Bill C-471 (Historical)

Pay Equity Task Force Recommendations Act

An Act respecting the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force and amending another Act in consequence

This enactment requires the Government of Canada to take the measures necessary to implement the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force. It also repeals Part II of the Budget Implementation Act, 2009.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Laurendeau. I would like to go back to the answer you gave earlier to Mrs. Boucher. It somewhat hurts me as a woman to hear that, during the case that was won allegedly in 1999, women came out winners. I don't think they came out winners; they finally got justice. It took 15 years for the justice system to grant them equal pay for equal work. It is not a gain, but rather accepting reality and recognizing a fundamental right for women. That is what really bothers me in this government bill.

That is why our leader, Mr. Ignatieff, brought forward Bill C-471, which is in no way designed to bring back the complaint-based process. That is not its objective at all. The purpose of the bill is to adopt the recommendations from the 2004 report and put in place a real proactive system that would make pay equity both regulated and supervised by a commission.

Right now, what you are proposing in terms of negotiating pay equity at the same time as negotiating the rest of the collective agreement is problematic because it will never do justice to the issues faced not only by women, but by all minority groups.

I don't understand how you can think that the bill in its current format or the act in its current format could resolve these fundamental rights issues for minorities, whether for women, Aboriginals or people with disabilities. Could you tell me how this could possibly solve these problems?

[Hélène Laurendeau]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear once again to talk about equitable compensation.

I would like to provide you today with an overview of the key features of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and, more specifically, how it reflects the intent of the work of the 2004 pay equity task force, known as the Bilson task force.

As I stated the last time I appeared before you, we all recognize that the former pay equity regime in the federal public service was, by and large, reactive, lengthy, and costly--and adversarial on top of everything else. Actions under that regime have been ad hoc, based totally on complaints as they were framed. Furthermore, complaints were filed without any previous discussion of these issues, either at the bargaining table or in any other forum. Complaints could take between 15 to 20 years to be resolved under that regime. It definitely took a big toll on resources, on productive labour relations, and on women employees themselves.

This long and litigious aspect was underscored by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its 2001 pay equity report. The commission stated at the time that pay equity cases represented “less than 8%” of all its cases, yet they consumed about half of its total spending on legal services, a testimony to the complexity of how difficult it was to administer the previous regime.

In tackling these challenges over the years, the federal government learned a lot. The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act builds on this experience and learning. As an employer, we also learned from proactive provincial regimes and from the work of the 2004 pay equity task force, as well as from Canadian and international research.

Appreciating that the committee today is studying Bill C-471, it might be useful for me to outline briefly how the new act addresses some of the key recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force. I will focus on four key aspects of the task force recommendations.

The first aspect is that the task force affirmed that the existing legislation--that was section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act--was not effective. It recommended that new stand-alone proactive legislation be enacted.

The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act provides stand-alone legislation. The new act establishes a proactive regime for ensuring equitable compensation for federal public sector employees. It replaces a complaint-based approach with a proactive approach. As such, it brings the federal regime in line with a number of provinces that also require a form of proactivity, a feature that is supported by most experts.

Let me now turn to the second area of the task force recommendations that the new act addresses.

The task force recommended that new legislation provide for the maintenance of pay equity on an ongoing basis. It recommended the new legislation establish obligations on the employer but also on unions to ensure that pay equity is maintained when renewing or negotiating collective agreements.

The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act ensures that equitable compensation will be established proactively and that it will be maintained on a regular and ongoing basis. It does so by making employers and—for the first time—bargaining agents jointly accountable for ensuring that employees receive equitable compensation each and every time that wages are set.

The new act establishes robust requirements for conducting equitable compensation assessments and reporting results to employees in a transparent manner. In this way, the new act ensures that gender-based analysis is not an afterthought or fixed in a separate process or through litigation. Instead, it is embedded in wage-setting practices on an ongoing basis. In other words, the act provides that gender-based analysis must be done when salaries are set.

In making the employer and the unions jointly accountable, it recognizes the important role played by unions in setting wages. By establishing detailed obligations on both parties for how to attain and maintain equitable compensation, it will not allow the parties to bargain away this human right. On the contrary, the new act recognizes the long and positive history of achievement and the protection of human rights through collective bargaining, as recognized by the Supreme Court, which includes fair wages, hours of work and working conditions, including parental leave and occupational health and safety.

The role for collective bargaining in achieving pay equity also supports Canada's obligation under the International Labour Organization's 1951 Equal Remuneration Convention, which requires members to incorporate equal pay for work of equal value into existing methods of determining remuneration. That is precisely what the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act does.

As you are probably aware, in their 2005 response to this committee on the Pay Equity Task Force report, the ministers of Justice and Labour indicated that the relationship between pay equity and collective bargaining, as well as the obligations of employers and unions, needed to be part of the “backbone” of effective pay equity legislation. The new act provides this “backbone”.

The task force also recommended that non-unionized and unionized employees be involved in achieving and monitoring pay equity. This is the third key area of the task force recommendations that I would like to outline today.

