Debates of Nov. 1st, 2007

Opposition Motion--Status of Women

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor. I would also like to thank my colleague for her eloquent speech.

Given that pay inequity has been prohibited by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms since 1975—32 years have passed if I am not mistaken since pay inequity was recognized—does my colleague not believe that this government should be more proactive and stop dithering?

To date, the government's response to this problem have not been very concrete. As she indicated, pay inequity is a serious problem.

I would like to hear her views on how long this has been allowed to go on. Given that it is found in the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, is it not somewhat immoral that the government is not doing something about this?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

There is in fact something immoral about this Conservative government. The first immoral thing is the fact that only 13% of the candidates in the last election were women. I have not done the math, but the Conservative Party is certainly the party with the least representation by women in the House of Commons.

This situation is not simply a matter of it being absolutely necessary to have equal representation of women and men, or to have women account for 52% of elected representatives because they represent 52% of the population. The problem is that the Conservative government is dominated by men and is insensitive to the status of women and the needs of women.

Pay equity should be included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is right! Pay equity should be a fundamental right. There is also the question of protective withdrawal of work. In addition to the real measures set out in the Charter, there should also be other concrete measures taken by this Conservative government.

Earlier, I raised the question of protective withdrawal, an extremely important question. It would allow a pregnant woman working in an environment that is harmful to her or to her fetus to stop working and still receive 90% of her net pay, as is the case in Quebec, without having to mortgage her employment insurance, as women working in companies governed by the Canada Labour Code must unfortunately do.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a letter from many local and provincial organizations to the Prime Minister, the women stated that:

--when a country like Canada enacts constitutional rights it takes for granted that residents, when they believe the government is violating their rights, can and will challenge the offending law or policy. If residents cannot use their rights because of financial barriers, then Canada’s constitutional democracy is hollow.

I wonder if the hon. member would expand on and explain to the House the elimination of the charter challenge, how that directly impacts on women's rights in this country. Does she consider women's rights to be the same as human rights and how all of that affects women's ability to participate in both the economic and social success of Canada?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. It is in fact an excellent question. Why are women’s rights and pay equity not looked at as being equal in importance to the other rights in the charters? Why is that?

As I was explaining earlier, I believe this is inherent in the Conservative government, the Conservative Party, where fewer than 13% of the party’s candidates in the last election were women. Thirteen percent! That is nothing, when women make up 52% of the population. The Conservatives could only find enough women to make up 13% of the people representing them.

There are two reasons for this. First, there is obviously no interest, no awareness of the status of women, and second, women may not be interested in the Conservative Party, which has never stood up for their rights. All it has done since being elected is eliminate funding for status of women organizations, on the pretext that too much money was being spent on administration. I would like to see them organize things and not have administrative expenses.

So only 13% of the Conservative Party’s candidates were women. There are also not very many women in their cabinet or on their benches. The result is that that party is totally lacking in any awareness of the problems women face and the inequity that exists in our society today.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre, one of the great MPs in the House.

It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to this motion. I want to commend my colleague from Beaches—East York, who has championed many causes in this area for a long time in the House, along with other members of our women's caucus who have produced the pink book and other documents and reports specific to issues that are generally regarded as women's issues.

I will begin with a quote by Harriett Grant from the book entitled, Our Grandmothers, Ourselves: Reflections of Canadian Women. She said:

Women accomplish many things throughout their lives, but so much of it is taken for granted and not applauded as it should be.

I think those words are very true.

When the government took office, I believe it had an agenda to cut funding to organizations and programs that sought to assist women and minority groups in this country. If we listen to the words of the Prime Minister's good friend, Tom Flanagan, and I will not repeat the entire quote as many people have spoken to this today, he indicated that the government made a nice step early on when it de-funded the court challenges program. He said that on CBC Radio. That is pretty scandalous.

When the Conservatives came into power, they cut the child care accord right away. They cut the Kelowna accord. They went on to cut the Atlantic accord. They do not seem to like accords. The Prime Minister must never drive by a Honda dealership.

Many of us could not believe it when the government announced, just months into office, billions of dollars in cuts to social programs, many of which impacted women the most. Why would anyone cut funding to these organizations? Why would the government cut funds when it is awash in cash? The reason is clear and I believe ideological. It is a relatively new and divisive approach to Canadian politics brought in by the party opposite.

I must say that there are elements of that party that are offside with the traditional Canadian values, the Canada that I believe in. The notion of equality, respect for the charter and the idea that government does in fact have a responsibility to level the playing field and equalize opportunity is foreign to many of them. Many members of the old Reform Party are still in this place and are not keen on things like the charter. They hold views that are, again, out of whack with a modern and inclusive Canada.

