House of Commons Hansard #111 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was young.

Topics

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

An hon. member

On division.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare the motion lost, on division.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Canada Elections ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today in response to a question I brought up in the House on May 4. In the minister's answer regarding pay equity, he indicated that he is now developing a number of options with stakeholders and people to fully implement the recommendations of our task force. This is specifically in regard to the pay equity task force. I felt it was important to bring this back to the House for some clarification.

We have since had a letter from the Minister of Justice that indicates that the pay equity issue is a complex and sensitive one, which I would absolutely agree with. It is a very complex issue. He also indicated in that letter that there was a range of options for consideration and I want to provide a little context.

Pay equity itself is an important issue for women in this country. The objective of pay equity is to ensure that women and men who are performing jobs of equal value receive equal wages, even if their jobs are different. The federal law dealing with equal pay for work of equal value is found in section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act established in 1977.

Statistics show that despite the recognition of pay equity in the Canadian Human Rights Act today, almost 30 years later women earn 71¢ on the dollar compared to men. Education is no guarantee that women are going to fare any better. For women who have university degrees, the number is no better. These women still only earn 67.5% of men's salaries.

The current complaint-based system means that women are going through a convoluted process in order to receive justice in the system. In the minister's own letter, he indicates that he perceives pay equity as being a fundamental human right, yet when we are talking about human rights we are talking about a situation of unequal pay which takes years and years to resolve.

For something that is supposed to be a fundamental human right, we have cases, for example, where CEP versus Bell Canada has been going on 15 years and is still being fought. Within our own government system, we have the Public Service Alliance versus Canada Post which has been going on for 20 years. It is still fighting for equal pay for work of equal value.

Why is pay equity important? The National Council of Welfare has indicated that it knows, from years of research, that the inequality between the genders is a major factor of poverty in Canada. We believe that it is crucial that the federal government take a strong position to end all aspects of discrimination against women.

The poverty of mothers is the most significant factor underlying child poverty in Canada. Older women are twice as likely to be poor as older men. In this context, we are seeing the continuing challenge for women when they cannot even get paid the same money for work of equal value.

The pay equity task force itself was instituted and announced in October 2000. It commenced its study in 2001 which continued until 2004. There were extensive consultations that took place in this context. This included hearings across the country, but trade unions and employer groups worked together with the task force in areas of concern and specific parts of the legislation.

The task force also commissioned 29 external research reports on different technical questions regarding the implementation of the report. Surely the consultation that took place in this context is extensive enough. The report covered 500 pages.

I have three questions that I would like answered today. What actions specifically have been taken on implementing the recommendations, including timeframes? Why are further consultations necessary, given the consultations that went on in the task force for a final report? Why has the government not gone ahead and acted upon its own legislation?

Canada Elections ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in this short debate with my colleague. I greatly appreciate her interest in this important matter and the fact that she has gone to this trouble to raise it.

The Government of Canada is firmly committed to fairness in the workplace. We want to close the wage gap, which she mentioned, between working women and working men. We want to create fair and equitable workplaces right across Canada. The government firmly believes in the fundamental principle of equal pay for equal work of equal value and so do I.

Pay equity is recognized as an important element of fair and stable workplaces. It means evaluating and compensating jobs based on workers' skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions, not on the people who hold the jobs. It is a solid solution to eliminating wage discrimination and closing the wage gap in Canada.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, pay equity is an issue that I am most interested in and quite passionate about.

The report of the pay equity task force, which my colleague mentioned, contains over 110 recommendations dealing with, as she said, very complex issues that have very broad implications.

For example, the task force recommended that the pay equity regime apply to members of visible minorities, aboriginal peoples and disabled workers. It also calls on the government to set up new oversight agencies. Clearly the task force report is a substantial piece of work with far-reaching recommendations.

If we are to move forward with the implementation of a proactive regime, it is fundamental that all potential implications are well understood and that the new system be set up in a most effective and efficient way.

The Minister of Labour and Housing is current considering a number of options to implement a pay equity regime that would strengthen Canada's commitment to equality. Discussions are underway with stakeholders and individual Canadians to determine the best way to implement a new regime in the federal jurisdiction.