The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act contains robust reporting and transparency requirements to proactively and regularly inform employees of their rights and inform them of what has been done to ensure equitable compensation before their wages are set. These obligations are designed to reinforce accountability for results. Unionized employees can also participate through collective bargaining and I would add that they may also express their opinion through ratification votes on the agreements in principle concluded between the employer and their bargaining agent.

The fourth area that I will discuss is the task force recommendation that the new legislation contain specific provisions establishing a process for complaints.

Under the new Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, both employers and unions need to jointly and transparently take their obligations very seriously. The new act maintains the right of employees to lodge complaints through the public sector labour relations board. This is an independent body with quasi-judicial status that currently administers the Public Service Labour Relations Act. For 40 years, the board has helped resolve issues around wages. The board also currently has authority to interpret human rights issues.

The new act contains many safeguards, including the union right to unilaterally select binding arbitration to resolve bargaining disputes. It is a critical feature of the new act that boards of arbitration will be obliged to rule and determine equitable compensation matters.

These are just some of the ways in which the new act reflects the intent of the recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force and builds upon them.

Looking forward, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act will come into force once the regulations are developed and established through the Governor in Council.

As we speak, the regulations are being developed through a consultative process. They will provide greater clarity to the terms, obligations, and processes that are provided in the new act.

We have been consulting and working very closely with the bargaining agents and nearly 30 separate agencies, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Canadian Forces to develop these regulations. We expect them to be very well advanced, if not ready as planned, in 2011.

In conclusion, I'd like to state that the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act will not only protect the right to equal pay for work of equal value but also will be the best way to achieve and maintain--and I insist on maintain--equitable compensation on a proactive and regular basis for the future.

I'd like to thank the committee very much. I will be pleased to answer questions, and so will my colleague Ms. Bogden.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Ignatieff, thank you for being with us today. I have several questions for you, and also several matters I'd like to explore.

The first time the committee tabled its report on pay equity in 2001, one of the most pressing concerns did indeed involve the adoption of a proactive piece of legislation on pay equity. At that time, the government in power was a Liberal one. We had a budget surplus. It would have been easy to promote a proactive law on pay equity. And yet this was not done. At the time of the last budget, you unfortunately voted for Bill C-10 which put forward a very retrograde piece of legislation on pay equity, making pay equity a negotiable right.

Should your bill be interpreted as a sign of remorse that you abandoned women at the time for strictly electoral considerations? Today you are tabling a bill as if you had forgotten that you voted in favour of Bill C-10. It is as though you wanted to renew your virginity by not mentioning that you are sorry that you voted for Bill C-10. You make no mention of the fact that you voted for Bill C-10, nor of the fact that that vote caused irreparable damage to thousands of women in the public service. That damage will not be repaired by tabling Bill C-471.

I'm certainly going to vote for Bill C-471, because I want women to obtain pay equity. Unfortunately, this bill is way too little and very much too late. Unfortunately, women have already suffered from the fact that you voted in favour of Bill C-10.

What do you have to say to that?

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

It's a little unusual for the leader of a political party to give testimony to a parliamentary committee. I've never done this before. It's a great privilege and an honour. I thank you for the opportunity to talk to you this morning and answer questions about Bill C-471.

Though it may be a tad unusual for the leader of a political party to testify before a parliamentary committee, this is an honour. I am here to address your questions regarding Bill C-471, An Act respecting the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force and amending another Act in consequence.

As a party, we start--and I start personally--from a simple proposition that pay equity is not an issue about labour relations; it's a fundamental human right.

Women in Canada, just to take that example of pay equity, earn 72¢ on the dollar compared to men. Women with children earn a little over 50¢ on the dollar. This private member's bill, Bill C-471, is intended to do something about those statistics, which seem to us, and I think to many Canadians, to be unfair.

The Government of Canada is the largest employer. As the largest employer, we should be setting an example on pay equity. The federal government also has jurisdiction over crown corporations and a number of federally regulated industries, so this private member's bill is designed to promote proactive pay equity in all areas of federal jurisdiction.

The purpose of this bill is to promote pay equity in all federally regulated organizations: the federal public service, crown corporations and all employers that fall under the federal purview.

As the largest employer in Canada, the federal government must set a good example in the matter of pay equity. We think that the best way to do so is to create a federal pay equity board to promote pay equity in all federal entities. When I say that it would “promote”, I do not only mean that it would react to cases of abuse, but indeed promote active plans to achieve salary equity in all federal areas. We think that this is the best course of action.

The core of Bill C-471 as a legislative project is the idea that Canada needs the federal government, as the largest employer, to have a proactive federal pay equity commission with, if necessary, a tribunal to hear individual cases of abuse, but the role of a federal pay equity commission is to promote proactive pay equity reform across the federal service, the crown corporations, and all the employers under federal jurisdiction. We think that's the way to deal with the startling fact that Canadian women earn 72¢ on the dollar compared to men and women with children earn just over 50¢ on the dollar, and also that there are substantial examples of pay inequity in relation to aboriginal Canadians, Canadians with handicaps, and other disadvantaged minorities.

