Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Canada (Ratification: 1972)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the attached documentation. It also notes a communication dated 10 March 2003 received from the International Federation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), which was forwarded to the Government for comments. The Government is asked to provide information on the following points.

Federal level

1. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the overall gender wage gap continued to decline from 14.4 per cent in March 2002 to 13.3 per cent in March 2003 and that the overall wage gap is partially influenced by the distribution of men and women among occupational categories. According to the 2002 Annual Report under the Employment Equity Act, women covered by the Act earned 79.3 per cent of men’s average salaries (0.6 per cent more than in 2000). The ICFTU recalled the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s analysis that most of the gap was to be explained by systemic discrimination. The ICFTU also stated that despite some gains many women remained confined to low-paying jobs with few career opportunities. In this respect the Committee recalls its previous comments concerning the special report submitted by the Canadian Commission for Human Rights to Parliament in February 2001 and concerning also the Pay Equity Task Force established by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Labour to undertake a comprehensive review of federal pay equity legislation. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that this task force has been extended to 30 June 2003 and that it has considered submissions from a wide range of bodies and organizations, including workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Government is asked to provide a copy of the task force’s report and to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to follow up its recommendations. The Committee would also appreciate receiving more detailed statistical information on the earnings of men and women in the private and public sectors as outlined in its 1998 general observation, including information on the distribution of men and women in low-paying jobs and occupations.

2. With regard to its previous comments on the discontinuation of the implementation of the Universal Classification Standard (UCS) 2.0, the Committee notes the explanations given by the Government as to why a single pay structure for all positions in the federal public service would have created too rigid and inflexible a management framework. In this context, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) will continue to introduce innovative, gender-neutral approaches into the design of classification standards, job description writing and job evaluation procedures. The Government also reports that TBS will implement tailored classification reforms targeted to those occupational groups in the greatest need and that a new monitoring programme is being introduced to guide the classification decisions of various civil service departments issued within their organizations. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the process of classification reform and on how the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value is taken into consideration. Please provide information on the occupational groups, which have been selected for classification reform, the changes made in the respective classification standards and how these changes enhance the application of the Convention. In addition, the Government is asked to provide information on the functioning of the new monitoring programme referred to and on the collaboration of workers’ organizations in this process.

3. Recalling its previous request to the Government concerning the collaboration of workers’ and employers’ organizations to promote the principle of equal pay, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it strongly encourages both employers and unions to work together to identify and resolve pay equity problems. Please provide information on any practical example of how this is done and on any examples where collective agreements have resulted in reducing the pay gap between men and women.

4. With reference to its previous comments concerning the agreement between the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) and the Treasury Board, which ended an action brought in 1991, the Committee notes with interest that the implementation of the agreement has been completed and that as a result pay equity adjustments were incorporated in the wages effective 28 July 1998.

Provincial level

5. New Brunswick. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that it was too early to assess how the family-friendly amendments made to the province’s Employment Standards Act in 2000, including regarding childcare leave and family responsibility duty, may assist in the better application of the Convention. Please provide such information as soon as available, as well as any information on any other measures implemented or envisaged to promote the application of the Convention.

6. Ontario. Noting the Government’s indication that elections were held in Ontario in October 2003 and that any information the Government of Ontario provided will be forwarded to the ILO as soon as possible, the Committee recalls its previous request for information concerning that province, which read as follows: "The Committee also notes the action launched by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) with other unions and individuals, on 17 April 2001, against the Ontario Government, regarding pay equity funding." The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of the status of that case and any relevant court decision on that matter. It also asks the Government to continue to provide information on any amendments to the Pay Equity Act.

7. Quebec. The Committee thanks the Government for providing a copy of the report submitted by the Minister of Labour in November 2002 on the application of the Pay Equity Act of 1996 by enterprises with fewer than 50 employees. It notes that about half those enterprises have undertaken a pay equity review so far and that a third of them have subsequently increased wages to eliminate structural inequities, overwhelmingly for employment in which women are in the majority. The Committee also notes from the Minister of Labour’s report the measures undertaken or envisaged by the Pay Equity Commission, including with regard to the application of the Act by enterprises not having male comparators and the establishment of a verification programme. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on these measures and on the other activities of the Pay Equity Commission, including complaints dealt with and promotional activities. Please also indicate whether any consideration is being given to the legislative amendments suggested by the Pay Equity Commission. Finally, the Committee looks forward to receiving the report of the Minister of Labour on the application of the Pay Equity Act in all enterprises due in 2006.