The Prime Minister has done a great job of muzzling the fringe elements in his party but that fringe element is rattling the cages and I suspect it is only a matter of time before they break free and show their true colours.

There was a time in this House when political parties on all sides understood the need to address inequalities and the inequalities of women in Canada, when the notion of a charter was universally accepted, and when we used to recall and respect the struggle that women have made to be included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to stand up for their causes and even to get the vote in this country.

There was a time when all parties understood that government should and had a responsibility to play a role in the lives of Canadians, especially the most vulnerable. Those days are gone. I suspect they ended when the Reform Party swallowed the whole Progressive Conservative Party. We can thank the member for Central Nova for that.

As if we needed further proof, in Quorum today there is an article from the Toronto Star about a Conservative candidate in the riding of Toronto Centre who was dumped because he refused to be muzzled. He is quoted in the article as saying that he wanted to focus on the kinds of issues that matter in a downtown urban riding but that the powers that be in the Conservative Party did not like that. The member is gone.

When a government cuts funding to worthy groups engaged in social justice and social equality initiatives, it affects people and, far too often, women. When a government cuts funding in support of students, it affects people and, far too often, women. When a government fails to address the needs of seniors, it affects people and, far too often, women. When a government cancels child care programs and replaces them with a $100 a month rebate, it affects people and, far too often, women.

When a government guts the power of the federal government to initiate national programs that help people, it affects people and, too often, it is women. When a government spends all of its money on tax cuts and does not address the needs of the poor, students, seniors and our aboriginal communities, it affects real people and, too often, it affects women. That is in Canada.

I want to speak of an experience I had this year. As MPs, we all get to meet remarkable people. This year I met a number of remarkable people and a large number of them were women.

The most remarkable woman I met this year was a woman in Nairobi, Kenyan, named Ingrid Munro. She was a woman who, a few years ago, worked for the African housing fund and retired and thought she would live a quiet life. Fifty street beggars, all women, in the slums of Nairobi came to her and said that they needed her to help them. She asked what she could do. They did not know but they wanted to talk about it.

She instituted a micro credit organization dealing with the poorest of the poor in the slums of Nairobi, in the slums of Kibara which has somewhere between 800,000 and 1 million people, and in Mathare, with 400,000 to 500,000 people, where families of six or seven children and two parents sleep in a hut that is eight feet by ten feet. It was women who started and ran that organization.

She told the women who had nothing that they should start saving their money and once they had saved $10 or $15 she would lend them twice that amount to start a business. She told them that on a $20 loan they could start a business and when that loan was paid off they could start another business.

She dealt with some remarkable women. I, along with the member for Halifax, the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley and the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, met one of these remarkable women in January of this year, a street beggar who had nothing. Beatrice had 7 children and 12 grandchildren and, in the space of two years, all her children died from HIV and HIV-related diseases. She was left with 12 grandchildren and no hope. She decided that she would need to put arsenic in the porridge the next day because the kids had no hope. Instead, she borrowed $20 U.S. and now runs four businesses in the slums of Nairobi.

When we talk about the economic power, the economic will, the resilience of women, we see what can happen in a barren place with no hope and no future and see the kind of hope that exists in those communities.

We are in one of the richest lands in the world and one of the richest nations on earth, with more money than we have ever had before. Yes, tax cuts are fine. We had an economic update of our own two years ago and we brought in the tax cuts that reappeared magically yesterday. However, we also invested in people. Just on students alone we invested billions of dollars, $2.2 billion for students most in need; $550 million to increase the Canada access grants.

The Canada that I believe in and most Canadians believe in recognize that not everyone is born with an equal opportunity to achieve success. However, as Canadians we believe we are strongest when we help the weak. We are strongest when we do something to equalize opportunity and give everybody a chance. We do not come in at a time of plenty and cut the funding to the Status of Women, gut the Canada summer jobs program, get rid of the court challenges program and get rid of a national day care plan that the member for York Centre had gone around this country and negotiated with all the provinces.

We have all had experience with the people who would have benefited from that plan. In my community, women came to me and said “this is unbelievable, we have never been involved in politics. We now want to be involved. We want to be part of this and we want to save this plan for all Canadians”. The government, however, came in and threw it out the window and instead offered $100 a month. That $100 a month, according to the Caledon Institute, actually benefits a family with $150,000 income more than it does a two income earning family of $30,000.

