Madam Chairman, I would like to ask a couple of questions. One, is there was a plea by Mr. Martens for more time?

And I wonder if you could ind icate appro xima tely when you became aware of this legislation, either formally or informally, and how much time you had to research your material and put this brief together. MADAM CH AIRMAN: Mr. Martens, did you want to ans wer that? MR. E. MARTENS: Well, we were aware that the governm ent or the party was di scussing the issue some three or four years ago, but we were not formally aware that the issue was going to come forward until about

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 two- and -a-half months ago, at which point we appoi nted our task force. lt is such a horrendously com plex subject that we've only started to gather the data and the in formation in the last couple of weeks. MR. R. DOERN: And so, whether you agree with this in princi ple or in detail or not, let's just assume it's a pi ece of legislation. Gi ven this legislation, how much time do you think would have been sufficient notice, and onc e you had notice how much time do you think would be necessary for public de bate and analysis and dis cussi on? MR. E.

MARTENS: I don't kn ow; I'm not an expert in that area. I do kno w that, again, the subject is so comp lex that there has been very little public discussion and there's very little public unde rtstanding of the issue. Most people, when you dis cuss the issue, whether it's with colleague, friends or family, they believe we're still talking about equal pay for equal work and they wonder why we're opp osed to that. They don't understand the next step in this of equal pay for work of eq ual value; and the y don't und erstand the impl ications of that issue.

There are very few people out there who under stand the fina ncial impl ications, the experienc es in other sectors, in other count ries. In fact, as Darlene had said, where it has worked agains t those very people the legislation was meant to assist. lt concerns me when people out there - and including legislators - do not appear from what they say to understand the full implic ations of the legislation. MR. R. DOERN: The other qu es tion I had was concern ing the Min nesota experience. I wonder if we could get any further clarification there. There were some numbers thrown around .

You talked in your brief about costs mushro oming to well over 10 percent, at half the program implement ed, which would seem to ind icate that the total costs might run of the order of 20 perc ent. Is that the kind of arithmetic or logic that you int erpr et in this regard ? MR. J. DUBAS: If I may respond, I MADAM CHAIRMAN: Excus e me, I don't have your name for Hans ard . MR. J. DUBAS: My name is Jona s Dubas. I'm a research assistant for the Cham ber of Commerce. MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dubas, can you get any closer? MR. R. DOERN: Can you move any closer so they can pick you up on the sound here? MR. J.

DUBAS: Under the 4 percent analysis in Minnesota, had judged the cost of the program to them would be $40 million. What has happ ened in the recent years, due to the implementa tion since it's occurred , the cost has mushroomed to 10 percent and has now become a projected figure this year of $250 million for that state; so that's the type of fiscal uncontrol that could very well occur. 19 MR. R. DOERN: Is part of that cost or a large part of that cost a bureaucracy?

Was there a figure built in or impugned that, say, there would be a bureaucracy that would admin ister this and then they forgot about that and then this is partly the cost of ad ding on a bureaucracy. MR. J. DUBAS: Bureaucracy itself was not in cluded spe cifically. lt was also just part of the ini tial cost. In the study I looked at, it was not separated. That would be part and parceL lt would seem to me any system which brings forward a bureaucracy would do nothing but expand the cost.

If we look at our past history in this countr y alone on the cost of bureaucracy and the expansi on, it would seem only logicaL MR. R. DOERN: Did you speak to people in Minnesota di rect ly, as op posed to read ing their material or corresp onding? MR. J. DUBAS: What we got was material from people in Minnesota and we talked to two of them. Sp ecifically, di rectly, one of the foremost experts is consi dered the most knowledgeable ind ividual in the Unit ed Sta tes on the issue of pay equi ty. A DELEGA TE: That's Mr. John Tice. MR. J. DUBAS: John Tice, he came in.

If you wish a reprod uction of his spe ech, his pr esentat ion, the Chamber can send one to you. A lot of the figures are within his spee ch; and we can also send you a

summary of what's been occurring in the States. MR. R. DOERN: As you best under stand it, what is the reaction of the people of Minnesota to this program? Do they think it's the worst program ever invented or do th ey think it's a great program , but it costs too much money? What is the general reaction in the state? MR. J. DUBAS: I can't really comment on personal reaction. MADAM CHAIRMAN: I really wonder whether that que stion's in order , Mr. Doer n. I don't think the delegation is an expert on the opinion of the people in the State of Minnesota. lt wasn 't germane to their brief. MR. R.