This proposal would reverse the way the Conservative government has gone on this issue. The Conservative government has judged pay equity to be basically a labour relations issue and has given it to the Canadian labour relations tribunal. Our view of that is that there's an objection of principle and there are some practical objections.

The objection of principle is that we think pay equity is a human right, not a labour relations issue. That's the fundamental issue.

The second issue is that the labour relations tribunal, in our view, does not have the competence to take a proactive stand on pay equity and promote pay equity as an active matter across areas under federal jurisdiction.

The other problem with the labour relations approach is that women are unable to bring representation to their case. For example, they're not allowed to bring their unions to defend themselves. We think that's a mistake.

We think, therefore, that a superior way to go here is to create a federal pay equity commission with a proactive mandate to establish and demand plans from all employers under federal jurisdiction to promote pay equity as a human right. That's the approach we take. We think it's superior to the approach taken by this government and we think it's extremely important for all Canadians to understand what's at stake here.

This society lives by equality: equality of opportunity and equality of remuneration. Equal pay for work of equal value is a human rights idea, not just a labour relations issue. We'd be very concerned if pay equity issues are put into the bargaining process and bargained away. We think Canadian women will go backwards, not forwards, if that happens. That's why we've taken the position we've taken on this issue.

Our recommendations on Bill C-471 follow from a task force that extensively studied this from 2001 to 2004. We haven't plucked these recommendations out of the air; they're the basis of consultation with stakeholders across Canada over three years. The Conservative government did not see fit to listen to that process of consultation and went their own way. We're trying to correct something that we think was a serious mistake.

Allow me to reiterate that we believe pay equity to be a fundamental human right. We believe that placing pay equity under the aegis of the Canada Industrial Relations Board is a mistake. This board does not have the jurisdiction needed to make pay equity related decisions. At this board, women do not have the right to ask for the presence of a union representative. We also believe that the Canada Industrial Relations Board does not have the power to ask federal employers for proactive action plans to settle these pay inequity problems in a general and strategic manner. It has the power to deal with individual cases but it does not have the capacity to act in a strategic and systematic way.

To our way of thinking, that is at the root of the problem. We think it is very important that the federal government, as the largest employer in Canada, set a good example in the area of pay equity. The best way to do that is to create a new national pay equity board with a tribunal. The federal level will be able to do what it is incumbent upon Canada to do, that is to say to set an example of good behaviour with regard to matters of pay equity for women, and for all those individuals who need equity in the federal system.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for having given me this opportunity to discuss my bill before you today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It being 8:45, I will call this committee meeting to order pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Bill C-471, An Act respecting the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force and amending another Act in consequence.

We have our first witness here today, who is the Honourable Michael Ignatieff, P.C., MP for Etobicoke--Lakeshore.

Welcome to the meeting, Mr. Ignatieff. I will let you know that you have 10 minutes to present and then there will be a round of questions. Without further ado, I will ask you to begin. I will give you a one-minute notice when you have one more minute left in your presentation. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Merci.

You all have the motion. Those in favour of adopting this part of the budget as written? Those opposed?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That part passes. Thank you.

Now we have to deal with a couple of things on the agenda that were left over from last time. We have the report on non-traditional work that we must finish. Many of you have been sent that report. I'm just saying that this is one of the things we have to finish.

We also have Bill C-471 on pay equity. We will have to deal with that as a bill. We can amend that bill. We can call witnesses. You can make a decision on how we do that and how many witnesses we call. Given that we've just finished a report on pay equity not too long ago, the bottom line is that we need to look at this bill for amendments if necessary or if wished for. That's the second part.

The third one is a study on violence against women, which we are now in the midst of doing. So we now have three pieces held over from last year that we're finishing up.

As for the ministers we had asked to come to meet with us on various issues, we have still had no answers as of today. They were the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health, and the Minister for Status of Women. Given that the House has just begun sitting, I think maybe everyone is getting their act together. Hopefully by the next meeting or after the break we should get some answers back so we can decide how we do that.

Now we have three notices of motions that we have to deal with.

Pay Equity Task Force Recommendations Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-471 under private members' business.

The House resumed from May 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-471, An Act respecting the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force and amending another Act in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the bill because we are speaking about women's equality and how far women have come in this wonderful Canada that we call home.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party sees fit to try to silence women, not only here in the House of Commons but across the country when things like the gun registry are being discussed, which is in their interest, for their protection and for safety. We need to make it more functional.

We need to make pay equity more functional, which is what our government has done. Today, when the member for Ajax—Pickering, after his motion passed in committee to allow the member for Portage—Lisgar to speak for 30 minutes on her bill, again limiting her because normally it is an hour, he then interrupted at the beginning of committee and limited her once again to 10 minutes. He was able to silence a female member and make it seem as if this were a normal process.

I am sorry but I question the honesty of that member and democracy among the party.

The private member's bill before us today is flawed and unworkable in so many ways that I do not even know where to start.