That is not the Canada that I believe in. I do not believe it is the Canada most Canadians believe in. Canada is a special country. We are a nation that believes in certain values and principles. I do not believe that the government represents the values of all or most Canadians. The people who are most shut out are women.

I applaud the member for Beaches—East York for bringing this motion forward today. I hope all members take part in this debate and will support the motion and stand up for Canadian women.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, since we are in sort of a friendly frame of mind, I will lob a soft one over to my colleague.

The motion today deals with young women and students in terms of post-secondary education. He knows very well, and I have heard him speak so eloquently in the House of a need for government action, not just provincial action, but federal action to ensure that students have the very best head start that we can possibly give them.

A tax cut to a bank and a corporation may be nice for them, but students hardly make enough money to pay for the books, which are taxed, by the way, and everything else in their schools.

I would like the member to comment on what he would like to see the government do, not just government but all members of Parliament, to focus their energies on students so that they, indeed, will be the bright future of our country.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's economy is pretty good. In the last 15 years, since we fixed the last mess, Canada's economy has been on a roll. It is obviously turning out a lot of positive economic indicators but we need to get serious about productivity. That is where other OECD nations, the emerging nations of the world, are catching up and, in some cases, passing us.

One of the things the OECD nations are doing is investing in education. All the current government has done is to throw out $800 million, which is not very much for a nation like Canada with the provinces and territories we have, for post-secondary education and then give a tax deduction for books that amounts to $80.

In the province where my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore and I come from, the average tuition is almost $7,000 and that $80 is nothing. We believe we must invest directly in education, not tax cut our way to an education. We must invest in education and ensure those who need help the most get it. We should increase the Canada access grants, re-invest in the Millennium Scholarship Foundation and give people a hand up.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, small, large and business in general have said, through consultations, that they want literacy training for a lot of people who need it.

Training and adjustment is fine but the problem is that when people arrive at their companies they do not have enough literacy to do their jobs and the training is not as effective.

Could the hon. member expand on the problem of the cuts with respect to literacy? A lot of money was cut from that and, if I am not mistaken, I think the literacy directorate was also shut down. This affects thousands of Canadians. In some parts of the country a very large percentage of the population has a literacy problem. We need improved literacy training to have a competitive, well trained and upgraded labour force in our country.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, literacy is such a big problem in the country. I do not think even Canadians understand how many people have issues with literacy. We need to invest in literacy. The government made cuts last year.

The member mentioned that the national literacy secretariat was in trouble and was under the threat of closing down. In my own province, Literacy Nova Scotia, which does such great work with a whole series of chapters around Nova Scotia, says that it will need to shut down in March next year because the money has been cut off.

If we talk to the minister he says, no. He says that they are re-investing more and that they have other investments to put in. Where is it going? We cannot get that information and nobody on the ground is hearing, seeing, feeling, smelling or touching it. They certainly are not getting the money and they are pretty concerned about it.

If the government has a plan for literacy, I would like to see it because we need to ensure that Canadians have the skills they need. It starts with literacy and the government has turned its back on literacy in Canada.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting over the last few days in question period. Questions have been addressed to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development and some of the comments that have come back reflect on some of the cuts that were made through the mid-1990s. I think all Canadian sacrificed through the mid-1990s.

However, I would like to give my colleague an opportunity to expand on some of the points that he made with regard to those cuts that were made and maybe reach back in Hansard and share some of the words that were put on record by that minister at the time.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of non-partisanship, I do not want to take too long. I do want to thank my colleague though because we have heard continually the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development stand in the House and say that the problem is that $25 billion were cut in the last decade.

If we go back in Hansard we will see comments like, “they have to cut deeper”. Another one is, “Here is a hint to the government. Start cutting and cut deeper”. He wanted to cut more and more in the last decade and now he says that we cut too much. The hypocrisy of the government is absolutely stunning. It is amazing that it says one thing and then comes back to say that it did not say that.

Fortunately, we had the record of Hansard back in the 1990s. Not only that, but we have the comments the Prime Minister made. The chickens are coming home to roost. What they said is on paper and they are going to hear more and more about it because it is shameful.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today as a former chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. As a continuous member of that committee, I have heard from many witnesses. Most recently, we heard from witnesses who urged the committee to take a life cycle approach to the economic security of women.