Since pay equity legislation falls within the mandate of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Labour will be working closely with him to develop a package of reforms for Parliament to consider, and I know my colleague mentioned the letter from the Minister of Justice.

The government is committed to making a real practical difference in the lives of Canadian workers. We envision a Canadian workforce where no worker is left behind; that is one where every person can participate, where jobs and opportunities are available to everyone who wants to work and where every worker can reach his or her full potential.

Canada's workers are the backbone of our national economic strength and the government is committed to ensuring that our workers remain the most diverse, the strongest and the best skilled in the world.

Canada Elections ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the hon. member and I share the same goals around ensuring that no worker is left behind.

In broad consultation with the women's committee, a number women's groups came forward. The committee has put forward a motion asking for draft legislation to be brought forward by the end of June. Women want to know when, they want to see timelines and they do not want more talk.

I would like to hear when women can expect legislation to implement the full recommendations of the pay equity report.

Canada Elections ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, not only here in Canada but around the world pay equity is recognized as an important element of a fair and stable workplace.

I know my colleague and the women's committee have a particular emphasis in pay equity, but pay equity in Canada extends beyond that to the variety of groups that I have mentioned. We need to know and understand what best changes should be made now so we can in the end have a system which protects and encourages all the groups that are concerned.

We want to create a fair and equitable workforce in Canada where no worker is left behind.

Canada Elections ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Kamp Conservative Dewdney—Alouette, BC

Mr. Speaker, in April I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans whether he would assure the House that he would accept the recommendations of the unanimous report of the fisheries committee and properly enforce the Fisheries Act and regulations.

He answered by saying that he took the conservation of salmon very seriously. He had launched a post-season review and was looking at reports. We are now well into June and I wonder if the minister is done looking at the reports and ready to act on their recommendations.

In his blueprint for change speech from April 14, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced that it was his intention to improve the economic performance of our Pacific fisheries and most particular salmon. In that document the minister goes on to say that, “I also care about the salmon fishery. I’ve made it a top priority, and am committed to making the necessary changes”.

Despite the fanfare and the promises, British Columbians are still waiting to hear of any concrete plans the minister may have up his sleeve to implement actual changes. No details have emerged regarding any sort of increase of enforcement on the Fraser River on the eve of this year's sockeye salmon fishery.

Twelve unanimous recommendations were provided for the minister from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. They include establishing an enforcement branch in DFO Pacific region, headed by a regional enforcement director who would be capable of developing a level of coverage that would ensure the minister's mandate to conserve and protect Canada's Pacific fisheries resources would be fulfilled. Also, it recommended that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans restore the number of fisheries officers in the lower Fraser River area to at least the highest level of the 1994 to 2003 period and that they be given all the necessary resources to carry on their enforcement activities.

The committee's recommendations were intentionally formulated to ensure that the problems that led to the collapse of the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery would be addressed fully.

The committee asked that the minister respond within 60 days to ensure a different result from the 2004 Fraser River disaster. After well more than 60 days, the minister continues to hide behind vague promises and assurances that he will do something, but British Columbians have no idea what that something will look like or when it will it be announced or implemented. Indeed, it makes us wonder whether it will have anything to do with the recommendations that the minister received.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicated that he had launched one report and received another. With both in hand, he told Canadians that he was looking forward to looking at them and taking them both into consideration in a move toward reform of the salmon fishery. I wonder what the phrase “look at” really means. Does it mean read or does it essentially mean ignore? The minister appears to be much better at receiving reports than he is on acting on them.

I would also ask of the minister what he has in mind when he uses the word “reform”. Does he suppose that his empty promise to move toward reform will inspire any confidence among the many British Columbians who depend upon this fishery to earn their livelihood?

It has now been well more than 60 days since the minister received the recommendations of the standing committee and we are 60 days plus closer to the 2005 season. The minister continues to hide behind vague promises, generalizations and a misplaced confidence that everyone involved in the process will mind their manners and behave themselves.

Will we need to watch another entire season of non-enforcement come and go so that another million sockeye mysteriously disappear? Or will the minister get specific about plans to increase the number of enforcement officers on the Fraser River and increase the resources they need to properly enforce the Fisheries Act and regulations? By this late date, the minister must have an approved enforcement plan. Could he tell us what it is?