The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, which affects only the federal public sector, is based on the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. That is the same principle found in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In principle and in application, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act shows that our government respects this fundamental value of Canadian society.

One of the flaws of the opposition's Bill C-471 is that it requires the government to implement a complex and costly pay equity system that would not serve federal public servants and the Canadian people well. We do not need that.

Canada and Canadian women have evolved a lot since 1970. In the last 30 years, women have made great progress, particularly in the federal public service, to which the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act applies.

In 1983, fewer than 5% of senior level positions in the federal public service were filled by women. Today, 41% of senior executives are women. This shows that women are increasingly taking their rightful place in the federal public service. They not only have access to these positions; their representation in most positions at all levels has also increased considerably over the years.

It is fair to say that there has been a profound change in the Canadian public service over the past few years and women have played an important role in that change. Today, the public service offers women and men equal access to all positions and the same pay within the same groups and levels.

Women have made significant progress in three decades and the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act recognizes that reality. Not only have women taken their place in the ranks of the federal public service, but their wages have been integrated into the bargaining process for all federal employees.

If you believe in the principle of equal pay for work of equal value and if you believe in the right to collective bargaining, that is as it should be. If you believe in equal pay for work of equal value, you will understand that public servants' remuneration as well as benefits must be established in the same way and at the same time, but not separately.

This proactive approach reflects the equality and equity enjoyed by men and women in the public service today.

I believe that most people would agree with me that it is better to adopt a proactive approach to all matters pertaining to remuneration than to engage in long and costly pay equity processes that will force future generations to pay women the salaries that they were entitled to from the beginning.

That is the aim of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.

Of course, Bill C-471, sooner or later, after much effort, may lead to a system of proactive remuneration, but at what cost? Repealing the entire Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act—a new law which will soon go into effect—and replacing it later with another complex and costly law does not make sense.

It is even less logical to think that any law that might replace it in the future would even come close to equalling the level of accountability and effectiveness in the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act.

Repealing this act would be terrible. It would do a lot of damage and would not be progressive at all, considering that an effective solution is already available.

I also want to point out that opposition members like to downplay one of the major reforms that the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act introduced: recourse.

Our new system does not deny women or any employee the right to file complaints in court.

On the contrary, it upholds that right via an independent watchdog: the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

There is another reason why this bill is defective.

Currently, the public service is going to great lengths to renew its workforce and work environment to keep them relevant to the next generation of Canadians and to ensure that they contribute to our country's success. We call it public service renewal. One of our goals is to create a work environment that will persuade the best and brightest to work for Canada.

In closing, I will be voting against the leader of the Liberal Party's bill because it does not enhance the ability of women to fight for their rights. We would be taking a huge leap backward, should we go back to what we had previously. I am not willing to allow women to go back to a system where it takes 15 years for them to get their just due and I will not agree with the Liberal leader's position on this.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking out against Bill C-471, a private member's bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition to repeal the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act from the 2009 budget.

I first need to indicate how confused I am about the Liberal position. This is a party that, today, once again, attempted to shut down a female member of Parliament's right to speak, a party that continually bullies our female members of Parliament. It is the male member for Ajax—Pickering who continues to do that on behalf of the Liberal leader.

I am talking about the debate that is going on about the gun registry, a debate that Canadians are seized upon and that many women care intimately about. It is an issue that we wanted to debate wholly and fulsomely but, unfortunately, the member for Ajax—Pickering attempted to shut down that debate by eliminating all but a couple of witnesses who actually sit on the side of repealing the long gun registry and tried to force through a whole contingent of witnesses who would only air one side of it.

Once again, they are bullying Canadians by trying to silence them. This is done because the leader, for whatever reason, is afraid to hear from police officers who are in fact in support of repealing the registry.

Today, after a motion had been made by the member for Ajax—Pickering, a motion to allow the mover of the bill only 30 minutes to speak when normal practice is that the mover of the bill gets an hour in every other committee, a bullying tactic by the member for Ajax—Pickering, the discussion period was limited to 30 minutes on a very important bill to repeal the long gun registry.

Again at that committee, the member for Ajax—Pickering bullied his way through committee and silenced the will of committee. The committee had voted very clearly on his motion to proceed with the 30 minute period for the person—

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the bill today. I noted that the previous speakers referred to the fact that pay equity was initially begun in Manitoba. It was the first province in Canada to bring in pay equity in 1986. I was lucky enough to be elected in 1986 and be part of the government of Howard Pawley that brought in legislation, eventually to be followed by Ontario and Quebec.

At that time, in some ways we were the vanguard of this type of legislation, but not only pay equity legislation. That government dealt with some very controversial areas. We were the first to bring in daycare proposals. Myrna Phillips, speaker of the legislature in Manitoba for awhile, was the legislative assistant who worked on the daycare issue. Pharmacare was brought in by the NDP in 1970-71, under the Ed Schreyer government.

To this day, even though we talk about having a national pharmacare program, and the Liberals will promise it occasionally before elections when they are in red book mode, when they become government, and when the Conservatives become government, we do not see actions taken in the areas of pharmacare. We do not see actions taken in the area of daycare. We certainly do not see actions taken in the area of pay equity.