I want to start off by quoting one of the witnesses, Sheila Regehr of the National Council of Welfare, who said:

You can’t take one population or one moment in time. There’s a tendency to talk about “poor people” or to talk about “lone parents”, thinking that there’s this group of lone parents who are always lone parents, or that somebody living in poverty now is always going to be living in poverty. Those groups move in and out. A woman who’s a very contented middle-class woman is going to be a lone parent tomorrow. In a few years, when her children age, statistically she’s not counted as a lone parent any more, she’s an “unattached older woman” but she’s experiencing the legacy of her earlier years.

It is that legacy that we need to address.

From an early age it is imperative women have an opportunity to succeed. We have all heard that early childhood education is vital to this success.

In a recent speech in Winnipeg, Dr. Fraser Mustard spoke about the importance of investment at an early age to ensure lifelong success. According to Dr. Mustard, early development is linked to physical health and well-being, social knowledge, maturity, language development, and communication skills, all essential to the well-being of women's economic security.

The Conservative government has chosen to prevent that by cancelling the national child care program, which the previous Liberal government committed to. Low and middle income class families have no access to child care. How can the government claim that families have choice when in fact there is no choice? The taxable $100 a month is not child care.

As one of the witnesses before the committee said:

You can't put a child in day care for $100 a month. So if you use that on economics of scale, a woman goes out to work and—let's just keep it simple—she makes $12 an hour, but she puts her child in day care, and that's costing her $7 an hour. So her net return is only $5, because day care is no longer affordable.

Access to regulated affordable child care is pivotal to creating opportunities for women. Without good quality child care, thousands of women are kept from finding full time and well paying jobs.

Women face many challenges upon entering the workforce, specifically low to middle income families, access to training and often access to literacy acquisition.

While the Canadian dollar has steadily increased in value over the last five years, women are still only earning 70¢ for every dollar that ends up in the pockets of men. Unfortunately, this wage gap is alive and well, and continues to be fed by the Conservative government.

Single mothers are the most vulnerable as their earnings tend to be the most volatile. Between the ages of 30 and 34, single mothers have twice the level of earning volatility than two parent families in the same age range. That is why child care and maternity benefits become so important.

The government has spoken frequently about human rights for aboriginal women, but human rights is more than pretty words or political posturing. It is about having clean water, opportunities for education for one's children and for one's self, and adequate health care and housing. It is about adequate resources, and most important, it is about respect.

As I have said before in a press release, “pay equity is a human right and an important step toward economic equality between men and women”.

Clearly, the current Prime Minister has very mixed feelings on pay equity. We have heard earlier today that when speaking about pay equity legislation in 1998, he was quoted as saying, “For taxpayers, however, it's a rip-off. And it has nothing to do with gender”. That hardly sounds like a Prime Minister who would stand up for the women of this country.

The fact of the matter is, without pay equity, women are denied economic equality. Proactive laws are required to take action to ensure all employees receive equal pay for work of equal value.

In response to the pay equity report from the Status of Women, the previous Liberal government, under the guidance of the justice minister of the day and the minister of labour and housing in October 2005, committed to introducing a bill on pay equity by late 2006 or early 2007. We would be on our way by now.

Extensive work has also been done to address parental benefits. I encourage the government to look at the Status of Women committee's report on maternity and parental benefits which focuses on the provision of benefits to self-employed workers.

This morning the minister said that the number of independent, self-employed women has gone up 50%. We know that most small businesses are being started by women. All the more reason to extend parental and maternal benefits to self-employed women. Again, I say, all the more reason for child care spaces for their children.

One might ask, what has the government done to ensure the economic security of women? It has cut $1 billion in social spending, including cuts to national literacy programs, cuts to summer student programs, cuts to affordable housing programs, and cuts to the Canadian volunteer program. It has not honoured the Kelowna accord and it has done away with the court challenges program. These are all initiatives that have a direct impact on women and their economic prosperity.

The Conservatives have attacked Status of Women Canada by closing 12 of its 16 regional offices, gutted the research unit, removed equality seeking from the mandate, and shut down the voice of advocacy. After much outcry from women across the country, they put more dollars in to limited programs, but they cut the ability to access these programs right across the country.

During the 2006 election campaign, the Prime Minister signed a pledge and committed that a Conservative government would honour the UN CEDAW recommendations to ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitments to women in Canada, convenient comments during an election and, I submit, yet another broken promise.

Income security for senior women is an ongoing concern. The promise of a secure future for unattached senior women is often not realized. What has the government done for unattached senior women? Not much, acknowledged by one of its own members. “They seem to be just hung out there without any recourse”, said the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul during a March 27 committee meeting this year.

