Evidence of meeting #48 for Status of Women in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was action.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
“Whereas poverty and inequality disproportionately...” Yes, you have that section—
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
—and then it continues on about the sexual orientation that's already being discussed in the transgender.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
That's a fair point. That second preambular paragraph starting in line 19 really goes to social isolation and vulnerability, rather than just poverty and economic inequality. They're two separate issues, in our mind.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
As I said, I would be supporting this, but at the end of the day, we have the International Day of the Girl Child and a variety of different initiatives that we put forward not only in opposition but as this government as well.
Would you mind sharing what sort of an impact you think this week will actually have?
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Absolutely, and thank you for that question. That's a question that's pervasive throughout the discussion.
There are two things.
First, this is not a celebratory bill. It was initially mis-characterized by some as being celebratory. It's not a bill in which we hold up achievements of Canadian women, although we recognize them, and you'll find some of that language in the bill.
The primary aspiration of this bill is to call the problem what it is to be really frank and upfront with respect to the challenges, even to the point of being crass. That's quite intentional. Through that approach, I think it's something that the bill will do. Other celebratory days, like International Women's Day or International Day of the Girl Child, which are more celebratory in nature, will not accomplish this.
Second, through what you could call a fairly provocative approach, it seeks to engage all Canadians.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thanks, Chair.
Thanks, Mr. Spengemann, for the bill. I appreciated your caveat that this isn't meant to be celebratory. However, there's nothing in the bill that says that.
I'm going to propose to the committee that we call this “gender equality action week”. I'd be interested to know if your focus is actually on taking action, so I'd be interested to know whether that's something you would consider.
In your introduction, you said that governments “cannot do this work alone”. That is true. I would argue that the front-line organizations in the women's movement, especially during the Conservative decade in power, really carried the work of gender equality. We're also recognizing an enormous hole in federal government action.
I think you were in the House when I gave my speech. You know that I supported your bill at second reading. I'm discouraged, though, that despite the very stark list in the preamble, where you ring this huge alarm on all kinds of issues facing women—the cost of violence to the economy, the continued pay gap, the lack of pay for child care, the violence for indigenous women, and on and on and on—the remedy is so minute.
I'd like to ask why you didn't take a more prescriptive approach. We had a motion in the House a year ago to implement proactive pay equity legislation. The committee recommended that the government table that legislation this coming June. We've had the government say late 2018.
What's your view on the implementation of pay equity legislation as a way to take federal leadership on gender equality, and what should the timeline be, in your view?
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Ms. Malcolmson, thank you very much. There are a number of questions embedded in what you've said. Thank you for your advocacy, for your championship, and also for supporting the bill at first and second reading. I'm grateful.
Should it be gender equality action week? Let me take that question first.
Ideally, at the outcome of each annual gender equality week, there will be a set of actions, actionable items, or even real progress that can be identified. It is action as much as it is awareness. It's reaching out to all Canadians. It's going all the way to the elementary school level, if not even earlier, and saying to Canadians, “Here are some issues.” The soft message is that unless Canadians get engaged, we will have a problem legislating our way to success.
I was hoping to give the public some levers to put pressure on us through the pathway of raising awareness and through the pathway of identifying solutions. I would like to see nothing further than communities getting engaged on the issue on pay equity—to have some marches, to have some protests even, and to have some academic works that underscore, with additional data as needed, just how profound the gaps are and also, as we saw on the economic side, how significant the opportunities are if we make actual progress.
You'll appreciate that this is a private member's bill. It's not something that will have financial implications, nor would I purport to speak for the government, which has its own executive programs and agenda.
With respect to pay equity, I absolutely see it as a human right. I think progress on pay equity will be extremely welcome, and I think the government is in the process of working on the issue. I mean, how could we not champion it?
What I'm seeking to do through this private member's initiative is to make sure that across the country we have greater awareness on the pay equity gap, on the opportunities, and through that basically generate fertile ground for government action to connect with Canadians and to solve this issue fully, rather than just—
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you. I would argue that the public has had lots of opportunity to protest for pay equity. It's been 40 years, and we would really rather see the government lead on this so that the front-line organizations do not have to spend their time away from their clients in protesting.
You flagged the low rate of women who are elected to Parliament, at just 26% this year, even though women make up more than 50% of the population. My colleague Kennedy Stewart brought in a private member's bill, a remedy that was intended to create incentives for political parties to get more women on the ballot. I'd like to know how you voted on that bill, which would have provided a tool to bring more gender balance to Parliament.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
I'm not somebody who's in favour of quotas, either at the party level or nationally. I've worked in jurisdictions with the United Nations.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Well, it's legislating outcomes, basically, prescribing outcomes in terms of....
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
That's something I don't favour. What I favour, and it's reflected in this initiative, is that we really empower men to step to the side of women so that we get more women not just on the ballot as an outcome, but more women wanting to run and being able to run. For that there are initiatives. The Scottish government, for example, has put forward an initiative to make sure that men have the ability or will to enter into early childhood primary caregiving roles much more easily than they do at the moment. This empowers women to actually step forward and seek political office, not because we need more women in Parliament but because they want to be on the ballot, they want to serve, and they want to have the opportunity.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
—your bill gives that opportunity to women more than the private member's bill that my colleague brought forward, which would have given parties incentives to nominate more women for the voters to choose from?
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Again, my approach is a bottom-up approach. It is society empowering women to take that step, rather than having parties saying they will have more women on their slate. The top-down approach has to be met by a bottom-up approach to actually empower women—not just empower them, but actually make them want to run, not because the party calls them and says, “We'd really like you to, and there's nobody else and please run”, but because they feel this is the right thing to do and they should be enabled to serve when they want to. I think those two approaches have to meet.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
This committee recommended gender-based analysis legislation be tabled in Parliament by this coming June. The government has said now they're not sure at all when or if that will happen—certainly not this year. What's your view on legislating gender-based analysis as an action to get gender equality?
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Look, I'm proud of what the government's done so far. I'm very proud that my office, all six of us, have completed gender-based analysis training. We continue to advocate for it. It's absolutely critical that policy outcomes reflect gender-based analysis. Anybody who looks at this program, at this particular training course, will consider it to be a no-brainer.
I can't speak for the government in terms of timelines of legislating it, but, again, my point in with this entire initiative is that we cannot legislate ourselves to success unless we have broad public awareness, and in some cases, quite willingly invite more public pressure than we've had in the past.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Excellent. Well, wonderful.
Now we turn to our clause-by-clause review. Because we have a number of committee members who are new and who may be going through it for the first time, I will make a few comments to instruct you.
For those of you who didn't read the 1,200-page Standing Orders book and have it committed to memory, when we do a clause-by-clause review, it's important to note that unless substantive changes are made to the clause, you cannot edit the preamble or the short title. Pursuant to Standing Order 71(1), we will leave the preamble until we see whether or not there are any changes to the clauses, and similarly for the short title as well.
I would invite the representatives from Status of Women to join us. We have Nanci-Jean Waugh and Pamela Murphy. As we go along, if questions arise that they can give input to, that input would be appreciated.
The first amendment that we will consider is LIB-1. You do have a package.
Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.
February 23rd, 2017 / 9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I have a question for you. My understanding is that you can't amend the bill by adding clauses that are not fundamentally part of what the House has already passed.