Status of Women Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2017

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That is true; you cannot do that. As well, if you have amendments that are brought in for a specific clause and there is more than one amendment that is submitted, they are addressed in the order they come in. Therefore, if the first one that you consider is moved and accepted, then you can't consider the others. You'll see there are some rules like that as we go through.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

But in terms of adding additional clauses to the bill, they can't change the fundamental—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

They can't change the fundamental scope of the bill.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay.

(On clause 2)

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Amendment LIB-1 in your package was moved by Monsieur Serré. It reads:

Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the fourth week in September is to be known as “Gender Equality

Monsieur Serré, do you have some comments?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Essentially, in October there is currently a celebration of Women's History Month in Canada, which also includes International Day of the Girl Child. So basically in the proposed amendment that the chair read, we're looking at Bill C-309, in clause 2, being amended by replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 3 with the following:

Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the fourth week in September is to be known as “Gender Equality

I just wanted to make that change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good. I'll just note that the LIB-1 amendment is consequential to LIB-2. If you vote on LIB-1, that vote applies also to LIB-2. LIB-2 would amend the preamble, because the preamble says the first week of October, so if you decide it's going to be the last week of September, then that would also go into the preamble.

(Amendment agreed to)

The next amendment to be considered is NDP-1. This was brought forward by Ms. Malcolmson:

Throughout Canada, in each and every year, starting in the calendar year following that in which the Government of Canada implements proactive pay equity legislation, the first

Go ahead, Ms. Malcolmson.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I brought this up in my speech in the House on the theme of having this tied to action. I referenced some input we had from the United Steelworkers. They said:

...nice to have a week dedicated to thinking about the issue, but far better for women and girls to be able to enjoy gender equality throughout the entire year because there are programs and structures in place to ensure gender equality and fight misogyny and patriarchy.

I recommend, given that the government says it's going to do this, that we tie the celebration of the week and gender equality to something to celebrate. This would make the bill come into effect once legislation has been tabled.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

According to our legislative clerk, because we adopted LIB-1 and this is then affecting the same clause, the question on NDP-1 cannot be put because it conflicts with LIB-1.

We move into NDP-2, also proposed by Ms. Malcolmson:

That Bill C-309, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 3 with the following:

“Action Week”.

If we do adopt this amendment, the preamble would also have to be fixed, because then the name would change there as well. That's NDP-6.

Do you have comments, Ms. Malcolmson, on NDP-2?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

It sounds as if the sponsor of the bill is intending this bill not to be celebratory but to encourage action and to mobilize communities. I think this amendment might make this look less emblematic and lead more to actual outcomes. I reference input that I got was from Joyce Arthur, executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, ARCC.

She says that one possible suggestion to make it more effective and less symbolic is to change it to “action for gender equality week” or “gender equality action week”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Is there discussion on this amendment?

Go ahead, Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

When this testimony came up during Mr. Spengemann's line of questioning with Ms. Malcolmson, it seemed that it was as much about awareness as it was about specific action. One of the things I know he raised as well was some hesitancy around the fact that this is a private member's bill, and if we started prescribing that the government has to take action, it could lead to a potential requirement for spending, which would potentially open up a debate about royal recommendation. I would hate to see this bill rejected for a loose reference to spending.

For that reason, I would prefer that we remain with the current name of “gender equality week”, to avoid the potential that this motion would have unintended consequences that could cause the bill to die.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Is there further discussion on the amendment?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Fraser, I think that is highly imaginative thinking. There are lots of places where we have to be cautious about a private member's bill having financial consequences. We've seen lots of stuff come through the House and be supported by all parties that have had fewer financial implications than adding the word “action” there.

Although I support the emblematic changes that the government has made that I have lobbied for—getting women on banknotes, a gender-balanced cabinet—this government risks the tag, which it's already getting at the grassroots movement, of being all talk and no action. I would think we would all do better if we were clear that this is not only another emblematic gesture but one that also encourages and supports action at all levels.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Is there further discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Aside from the potential procedural hiccup that I mentioned, I think substantively that the bill is not just about action but also about raising awareness. Ideally it would lead to action, but the testimony we heard was that the awareness piece is as important as the action. For that reason, I'd prefer that we remain with the current name.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

It appears that Mr. Spengemann wants to say something.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Oh, very good. Go ahead, Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn't sure what the protocol was to chime in, but thank you for the opportunity.

It is action. It is awareness. However, it is not government action. This bill aims to engage Canadians.

If you look at the second-last preambular paragraph, the one that goes from the bottom of page 2 to page 3, it calls on Canadians “to mark the week with events and initiatives to address the challenges”. It's action, yes, but action on the part of Canadians less than government, because we want to stress the point that this is not something that can succeed solely through government legislation. We need Canadians to be engaged, and that's what the bill aims to achieve.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good.

I will call the question, then, on the NDP-2 amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

NDP-2 is not carried, which also means that NDP-6 is not carried.

Those are all of the amendments that were brought forward that have to do with clause 2. The question before us is, shall clause 2 carry as amended by LIB-1?

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

There are suggestions about a new clause. If we go to NDP-3, Ms. Malcolmson, we would amend the bill with quite a substantive clause.

Ms. Malcolmson, would you like to comment on it?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

This is in the same vein as discussed before, to link this to action and the responsibility and the power that the federal government has but has not used.

As well, on legislated pay equity and gender-based analysis legislation, this is again about government taking the opportunity to review progress on those files and to report back to Parliament on whether there have been measurable successes. It's fitting into the theme of having something that has been measurable.

In this area, I received a note from the United Steelworkers, saying:

We would rather see concrete, effective programs on issues like pay equity, affordable universal childcare, a national action plan on violence against women, and action to end poverty and homelessness for women and children, for example.

I think the measures bring some accountability and measurability to follow in with that grassroots advice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good.

Per the legislative clerk, I see that amendment NDP-3 is inadmissible because it's beyond the scope of the bill. It's calling for action on the part of the government on something that was outside the scope of the clause. That is not admissible. We won't be voting on that one.

On amendment NDP-4, Ms. Malcolmson, do you want to make a comment?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Here's a suggestion from West Coast LEAF:

...legislation and other actions like Bill C-309...not only do very little to address inequality in the everyday lives of women in Canada, but they also create a risk of misleading the public into thinking that the federal government is taking substantive action when they have little potential to create meaningful change.

—meaning the gender equality week.

... West Coast LEAF strongly encourages the government to take more substantive action that will create meaningful change in the lives of women.

My amendment here recommending that there be a conference with all “provincial representatives and stakeholders”...“to review issues and actions taken that are related to achieving proactive pay equity and promoting gender-based analysis legislation” again creates that transparency, that measurability, and that ongoing review of real action towards achieving gender equality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Per the legislative clerk, NDP-4 is also inadmissible because it's beyond the scope of the bill and the clause.

We turn then to the amendment NDP-5. It's a rewrite, I believe, of the preamble.

Ms. Malcolmson, would you like a few minutes to go through that?