There was no action, but the Liberal government took action in budget 2005. Senior women would benefit from a $2.7 billion increase over two years in the guaranteed income supplement and more money going into the new horizons for seniors programs.

The report of the committee on economic security of women is a plan for changes. I encourage the government to act on the 21 recommendations. I particularly want to highlight recommendation 21 which says:

The Committee recommends that, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, the federal government develop a national poverty reduction strategy that incorporates gender based awareness with concrete targets and goals to address poverty and Aboriginal poverty in Canada.

The government has yet to take action. There is much talk and a great deal of misinformation. Not once has the government mentioned women's equality, women's well-being, prosperity for women or pay equity in the budgets or the throne speeches.

This is clearly not a priority for the government. It is time to take action on addressing the issues that impact on the economic security for women. That is why I support the motion today and I encourage all colleagues to do so.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this last fall and summer I did some consultations with women's organizations across Canada. For some of that work I was in Winnipeg and in The Pas, in the northern part of Manitoba.

During those consultations, I met with many aboriginal, first nations and Inuit women. There were a lot of issues, but some of them had to do with the need to develop a national anti-poverty and anti-violence strategy for this country specific to aboriginal communities. Another was to provide greater access and assistance for education and training for aboriginal women and Inuit women.

I wonder if the hon. member, whom I know has a great deal of expertise in this area with respect to her own critic portfolio, could expand on those issues and any other issues that actually affect more directly first nations women and Inuit women in our country.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that aboriginal women face double barriers to prosperity. Frequently, living in a first nations community, as I indicated in my remarks, they are denied access to housing, clean water, and educational opportunities for their children and for themselves. First nations women live in conditions that many of us abhor and cannot in fact believe are present in a country such as ours.

As I indicated in my remarks, the Kelowna accord would have been a first step, and I stress a first step, toward closing that gap.

There is much that has to be done on this basis. We have to ensure that all children who want an education have access to an education. I can assure the House that a Liberal government would make that happen.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the comments by my colleague from across the floor. What surprises me is that there is emphasis on focusing in on the welfare of aboriginal women, which we as a government take very seriously.

The member focused on all of the things that the Liberal Party is now promising to do for women across the country. However, it had 13 years in which to deliver. Did the Liberals actually deliver? No.

In two subsequent elections the Liberals made child care the lynchpin of their election platform. Once they were elected, they did not deliver. They did not create one child care space in Canada.

Now, when I hear them talking about help for aboriginal women and supporting them, I have to ask my hon. Liberal colleague: why is it if she has such an interest in supporting aboriginal women does she oppose extending human rights protection to aboriginal women? Why does she and her Liberal Party, the official opposition, oppose extending matrimonial property rights to aboriginal women? This is an inconsistency. I would appreciate hearing her answer on that.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, more misinformation and more doublespeak from members opposite.

I have said this on the record in this House. I have said it in committee countless time. The Liberal Party does not oppose the repeal of section 67. We do not oppose matrimonial real property rights for aboriginal women.

What the Liberal Party does oppose is this “father knows best” attitude of members opposite, that they know how it should be done, that there is no reason to ask them how it should be done. There is no respect for collective and individual versus individual rights. There is no respect for the opinions of aboriginal communities and aboriginal leaders throughout this country.

We had many representations before the committee on this issue. Only one out of almost 30 representations supported the manner in which the government was imposing these changes on aboriginal people. That organization was a mouthpiece for those people across the way.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Laval for a final question.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

During question period, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul accused opposition members of spreading lies about Status of Women Canada and its new criteria.

Would my colleague like to confess and admit to these lies, or would she like to refute what the member for Kildonan—St. Paul said?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of my colleague's question is that a member opposite accused the opposition of telling lies about the Status of Women.

There is no misinformation coming out here. Again, I will give to the House, I will table, and I will show members the remarks of the member opposite, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, who acknowledged in committee that her government was not doing enough for senior women. She was speaking in an exchange with Canada's Association for the Fifty Plus when she said, “--unattached senior women...seem to be just hung out there without any recourse”.

I defy her to find any misinformation on the part of opposition members.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that, with your permission, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

What should we be asking ourselves this afternoon? What are we doing as a government to ensure women's economic security through pay equity? I would like to point out first of all that the government and I, as Minister of Labour, believe in fairness and equality for all women. Our government is proud of the decisive measures it has taken to improve federal pay equity. We are convinced that women in the federal public service will also applaud these measures. These workers have waited long enough for real action.