Another issue we dealt with in 1986 was the inclusion of gay rights in the human rights code. That was when I was first elected. Even our own caucus was having difficulties with this issue. I know I was one of a group of four people who stood our ground. We fought the issue and over time we turned the government around on it and it agreed to bring it forth. To his credit, Premier Pawley to this day says that the action he took to introduce the legislation was one of his proudest moments during his six and a half years as premier.

We in the NDP in Manitoba, like the Bloc in Quebec, have been at the vanguard of a lot of very progressive legislation.

When I see Bill C-471 introduced by the Liberal leader, I wondered why it would be introduced in 2010. When we looked into the issue a little further, we found that it was a case where the Liberals and Leader of the Opposition essentially got themselves into a problem. Last year, on March 4, 2009, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore instructed his party to vote with the government on the budget bill. Like this year's budget implementation bill, last year's was very similar, with a omnibus approach in which the government took a number of issues that it knew would be controversial in a minority Parliament and threw them in the budget.

There were environmental issues and there was this issue. The government decided to take the whole area of pay equity out under the purview of the human rights jurisdiction legislation and put it under the area of labour negotiations.

The members of the Bloc and the NDP understood what was going on with the government, regardless of its protestations, and members of the Liberal Party understood it as well. However, they were caught in this cat and mouse game, which the government has played with them over the last two year period. The government feels it can throw items like this into an omnibus bill and serve it up to the Liberals. The Liberals are so afraid to go to an election over it that they simply fall in line and vote the way they have. To try to recover and save some face in the matter and some credibility, the member has decided to come up with this approach. That is what we are dealing with right now.

The current Prime Minister has a pretty spotty record in this area as well. We have some issues and quotes from him. I believe the Bloc member dealt with it a few minutes ago, but the Prime Minister has made all sorts of very incendiary comments over the years. I recall him talking about the maritime provinces being overly dependent on government incentives and that got himself into a lot of trouble. He talked about building firewalls around Alberta and that got into a lot of trouble.

In 1998 the Prime Minister described our current pay equity laws in the following words. He said:

For taxpayers, however, it’s a rip-off. And it has nothing to do with gender. Both men and women taxpayers will pay additional money to both men and women in the civil service. That’s why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law.

I do not believe the leopard changes its spots that easily. He knows he is close to a majority government and has to make some changes, so perhaps he will moderate his views a little to gain some short-term political advantage. At the end of the day, I do not really think he will have changed his views all that much.

He also pointed out specific flaws in the current legislation. He said:

Now 'pay equity' has everything to do with pay and nothing to do with equity. It’s based on the vague notion of 'equal pay for work of equal value,' which is not the same as equal pay for the same job.

Just to be clear, we recognize we will not count on the government any time soon to support women's issues in our country. In fact, Conservatives constantly come up with the negative on any of these issues. They can be pretty much guaranteed to be pulling out the cost factors on progressive social initiatives. If we want to establish pay equity, they will be the first to say that they cannot do this because it will cost too much, that it will slow the economy down, that it will bankrupt businesses, that it will bankrupt the government. They will put as regressive a face on it as possible.

We have the issue of the court challenges program, another program that the government eliminated, which is hardly a friendly move as far as women are concerned.

On the whole issue of affordable child care, both Conservative and Liberal governments over the years have failed to create affordable child care in our country. I recognize Quebec has had the best affordable child care system in the country for a number of years now. However, people can look back to 1986 and the work Myrna Phillips and Muriel Smith did in the area of daycare, and the member for Saint Boniface knows the people to whom I refer. It was before she became the speaker of the legislature. We brought in that daycare program in Manitoba.

The fact is successive Conservative governments have never dared to tamper or change those programs, and that is the fundamental fact. The Conservatives rarely propose innovative social programs. We will never see that happening. They are more concerned about corporate taxes. They cannot offend the big corporations. They have to reduce the corporate taxes to attract more business to the country. Then they will be able to afford proper daycare and pay equity 200 or 300 years into the future.

The Conservatives' priority is driving corporate taxes down to zero, if it can get it there, which is the difference between the Conservative approach and the approach of the NDP. I think the women in this country know very well that they are far better off supporting the NDP than they ever have been or will be supporting governments like the Conservatives.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-471 regarding pay equity, just a few days after we celebrated International Workers' Day on May 1, even though there are not many reasons to celebrate in Canada with this current government.

I would first like to state our party's position. The Bloc Québécois fully supports the bill introduced by the Liberal leader, although, if the Liberals had taken action as soon as we received the report of the pay equity task force ordered by their own government, we would not still be stuck in this debate, which will ultimately show two things: the Liberals are progressive only when they are in the opposition, and the Conservatives are misogynistic all of the time.

When he was with the National Citizens Coalition in the fall of 1998, the current Prime Minister made his view on pay equity clear. He said that, for taxpayers, pay equity was a ripoff and had nothing to do with gender. According to him, both men and women taxpayers will pay additional money to both men and women in the civil service, and that was why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law.