8. Nova Scotia. The Committee again asks the Government to provide information on any developments with respect to the extension of pay equity to private sector corporations and bodies as well as on the practical effect given to this principle in the public sector.

9. Alberta. The Committee recalls that the Province of Alberta does not have pay equity legislation establishing the principle for equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, but that under section 6(1) of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, men and women working in the same establishment and performing similar or substantially similar work must be paid at the same rate. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken and envisaged to promote the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value, including through awareness raising among enterprises, and to ensure the application of section 6(1) in accordance with the Convention.

10. Newfoundland and Labrador. With regard to the ongoing process of implementing a new gender-neutral classification system, the Committee notes that the Joint Advisory Committee will shortly appoint a consultant to assist in this endeavour. The Committee would appreciate being kept informed of this process, of the work of the Joint Advisory Committee and its results.

11. Nunavut. The Committee notes that section 6(1) of the Fair Practices Act of Nunavut provides that no employer shall employ a female for any work at a rate of pay that is less than the rate of pay of a male employee who is employed by that employer for similar or substantially similar work. Under section 6(2) work is similar or substantially similar if the job, duties or services the employees are called upon to perform are similar or substantially similar. The Committee recalls that the Convention requires equal pay for work of equal value, which is a broader notion than similar or substantially similar work. The Government is asked to provide information on how section 6 is applied in practice, including relevant judicial decisions.

12. Saskatchewan. The Committee notes that according to a legal opinion from the Department of Justice the current wording of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code is broad enough to make equal pay for work of equal value mandatory for all employers, however the courts have not yet held that that is so as a matter of law. The Government indicated that the Code does not provide guidelines to assist employers in meeting pay equity requirements, but that such guidelines could be found in the Government’s Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value and Pay Equity Policy Framework. The Government is asked to continue to provide information on the measures taken to ensure the application of the Convention in the private and public sectors, including relevant court decisions and the number and nature of complaints dealt with by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. In the absence of any jurisprudence on the principle of the Convention, please indicate whether any consideration is given to amending the Human Rights Code requiring employers to provide equal pay between men and women for work of equal value.

13. British Columbia. The Committee notes with regret that the Miscellaneous Amendment Act 2001 repealed, before their entry into force, the amendments by the Human Rights Code Amendment Act 2001 which would have required employers to pay men and women employees the same pay for work of equal value. A task force appointed by the Government to examine pay equity issues in the private sector concluded subsequently that legislative pay equity was not an effective or efficient response to sex-based wage disparities. The Committee requests a copy of the report of the said task force, information on the manner considered to be most effective in reducing sex-based wage disparities, the action taken to implement this approach and the results achieved. Please also provide information on the application of section 12 of the Human Rights Code, which prohibits pay discrimination between men and women for similar or substantially similar work, including relevant judicial decisions applying it.

14. Northwest Territories. The Committee notes that the Fair Practices Act has been replaced by the Human Rights Act. While broadening the scope of the prohibition of pay discrimination to other grounds than sex, the new legislation refers to the equal pay for the "same work or substantially similar work" rather than to equal pay for work of equal value as envisaged by the Convention. The Government is asked to provide a copy of the new Human Rights Act and to supply information on its application with regard to equal pay. Please also provide the text of the amendments made to the Public Service Act, which added new equal pay provisions and the appointment and activities of the planned Equal Pay Commissioner.

15. Yukon. The Committee notes that section 42 of the Yukon Employment Standards Act provides for equal pay for men and women for similar work performed in the same establishment under similar working conditions and the performance of which requires similar skill, effort and responsibility. Noting that section 42 does not fully reflect the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, the Committee would appreciate receiving information on the application of this provision in practice, including any relevant judicial decisions.