The principle of equal pay for equal work was recognized as early as 1977 and was entrenched in the Canadian Human Rights Act. In 1986, as a member of Parliament—because I was here in this House at the time—I supported the equal pay guidelines that took effect under the Conservatives. I am still a strong advocate for pay equity today.

However, it turned out to be very difficult for employers and unions to apply these principles and there was a lot of litigation over key elements in the act. In 2001, a working group was tasked with studying the pay equity plan. Its members consulted a tremendous number of employers, unions, and equity defence groups. Three years later in 2004, they submitted a lengthy report.

One year later in 2005, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women submitted its own report in which it presented a bill to implement the working group’s report. A little later, in 2006, the standing committee submitted another report on pay equity, the sixth in the series. Through the pay equity legislation that has been passed, our government is sending women in the workplace the following message: the wait is now over.

After years of discussions, studies and interminable debates, the stakeholders feel it is clear that everyone agrees on the need for pay equity. Everybody wants it. All parties have recognized that more needs to be done to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, including on the basis of sex. There was no agreement, however, on the best way to proceed. Everyone had a different view.

At the time when the working group on pay equity submitted its report, it was clear that it would be very difficult to get all the parties to move forward together on this matter. The shortcomings in the report proved insurmountable. We had to look elsewhere. We needed a solution that was flexible enough to meet all the various needs of the federal private sector. However, so much flexibility was simply unattainable. That is why a consensus could never be reached on how to proceed. Nevertheless, a lack of consensus is no excuse for inaction—I repeat: a lack of consensus is no excuse for inaction—or for the kind of senseless delays we have seen.

After looking at the experiences of other levels of government in Canada and of other governments on the international scene, we realized that a lack of consensus on how to handle pay equity seemed to be the norm rather than the exception. Some provinces, including Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, have specific legislation on pay equity. It applies, however, to their respective public sectors. Other provinces, such as British Columbia, still do not have any specific pay equity legislation.

In Europe, the pay equity initiatives are far from comprehensive. In New Zealand, there is an act requiring pay equity for women doing the same work as men, but there are no policies on pay equity for work of equal value.

Here, in Canada, our collective experience with pay equity is among the greatest and most varied in the world. This has been achieved in part because the federal and provincial governments actively consulted stakeholders, and also because at key points in our country's history, they chose to act based on the most reasonable understanding of the facts.

We listened to the interested parties and came up with a response that would make positive changes in the workplace.

The measures we are now taking to support partners of federal workplaces are threefold.

First, we are striving to improve and increase the participation of education stakeholders in order to help federally regulated employers, workers and unions understand their rights and obligations in terms of pay equity plans.

Labour program officers have already visited 250 employers to inform them of their legal obligations. A training document and tools have been developed to provide better information for employers on what they must do. The Labour program has already provided specialized training on pay equity to 23 officers, and training sessions will be given to more officers again this year.

Second, what did we do? We established specialized mediation assistance for partners in the occupational setting who wished to cooperate in order to enforce pay equity. Mediation and conciliation officers were given specialized training in pay equity and can provide specialized services to employers and unions that need them.

The chief mediator even met with business representatives and other stakeholders, and offered specialized mediation services. Furthermore, the association that represents major unionized employers—FETCO—expressed its gratitude for the assistance we were able to provide regarding addressing pay equity in the context of collective bargaining.

Third, by hiring 15 compensation specialists, we can monitor the situation more closely in order to ensure compliance with equity principles and measure the progress made towards eliminating gender-based discrimination in wages.

Lastly, when an employer refuses to take proactive measures to correct an unfair wage gap, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be notified and asked to investigate.

In closing, we have taken the proper approach to resolving the contentious issues involved in federal pay equity.

Instead of creating a situation in which women must wait and wait for new legislation to be passed, we thought, and we still believe, that we could improve the existing pay equity system.

As Minister of Labour, my role is to make decisions that offer practical solutions for everyone involved. The pay equity measures that we have established allow for flexible, concrete enforcement of pay equity principles in the workplace.

We will continue to consult the major players, particularly, employer and employee representatives, to hear their points of view on the best way to implement measures to establish pay equity.

Very recently, we met with major stakeholders such as the CLC, CSN, Canadian Bankers Association and FETCO, and other meetings with key stakeholders will be held as needed, as questions arise.

I am confident that our approach will serve to support our vision of Canada's workforce, where industrial relations are strong and durable.