That is what the Prime Minister said, and that is what he was quick to do in the 2009 budget.

Part 11 of the 2009 budget implementation bill has to do with “equitable compensation” and it enacted the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act. The term “pay equity” is nowhere to be found in the bill, which instead refers to “equitable compensation” without ever defining it.

The act applies strictly to public sector employers: the Treasury Board, the RCMP and certain agencies and crown corporations. Businesses under federal jurisdiction are not covered, including some crown corporations, like Canada Post and CBC.

I think it is important to hear what is in the preamble:

Whereas

Parliament affirms that women in the public sector of Canada should receive equal pay for work of equal value;

Whereas Parliament affirms that it is desirable to accomplish that goal through proactive means;

And whereas employers in the public sector of Canada operate in a market-driven economy;

So, what does that mean? Clause 3 states:

An employer shall, in respect of its non-unionized employees, take measures to provide them with equitable compensation in accordance with this Act. In the case of unionized employees, the employer and the bargaining agent shall take measures to provide those employees with equitable compensation in accordance with this Act.

Of course the Bloc Québécois voted against this bill, which made pay equity a negotiable right and part of a collective agreement. Instead, the Bloc Québécois asked that sectoral committees on pay equity be created, as has been done in Quebec.

We also denounced the fact that the bill created a third category of workers in Quebec consisting of those who fall under Quebec pay equity legislation, those under federal legislation on equitable compensation, and those still subjected to the ineffective complaint system under the federally regulated private sector and certain crown corporations.

So we had to ask ourselves this: If the Conservative government believes that equitable compensation is necessary in the government, why would that not also be the case for private businesses under its jurisdiction, unless it believes that this principle is costly and harmful to private enterprise?

The Liberals and their party leader have gone to the trouble of introducing Bill C-471 on pay equity in order to show women how important they are, and yet the Liberals voted in favour of the budget.

In his speech introducing the bill, the Leader of the Opposition said, “To come right to the point, hidden in the 2009 budget was a measure that undermined pay equity.” The truth is, pay equity is worth nothing more to the Liberals than a couple of seats. The truth is, they voted in favour of the budget and in favour of driving pay equity backwards, knowing very well what they were doing, and too bad for women.

The pay equity issue is all but solved in Quebec. It is not complete yet because some female workers in Quebec are under the Canada Labour Code.

It is clear that the principle of equity, which is fundamental in Quebec, is not fundamental here. The federal government announced that it will cut $1.7 billion in spending and chances are that during collective bargaining, because they will obviously have to negotiate pay equity in the future, the government's negotiators will say that it is necessary to decrease the operating budget or that a collective effort is needed. If nothing concrete happens concerning pay equity during collective bargaining, it will be blamed on the union.

People will say that I am a pessimist, a cynic. However, this is the government that rejects anti-scab legislation, this is the government that goes over the heads of federal-level unions and that even repudiates its own collective agreements. This is the government that is risking the health of workers covered by the Canadian Labour Code, as was shown in a study last week. This government is even going so far as to vote against a Bloc bill that would exclude labour disputes from the employment insurance qualifying period. The truth is, the Conservatives do not like workers and never take their side.

At the same time, this government is questioning the right to abortion. It is cutting funding to women's rights groups and it is against a preventive withdrawal program. The truth is that the Conservatives have no concern whatsoever for women.

They want nothing to do with pay equity, this “ridiculous legislation”, as the Prime Minister called it a few years ago.

The Bloc, however, cares and has always supported the creation of proactive legislation.

On May 4, 2004, the pay equity task force published a report of more than 500 pages titled Pay Equity: A New Approach to a Fundamental Right. It recommended that the federal government put in place proactive pay equity legislation, and it presented a detailed plan outlining the best way to undertake this.

During the Pay Equity Task Force's consultations, stakeholders agreed on several key issues. Among other things, they agreed that they were committed to the principle of pay equity; that pay equity was a human rights issue; that employers had a positive duty to take steps to eliminate wage discrimination; that any new system must be available to unionized as well as non-unionized workers; that the new system must provide additional guidelines on how to comply with pay equity standards; that a neutral body responsible for providing information and support and ensuring compliance with pay equity standards should be set up; and that an independent agency with the power to settle pay equity disputes should be set up.

That all seems reasonable to me, and it is hard to see how anyone could be against this, yet the Conservatives are. They plan to silence anyone who speaks out against their equitable compensation scheme. They claim that they are making things better for women in the public service. They know that is not true. We all know that is not true, but the truth holds little sway with the Conservatives.

The theme for this year's workers' day was “For a fair Quebec”. This bill can help make both Quebec and Canada more equitable places.

Successive federal governments have done a poor job of defending Quebec's values of fairness and equity, so I believe, as always, that sovereignty is the best way for Quebec to become a fully equitable society.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed about the ruling that was just handed down. Bill C-471, An Act respecting the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force and amending another Act in consequence, was introduced in the House of Commons by the leader of the official opposition. This bill would repeal the measures in this year's Conservative budget that eroded pay equity.