DOERN: Well, that would app ear to be a matter of opinion, Madam Chairman. This is obviously a bad exam ple or a di fficult or painful exam ple. I was just wondering what other observations you have on the Minn esota experience. Are you sugges ting the Minn esota is the typical case and that people are just not aware of the ramifications and that if we proceed with the pr ogram we're going to wind up with a Minn esota factor here? MS. D.

HILDEBRAND: What we're suggesting is that it's not clear. it starts with an interp retation and a suggestion that a cost will be a certain num ber and then it mushrooms and it escalates and nobody knows where it's going to end. That's the concern. MR. R. DOERN: There have been some attempts, believe, to put some numbers on the Manitoba program

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 and, as I recall them , the Minister of Labour talked about $16 million. I think the MGEA said $60 million. Do you have any num bers or projections as to what it might cost? MR. E. MARTENS: The MGEA figures are correct, as far as we know. Mr. Doer is quoting the figures as per final impl ementa tion in all of the hospitals, etc. it's $16 million only for the centr al Civil Service and then expanded beyond that over the four years. lt takes it between 50 and 60. Madam Chairman, Mr.

Tice, if I could, did state here last week that in those states where there was not full and open public di scussion on it, on the subject, they got themselves into a lot of trouble. That was the trouble in the State of Minnesota and the State of Washington, which we didn't cite here this evening either, where the costs are now upwards of $1 billion for implementa tion of pay equity in that state because they didn't kno w what they were getting themselves into. They got into court actions on retroactive pay which is not possible here. They didn' t di scuss those impli cations.

They implemented it qu ickly and got themselves into a lot of trouble. MR. R. DOERN: Jus t on that final point then. Are you saying that now in the State of Washin gton, was that the State of Washington? MR. E. MARTENS: Yes. MR. R. DOERN: They have a billion dollar additional cost for this program per annum? MR. E. MARTENS: I did say that we believe that what happened in the State of Washington could not happ en here.

There, they went to court - we can still end up in court on this legislation, but on retroactive pay and that's where the dol lars really came in, the courts de termined that X people were underpaid at this point in time. They then extended that and said if we're un derpaid this year, we must have been underpaid for the last 10, 15 years, and the court said yes and , therefore, we decree that you must get back pay and that's where it reached the $1 billion figure. We're not raising that as a scare tactic here. We recognize that the legislation will not allow for that in Manitoba to the best of our kno wledge. MR.

R. DOERN: My final question then is, do you think from your study and your un der stan ding of the U.S. experience that retroactive pay will be an issue and will be a factor and will add to the costs of the program? MS. D.

HILDEBRAND: That's somethi ng that is actually an inter esting question, some thing we haven't totally looked into, but it would seem logical if it is accepted that people are unde rpaid no w, if in effect that is accepted as true, it would make sens e that people are goin g to then petition for retroactive pay because they have been unde rp aid all this time, and sinc e this legislation is sup posed to de al with the hi storic dis crimination and unde remp loyment of women , that could defini tely be an issue. it's not something that we are raisi ng, but it is an in teresting question. 20 MADAM CHAIRMAN: Any further questions?

Thank you very much then. Ms. Darlene Dziewit, Manitoba Federa tion of Labour. MS. D. DZIEWIT: Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and mem bers of the Committee. The Manitoba Federa tion of Labour welcomes the opportunity to present its views on Bill 53 on behalf of the 7 4,000 person membership of the federation. The Manitoba Federat ion of Labour suppor ts the conc ept of pay equi ty.

During the past 15 years, we have been advocating and upgrading of lower pay categories and urging our affiliates to settle for straight dollar or dollar plus percentage settlements to raise the relative level of lower pay classifications, many of which have been female domi nated . Salarie s of Canadian working women represented by unions are, on average, 72 percent of male salaries. This compa res favourably to the general Canadian statistics of 62 percent female-to-male salary ratios.

The MFL recogn izes, however, that in spite of the prog ress made to date, pay in equit ies still exist in the public sector and to a greater deg ree in the private sector, particularly the non-union sector. We applaud the government for their Canadian leadership in intr oducing pay equ ity legislation in the provincial public sector. Further, the government is to be commende d for utilizing the collective bargaining process to implement pay equi ty. We further believe that time frames and commitm ent to desi gnate funds over the fou r-year period are positive, pragma tic procedu res in terms of pay equit y.

The MFL, however, is disappoint ed at the restricted application of the propo sed bilL In terms of the public sector, the federation believes that school boards and munic ipaliti es should have been incl uded in the scope of the bilL Given the govern ment promis e - pay equity in 1981 - the necessary consultation with these two sectors should have taken place during