Let us be clear, our government is committed to the principle of pay equity and our goal is to eliminate wage disparities based on gender, in sectors under our jurisdiction. What do the Labour Program officers do in this regard? They promote the pay equity program, they educate employers about the program requirements and about their obligations and responsibilities. To date, in less than a year, meetings have been held with 250 employers. They have been asked whether they apply pay equity principles. They have been told what the law requires of them, what they have to do, and what progress they have to make. We are educating them about this, and we are supporting them, we are helping them to implement pay equity principles.

That is what we are doing. This fall, an information product, as it is called, and a toolkit will be sent out to employers to give them more information so that they will move forward with putting pay equity principles into practice in their own companies.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the response from the government to the standing committee with respect to implementing proactive pay equity legislation does not really work. I know that the government is putting in all these new measures but the reality is that they are no different from the procedures that have been in place for a number of years.

In fact, it took the Bell employees 25 years of litigation before they got any answer on their issue. No matter which way we look at it, it is complaint based legislation. That is the major problem with it. In fact there is all kinds of litigation that goes on against the employees who dare to question and try to get their rights under the law.

This is why we need proactive pay equity legislation. It exists in Quebec and Ontario for the private sector. In fact Quebec has recently done a review which clearly shows that it is working very well. The employers themselves agree that they would not have done it had there not been legislation as strong as that. They have said that it is helping their companies in that there is better morale and better productivity in their companies.

Quite frankly, I would ask the hon. minister not to allow more time to elapse while trying things that are not going to work and one, two or three years from now we will be back here. Women in this country are paying the price. It is not fair to do this to them. Proactive legislation does not cost the government any money, but it does in fact give women the right to receive equal pay for work of equal value which they deserve.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the member fails to grasp the importance of the question of pay equity in the workplace.

We already have a law. At one point, the call was for the Wilson report to be adopted and another pay equity law to be written. The problem was not a shortage of laws, but a shortage of personnel to enforce the law. We were short of people with the political will to really do something.

At that time, the Liberal Party was in power. And it failed to do anything at all throughout its term in office. When we came to power, we looked at this question and we saw that we did not need a new law, we just needed to enforce the law already in place.

We therefore sent out our inspectors, and we do in fact have inspectors in the Labour Program for which I am responsible, to visit the companies. They go out to meet with employers and also with union representatives, to determine whether they are applying the principles of the Employment Equity Act. If they are not doing that, the inspectors inform them about the provisions of the Act and the consequences it provides for. We are proactive, so that they will move forward. That is what we are doing.

Over the last year we have visited 250 companies. We are in the process of preparing our information kit and we will be targeting companies where we think it is most important for us to step in.

I would point out that even though Quebec has its Pay Equity Act, unless I am mistaken, almost 60% of employers at present are not in full compliance with their obligations under the Act. Certainly, there has to be a law, and we have one. The problem is in enforcing it.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion put forward by my hon. colleague opposite.

To start, I want to reiterate once again the labour minister's message that we all believe fundamentally in fairness and equity for all women.

The Bilson task force on pay equity found substantial areas of agreement among business, labour and pay equity advocates on a number of key principles, so I do not propose to repeat them all here.

However, the task force was not able to achieve consensus on the issue of implementation methodology. Indeed, there are some unique dimensions to the organizations that fall under federal labour jurisdiction which make compliance with the pay equity law particularly challenging.

I intend to focus on those distinct challenges today. Then I would like to describe how my government is addressing those challenges through a proactive three-point action plan.

As hon. members know, the federal equal pay legislation currently enforced is found in section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and its equal wage guidelines. The equal pay amendment was passed in 1977 and the wage guidelines were last amended nine years later. The legislation prohibits an enterprise under federal jurisdiction from discriminating against workers in female-dominated job categories if the work is equal in value to jobs performed largely by men.

The principle behind the law is sound, logical and fair. We all want to see fairness, and yet many employers have had a lot of difficulty putting it into practice, and not without reason. These companies and others covered by the law face distinct challenges in complying with the law.

The federal labour jurisdiction includes the federal public service as well as the broad range of federal agencies and crown corporations functioning in Canada. It also encompasses private sector firms engaged in activities that span provincial borders.

Within private industry, one could say that the federal reach is small in number but significant in impact.

Almost 12,000 companies fall under federal jurisdiction, representing only about one per cent of all Canadian businesses. The majority of them are small, very small. Indeed, four of five of them employ fewer than 20 workers. In all, about 875,000 people work for federally regulated companies.

Although we are not talking about a lot of companies, we are talking about important ones. These enterprises are engaged in vital industries such as banking, telecommunications, shipping, and interprovincial trucking. Clearly, they play a pivotal role in our national economy and infrastructure.