It is inconceivable that in 2010, a Canadian government can attack a right as fundamental as equal pay for equal work. The measures in this budget do away with pay equity for Canadian women in a reprehensible way. What is more, Canadians are starting to have a better idea of the sneaky, roundabout way the Conservatives govern. The ultimate goal of Bill C-471 is to restore pay equity as a human right.

It makes no sense to put pay equity on the bargaining table. One cannot put a price on legitimate human rights and turn them into bargaining chips. That is why all the members of this House should wholeheartedly support this bill, which seeks to correct this serious injustice, and state officially that equal pay for equal work is still a fundamental right.

I want to share some statistics that should give us pause. Women who work full-time earn only 70.5% as much as men in the same job category who also work full-time year-round. In addition, women of colour earn only 64% and aboriginal women earn a frightening 46% of what men earn. Most women still hold what are known as “women's jobs” in teaching, nursing and health care, office work and retail sales.

With the measures in this year's budget, the Conservatives are trying to make women pay for their economic woes. I want to talk about how the Conservative vision, as reflected in the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, will affect the well-being of Canadian women. For starters, these measures limit pay equity for more women. To be able to claim pay equity, a group must first show that it is 70% female, which further limits the number of eligible groups. In other words, if a company has less than 70% women, the law does not apply. As a result, many women would no longer be eligible.

Furthermore, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the Conservative government made pay equity part of the bargaining process. But it gets worse: unions face fines of up to $50,000 for encouraging a woman who has been discriminated against or encouraging one of its members to file a complaint regarding pay equity.

Thus, women are being deprived of their right to be represented. They cannot even turn to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. With all these obstacles, the Conservative government has the nerve to call this pay equity legislation progressive. Instead, this measure is regressive, as are most of the measures the Conservatives have brought forward since they came to power, measures to appease their right-leaning electoral base.

It is completely clear that the Conservative government has no intention of addressing gender inequity in Canada. Its track record when it comes to women thoroughly reveals its intentions. Its position regarding maternal health in developing countries is very telling. And we can see other examples in the measures taken regarding Status of Women Canada: the elimination of funding for public interest groups that advocate for women, the elimination of the court challenges program and the repeated attacks on the firearms registry. The list goes on. These are just a few examples that clearly demonstrate this government's backwards attitude to women.

Bill C-471 is about equality, respect and the protection of human rights. Above all, these rights can never be negotiated. This excellent legislative measure is necessary and it must be supported by all members. It already has the support of the majority of Canadians. This legislation is beneficial for and important to the women of this country who must always fight to advance their fundamental rights.

In its March 2003 presentation to the Pay Equity Task Force, the Canadian Human Rights Commission recognized that fundamental rights are closely tied to women's economic well-being. Discrimination is one factor that leads to their economic disadvantage and the gender wage gap is one indicator of inequality for women. The link is obvious.

Only an effective and efficient pay equity policy can contribute to women's equality.

Our legislative measure, Bill C-471, is based on the principle that pay equity is a human right. In fact, it is one of the earliest human rights recognized as an international standard. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has stated that pay equity is enshrined in many international agreements to which Canada has been bound for decades. We must highlight the quasi-constitutional nature of human rights, their pre-eminence over other types of rights and the need to interpret them liberally and progressively.

Furthermore, still according to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canada has also signed recent international agreements that recognize the need for comprehensive equality action plans coupled with transparent and accountable institutions of government in order to move the equality agenda forward.

To the Canadian Human Rights Commission, human rights and the right to pay equity are universal and indivisible. Human rights, including the right to pay equity, must be the same everywhere and for everyone. Inextricably linked to equality, pay equity is also intended to be transformative. While pay equity aims to fairly value and compensate the work done primarily by women, pay equity is not "just about the money". Pay equity identifies and dismantles long-standing patterns of systemic discrimination in order to change how we do business and how society operates. In other words, while wage discrimination in and of itself can lead to a constricted ability for some to fully enjoy a range of human rights, it is the insidious link between wage discrimination and other forms of discrimination that can adversely impact the most disadvantaged workers. Unequal pay is part of the broader problem of systemic discrimination in employment, and pay equity is one essential tool for creating systemic change.

That is why pay equity has become a national issue and why members of this House must support and pass Bill C-471.

With this legislation in hand we could create a federal pay equity commission to ensure pay equity in the federal public service, crown corporations and federally-regulated sectors. This federal pay equity commission would enforce the principle of pay equity in the public service and federally-regulated industries. Most importantly, under Bill C-471, future pay equity measures would be considered human rights legislation.

In closing, this bill would benefit all Canadians and I am pleased to support it. I hope all my colleagues in this House share my enthusiasm and will make it their duty to support this bill wholeheartedly.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on December 10, concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-471, An Act respecting the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force and amending another Act in consequence, standing in the name of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this issue, as well as the member for Vancouver Centre for her comments. In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary noted that Bill C-471 proposes to do two things. First, it imposes a duty on the government to implement the recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force report. Second, it repeals the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, or PSECA. The parliamentary secretary dealt with each of these proposals in some detail as, in his view, each of them infringes on the financial prerogative of the Crown.

