Mansplaining.
An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act
This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.
This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.
Bardish Chagger Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
This enactment amends the Salaries Act to authorize payment, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, of the salaries for eight new ministerial positions. It authorizes the Governor in Council to designate departments to support the ministers who occupy those positions and authorizes those ministers to delegate their powers, duties or functions to officers or employees of the designated departments. It also makes a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Salaries ActGovernment Orders
June 8th, 2017 / 8:30 p.m.
See
context
An hon. member
Wow is right, bud.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
There is too much going back and forth in the House right now, and too many comments. I would again remind the members of a rule in the House that when someone has the floor, he or she should have the respect of all members in the House to allow the member to answer. If members have anything to contribute to the discussion, either by comment or question, they can take their opportunity to stand and be recognized in the House.
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Madam Speaker, what I talked about was with regard to equal treatment of women. Every woman deserves the same pay as a man if she does the same job as a man. I believe in equal pay for equal work. That should be upheld in this place and in the whole country, from coast to coast.
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Madam Speaker, it is becoming increasing clear that the solution to the problem the Prime Minister created himself is a cabinet shuffle, not a bill.
I am wondering if my colleague could name any men in cabinet who have not been living up to expectations, who could be assigned other duties, so that the Prime Minister could hand those portfolios over to women ministers, after thinking about it over the summer.
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Madam Speaker, I could draw on a number of examples where male ministers have been put in place and have not upheld the role and responsibilities they had been granted. I do not wish to draw attention to those things right now. It is beyond what we are talking about today.
The point I am really hoping to make is that regardless if one is male or female, gender really should not be brought into account. Ministers are given a list of responsibilities, a list of tasks, a budget to oversee, a staff to manage, and they need to do that with competence.
Whether male of female, if the person has the ability to do it, is the best person for the job, then that individual should be put into the cabinet post to do that job.
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Madam Speaker, the member talked about how she felt as a woman and how well respected and well treated she was within her party. Then she referred to women on this side of the House as quotas, and I have heard other members refer to them as tokens. Does that respect not go right across the floor? Should all women and men in the House not be respected? I am not feeling we are getting that tonight.
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Madam Speaker, yes, the members opposite do deserve to be respected. That was exactly why I said what I did. They should not be treated as an opportunity for quota. They should not be treated as tokens. They should be treated as equal partners in leading Canadians. They should be treated as people who are intelligent, hard working, and able to contribute based on their merits and abilities rather than based on their gender.
That is what I experience on this side of the House. I wish the same for them.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Before I go to the next speaker, I know people are questioning how questions are being allocated.
On November 3, 2016, the Deputy Speaker indicated:
...time for questions and comments is often the most valuable time for an exchange between members. In accordance with the procedures and practices, we will do our best to ensure that time is generally afforded to the members of the parties who are not associated with the member who has just spoken but not to the exclusion of that party...
Generally in a 10-minute round there is an opportunity for a question to be asked to the same party, unless nobody else is getting up. Because the member was from the Conservative Party, the decision to allow the questions from the other parties to question the member was how it was afforded.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Madam Speaker, this is a rather special evening. I have worked hard in life to get to where I am today. I have never been singled out for anything because of my name or gender. I have always tried to get jobs because I was good at what I did, not because I am a woman. The problem I have is with the parts of the bill that talk about parity. For me, that does not mean appointing the same number of women as men.
For me, parity is about action. Parity is not just taking a nice photo with 15 men on one side and 15 women on the other, while the rest of the time the men are telling those women to shut up and look pretty. That is not what parity means to me.
I have a problem with this bill because it would mean giving the Liberals a blank cheque. We would be telling them that we agree that they should appoint people, three ministers, without even knowing what their titles will be. Meanwhile, you are causing our regions to empty out. Everywhere—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Members must address their comments to the Chair. I simply want to inform the member that she has only three minutes remaining.
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Madam Speaker, they are gutting our regions. We had regional ministers who were up to date on what was happening in our regions. Now, we are left with one minister from Toronto. If I talk about a salmon river in Charlevoix, I hope he knows that I am talking about salmon because I am not sure he has travelled very far in Charlevoix.
That is where I have a problem: they are robbing Peter to pay Paul, to make a cute photo, but doing so creates inequality. Our regions are being deprived of ministers who need to be in our regions.
Whether it is in the regions of Quebec, of the Atlantic or of Newfoundland, they are regions. Now, there is just one minister responsible for them. He is in Toronto, and while he certainly may travel, he is not familiar with the regions.
I was looking at the current cabinet list and there are very few people from the regions. Most of them are from urban areas. That means that our regions have been forgotten.
I have nothing against gender equality. I have nothing against equal pay for equal work. A minister of state and a minister do not have the same responsibilities. If we support Bill C-24, not only will ministers and ministers of state be equal, but everyone will ask for equal pay. All the members, critics, and the opposition will want the same salary as those opposite. We will have parity.
As women—I am not minimizing the role of women, far from it—we have already been in government and we had the ear of our prime minister. Today, I will tell you that I am going to vote against this bill, because it is an empty shell.
We are giving the Liberals a blank cheque and we do not know what they want to do with it. There have already been enough scandals on that side of the House. We do not want more of them. The Liberals are still giving money to their friends who do good work for the Liberals, but not necessarily for Canadians.
We are all different in the House: there are Conservatives, NDP members, Liberals, those in the Bloc, the Green Party. However, when we come to the House, we speak for all Canadians; we are not supposed to be partisan.
Today opposition members are being asked to vote on a bill on pay equity for positions with entirely different responsibilities. Pay equity is equal pay for equal work with the same responsibilities. A minister of state and a minister are not the same things. I would hope that women are not being appointed to these positions to fill some sort of quota to achieve parity. It is insulting to women to say that a position is vacant and needs to be filled by a woman to make the pictures look good.
I have never been superficial and I am not going to start now. I am here because I am a woman of character and I can go wherever I want by opening the doors that I want. I will never say “because I am a woman”. I am here because I am qualified to be here.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
It being 8:44 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, June 7, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?