A number of factors render these federally regulated companies different from the rest of corporate Canada and present unique challenges in addressing pay equity issues.

For one thing, only a handful of companies employ more than 100 employees, yet they employ 86% of the workers who fall under the Canada Labour Code.

Unionization tends to be high in the federal private sector, except in the banking sector. Workers are older than the Canadian average, work slightly longer hours and are paid more than the national average and, with the exception of the banking industry, women are underrepresented in all sectors.

For many of these firms, pay equity is rarely clear-cut. It is affected by multiple factors, including the size of the organization, the nature of its workforce and whether the workforce is represented by a trade union. In spite of these challenges, many companies have made significant progress in implementing the law.

In the federally regulated private sector, women appear to be gradually closing the wage gap. It is not perfect, but it is progress.

Still, some of the strongest criticisms of the current legislation relate to its complaints based nature. Some say it is too reactive.

Under the Human Rights Act, people who believe they are discriminated against are entitled to file complaints with the Human Rights Commission. Part III of the Canada Labour Code also empowers inspectors to notify the commission if they have reasonable grounds to believe that an employer is engaging or has engaged in a discriminatory practice.

My government agrees that a more proactive approach is more appropriate. That is why we have brought forward a package of measures aimed at strengthening compliance with the law. Their focus is proactive, with the aim of avoiding long, drawn-out, highly divisive legal battles like those that have plagued Bell Canada and Air Canada.

The last government studied the issue. We are taking action.

The action plan implemented by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Labour, has three key elements.

First, the labour program provides employers, employees and their representatives with more detailed and comprehensive information to advise them of their obligations under the pay equity law.

Labour officers have begun visiting employers to inform them of their pay equity responsibilities under existing federal legislation. An information document and educational materials have been developed to assist employers.

The labour program has already provided pay equity training to 23 labour officers. Further training sessions will be provided to additional labour officers throughout the year.

This helps in addressing one of the biggest complaints from companies: that they do not fully understand their responsibilities and how to meet them.

The second element of the plan sees the government's mediators and conciliators reaching out to employers and unions during contract negotiations involving pay equity issues. The labour officers have been specially trained to deliver information, feedback and guidance to both parties engaged in collective bargaining. Their services are now available to employers and unions that request them.

The final element of the plan involves compliance and monitoring to ensure that employers understand how to comply with equal pay requirements. The goal is to be proactive: to identify and correct problems before they deteriorate into a messy dispute.

The labour program is hiring 15 compensation specialists who will be providing technical support to employers.

No one will pretend that pay equity is a simple issue. It is complicated and often difficult for all parties, but that does not mean we can ignore it or walk away from our responsibility toward women who are being discriminated against. They need and deserve society's protection.

Society has acknowledged this responsibility, which is why Parliament enshrined the principle of pay equity in the Human Rights Act nearly 30 years ago. We have the law, we have explanatory guidelines, and we have many years of detailed case law to help us move forward.

We have made a lot of excellent progress and we should not think of undoing it. It makes no sense to scrap the law we have in the hopes of eventually coming up with something better.

Instead, we need to acknowledge that the organizations affected by the law could use a little help to do the right thing. We have the capacity to extend that help and we have started doing so. We can and we must continue to do so because it is the best and most responsible solution for everyone involved.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. Before I proceed to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Davenport, Air Transportation.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the hon. member is saying with respect to the procedures, processes and all of the things that have been put in. Many of these things were there before. They have been tried before.

This system has been in place for 34 or 35 years now and the reality is that when a system is complaints based, it means that the women have to complain about their employer. They have to take action. They have to go to someone in order for employers to comply.

Up until now we have seen a whole lot of litigation because the legislation is not strong enough. It does have to be more proactive. In provinces such as Ontario and Quebec, where there is proactive pay equity legislation and employers in the private sector have had to deal with this in a more aggressive manner, they have found out, as a result of the evaluations that have been done, that actually it is working better for them.

In fact, in the workplaces the morale is better. It is working very well, but the employers also admitted that they would not have done it had they not been obliged to do it in the way that the legislation basically forced them to do.

In regard to what is being put in place, it is not fair to women to put them in the position of having to fight and go to court and push and risk losing their jobs to try to get what is rightly theirs.

Quite frankly, I think we have had this debate. We have had the research. We have had two standing committees look at it. We have had two independent committees study the situation in this country and make reports to Parliament, two or three times now, and the last one was not that long ago.

Things have not really changed in this country. It is time that we actually introduced new proactive pay equity legislation and gave women the kinds of tools they need for their rights.