He began by noting that the first recommendation of the pay equity task force report concerns the need for legislation. That recommendation reads:

The Task Force recommends that Parliament enact new stand-alone, proactive pay equity legislation in order that Canada can more effectively meet its international obligations and domestic commitments, and that such legislation be characterized as human rights legislation.

The remaining 112 recommendations in the report, he pointed out, describe the measures that should be included in that legislation. The recommendations taken overall seek to establish a new regime for the oversight of the pay equity process and the adjudication of pay equity complaints. Among these recommendations, several call for the establishment of pay equity oversight agencies. He referred to the fact that clause 2 of Bill C-471 states:

The Government of Canada shall ensure that all statutory oversight agencies are put in place no later than January 1, 2011 and that all the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force are implemented no later than January 1, 2012.

The parliamentary secretary raised two concerns with respect to the requirement to implement the recommendations. He felt that the bill imposes a requirement on the government that can only be met by the passage of legislation, a requirement which seemed to bind Parliament to passing that legislation. In his view, such a requirement was both impossible for the government to carry out and unconstitutional.

As well, he noted that the establishment of new agencies clearly requires the expenditure of public funds and therefore requires a royal recommendation. The parliamentary secretary then turned to clause 3 of the bill, which repeals the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and related provisions from the Budget Implementation Act, 2009.

As he saw it, two effects would follow from repealing the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. First, a new purpose would be given to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. They would now be given jurisdiction for public sector pay equity complaints. Further, as the liability arising from the statutory grounds of complaint under the Canada Human Rights Act differ from those under the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, the Crown, as employer, would be faced with potential expenses not currently provided for. The parliamentary secretary explained the difference between the liability schemes in some detail, which I will not repeat here. He also made reference to a number of Speakers’ rulings from both this House and the other place, in which the need for a royal recommendation to accompany new or increased liability of the Crown is clearly illustrated.

The member for Vancouver Centre pointed out that the repeal of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act does not constitute a new legislative regime. Rather, in her view, it leaves the currently existing legislation in place. Second, she claimed that the requirement to establish a framework is not the same as the actual implementation of the framework.

As the House has no doubt gathered from this brief summary, the issues confronting the Chair in this case are complex. I would like to begin by reminding honourable members that the Chair is obliged to confine itself to dealing with the procedural aspects of the question. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2nd edition, p. 261 states:

... it is not up to the Speaker to rule on the “constitutionality” or “legality” of measures before the House.

The procedural issue which faces the Chair relates to the possible requirement for a royal recommendation.

There are three distinct elements in the bill. The first relates to the introduction of legislation to implement the recommendations of the pay equity task force, including the setting up of two statutory oversight agencies. The second element is the repeal of the PSECA, from which flows the third element, that of the repeal of the consequential provision stimulated at sections 395 to 405 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2009.

With respect to the implementation of the pay equity task force recommendations, it was indicated by the parliamentary secretary that such provisions would, in all likelihood, require a royal recommendation. Those provisions, however, are not part of Bill C-471, but of some future bill not yet before the House. It is my view that this aspect of Bill C-471 is similar to Bill C-288, Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, from the last Parliament, despite the arguments to the contrary advanced by the parliamentary secretary.

I remind the House of the ruling given on September 27, 2006, where the Chair stated at page 3315 of Debates:

As it stands, Bill C-288 does not contain provisions which specifically authorize any spending for a distinct purpose relating to the Kyoto protocol. Rather, the bill seeks the approval of Parliament for the government to implement the protocol. If such approval is given, then the government would decide on the measures it wished to take. This might involve an appropriation bill or another bill proposing specific spending, either of which would require a royal recommendation.

Bill C-471 implements no recommendations and establishes no agency. It simply requires that the government bring forth legislation and thus it is difficult to see how these provisions could be construed as requiring the expenditure of public funds.

The second main objective of Bill C-471 is the repeal the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, enacted by section 394 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 and the repeal of the transitional and consequential amendments stemming from the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and stipulated in sections 395 to 405 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2009.

While it may impact the operations of government, the repeal of a statute does not normally require a royal recommendation. The parliamentary secretary contended that repealing this act and the related sections of the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 would have the practical effect of assigning a new mandate to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

If Bill C-471 were adopted, the situation with respect to oversight of the pay equity process and the hearing of pay equity complaints would revert to that which was in place prior to the adoption of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. In effect, this is a change in the mandate of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 834, this kind of change requires a royal recommendation.

A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation, or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.

Consequently, it is my ruling that in changing the objects and purposes of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Bill C-471 infringes upon the financial prerogative of the Crown.

Accordingly, the Chair will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received. Today's debate, however, is on the motion for second reading and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the current debate.

I thank hon. Members for their attention.

The House resumed from April 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-471, An Act respecting the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force and amending another Act in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.