Canada Elections ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

Charlottetown P.E.I.

Liberal

Shawn Murphy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House today to say a few words on this very important issue.

I also appreciate the concern of the member opposite for the future of Pacific salmon. It is a concern, I want to assure the member, that the minister and myself wholeheartedly share. In fact, the member opposite and I both sit on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and we each attended three days of hearings in British Columbia last December on this very important and troubling issue. We saw the situation first-hand.

As the member has indicated, the minister now has our report on the issue. It contains, as he said, 12 unanimous recommendations. I know he appreciates the effort that went into this report and certainly values, as does the department, our advice. I am sure the member opposite joins me in looking forward to seeing how the minister addresses our recommendations. However, as the member opposite knows, it is a complex issue and there are no simple solutions.

I am pleased to say that the minister and his department are very much at work on a number of fronts to address this situation and have been for a long time. The minister has made this issue a top priority. He has visited British Columbia on a number of occasions over the past year and a half and has put in place a number of initiatives to help build a brighter future for the west coast salmon.

To deal with the most fundamental issues, the minister issued a blueprint for change for Pacific Canada's fisheries in April. The blueprint outlines the department's approach to improve the economic performance for our Pacific fisheries, especially salmon, to work with the first nations and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to explore options for greater commercial access for first nations in a manner consistent with the treaty processes and to ensure that Pacific Canada's fisheries are sustainably managed in the years to come.

While this blueprint responds specifically to the joint task group and the first nations panel reports, it also puts us in a good position as we respond to the report of Bryan Williams on last year's salmon fishery, as well as the SCOFO report. I should also add that these two reports make many parallel recommendations.

As the member opposite is aware, southern British Columbia suffered some very low returns for salmon during the 2004 salmon season. A number of factors were blamed for the low returns, including poor environmental conditions, concerns about unauthorized harvests and the accuracy of the salmon abundance estimates.

To help get to the bottom of this, the minister appointed Mr. Williams to lead an independent review of the management of salmon in southern British Columbia for 2004. The minister is reviewing this report and will officially respond to both this report and the SCOFO report in the very near future.

The upcoming responses to the Williams and SCOFO reports will address concerns about enforcement on the Fraser River. Let me be very clear on this front. The minister is committed to taking steps to improve compliance levels and strengthen enforcement in the region this season, which the member has already pointed out starts in a few weeks. He has asked his officials to develop an option to do this as soon as possible.

The blueprint announced in April will also benefit from the new conservation approach being finalized through the long awaited wild salmon policy. Clearly we are standing at the edge of a new era in fisheries management on the west coast. This is good news for the first nations, commercial and recreational fishermen and community members. In short--

Canada Elections ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission.

Canada Elections ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Kamp Conservative Dewdney—Alouette, BC

Mr. Speaker, I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Ocean also has a real concern for fisheries. Even though he is from one of the other coasts, he has an interest in the Pacific fisheries as well.

My problem is that we have heard these assurances but we are not really confident. We keep asking what the plan might be. If the plan is similar to last year's plan, then we are not likely going to have a different result.

We are on the verge, as the member mentioned, of the 2005 season. Even though he has talked about creative and innovative solutions, we have not heard any. Is the minister ready to admit that he is waiting until 2006 at the earliest to address the aftermath of the 2004 crisis. If that is not the case, we are still waiting to find out what the enforcement plan looks like for 2005.

Canada Elections ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his concern. As I stated earlier, the minister and his department are taking the concerns about the west coast salmon very, very seriously.

A number of processes are in place: the calling for and the tabling of the Williams report, the release of the wild salmon policy, which now is in the process of being finalized as we speak, and the recommendations proposed by the SCOFO committee.

Taken together, these initiatives, along with the blueprint for change the minister announced in April to reform the management of Pacific fisheries, represent the Government of Canada's plan to build a brighter future for our west coast fisheries.

Like the member opposite, I look forward to the results of these processes and hope to work closely with all members of the House to ensure strong, sustainable fish stocks in Pacific Canada.

Canada Elections ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla not being present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:37 p.m.)