Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2016

Opposition Motion—Pay Equity

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. It is not that we do not support the motion. However, there are two points that we requested be amended because it is not factual information and there is work that is being undertaken. Those are the only two points that we have any issue with whatsoever.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Unfortunately, instead of providing any clarification, her speech just causes more confusion.

On the one hand, I was very pleased to hear my colleague say that pay equity for women is a basic right. On the other hand, she defended the Conservative legislation from 2009 that makes pay equity an issue covered by collective bargaining rather than a human right. That legislation bans people from taking these matters to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Would the member agree that, since this is a basic right, people should be able to bring these matters to the Canadian Human Rights Commission?

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that absolutely it is a human right. It is a human right for pay equity for any gender, any person who enters the workforce. I would suggest that this is a very important issue and that the entirety should be sent to the status of women committee, and those issues addressed through that process; and moved forward, implementing the measures that need to be implemented and enforcing what is already there.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the remarks from the member for South Surrey—White Rock and I appreciate her expressions of commitment to the issues of women's equality.

A number of times in her remarks, she referred to a commitment to equal pay for equal work. I think that as a former mayor of a major city, she would be very aware that it is different from equal pay for work of equal value. In fact, equal pay for equal work leaves a huge gap which is the equitableness of pay for women who are doing work in jobs that are not identical to the jobs men are in but that have equal value.

I would like to know whether this is a deliberate omission of a commitment to equal pay for work of equal value, which is a far more comprehensive type of equality in pay for women. Was that a deliberate omission? Is the member expressing that her party is not committed to equal pay for work of equal value, or was this omission an accident?

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be crystal clear. Absolutely in no way whatsoever have I deliberately intended not to put in equal work for equal value. I think it is broad in nature; it is everything that we should be doing and should be continuing to do.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given the interest in today's topic, many members wish to take the floor. I am therefore pleased to share my time with the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

It should be an honour and privilege to speak to a subject as important as pay equity and defend it as a fundamental right. Sadly, however, I am somewhat embarrassed and ashamed to see how many missed opportunities there have been. I hope we have it right this time and that the government will allow us all to put our words into action.

To still be talking about pay equity in Canada today, is to acknowledge that we still have not come far enough on matters of human rights. No one questions the merits of article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that all human beings are born free and equal. We can all agree that income earned from working is an important means for women to achieve that equality.

In my career as a teacher and a union representative in Quebec, I had the opportunity to take part in the implementation of the pay equity regime. It is hard for me to see that after all these years, Canada has not followed the course that is already set.

With the election of the Liberal government, there were glimmers of hope on the horizon, and a gender-balanced cabinet was probably the most concrete sign. As for the reasons behind this choice, many basic reasons could have been cited, but our Prime Minister summed up the facts and his rationale by saying that it was 2015.

Although his answer was short, I deduced that the Prime Minister was saying something like “it is obvious, it is a question we should no longer be asking”. Why then appoint women as ministers of state and give them a lower salary? I do recognize that after some public embarrassment and a little media frenzy, the situation was corrected, which was confirmed this morning by the President of the Treasury Board.

It is time we did the same for all Canadian workers so that Canada can stop lagging behind and start leading on pay equity issues, turning words into action. Unfortunately, this issue is not included in the Liberal Party's agenda, nor is it mentioned in the mandate letter for the Minister of Status of Women.

I was therefore very pleased to hear the President of the Treasury Board confirm in the House this morning that pay equity is one of his government's priorities. We are also very pleased that the Liberals are going to readjust their policies in this regard. After all, one might say, it is 2016.

What is the pay equity situation around the world and how does Canada measure up? According to the OECD, Canada ranks 30th out of 34 countries. That is nothing to brag about.

According to the World Economic Forum, Canada ranks 80th out of 145 countries. That is nothing to brag about either. Other governments have taken steps in the right direction or even solved the problem. Take Australia for example. It has a law that requires employers with 100 or more employees to report on their pay rates for men and women.

The United Kingdom is another example. Last summer, it announced its plans to force large corporations to release their reports on wage disparity. The United States also announced a plan to advance pay equity in the speech that Barack Obama made on January 29.

As I mentioned before, here in Canada, Quebec has once again shown leadership by addressing the issue in a law that was passed in 1997. We should draw on that work.

What has Canada done about this situation in the recent past? A pay equity task force was set up in 2001. It conducted extensive consultations with employers, unions and women's rights activists. The task force found the regime to be ineffective since it is entirely dependent on the employer's willingness to bring in pay equity. The report tabled by the task force in 2004 set out 113 recommendations to completely overhaul our approach to pay equity and to recognize pay equity as a fundamental right.

It has been 12 years since the task force reported its conclusions, and it is time for the new government and the entire House to stop paying lip service to this issue and restore the right to pay equity in the public service. The government must recognize that it has a responsibility to reduce income inequality between men and women, and it must take a leadership role in gradually putting an end to wage discrimination against women. We are prepared to offer the Liberal government our full support in putting an end to wage discrimination against women.

For many years, successive Conservative and Liberal governments have sometimes chosen to put their heads in the sand. The inequities we see now are a direct result of the Paul Martin government's refusal to implement the recommendations of the pay equity task force.

I remind members that women earn just 73¢ for every dollar that their male counterparts earn. This is still true today, and previous governments did nothing to make things better for women in this country. Paul Martin's Liberal government chose to ignore the task force's recommendations, even though Canada had ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which clearly states that we must ensure fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind.

The best example is probably Parliament, the assembly that we represent and belong to. We all come from very different fields where, in the market, salaries would probably differ dramatically based on each person's skills and qualifications. Here in the House, however, each member earns equal pay for equal work, the work of representing our constituents.

Instead of getting things right in 2009, the Conservative government passed the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, the purpose of which was to sabotage female public servants who were seeking pay equity. The Conservatives deprived female public servants of the right to go before the Canadian Human Rights Commission to defend their right to the same pay as men. To deter women from lodging complaints about pay inequity, the Conservatives' law forces women to lodge complaints as individuals rather than seek the support of their union. The Conservatives' orchestrated attacks date back to at least 1998, when the member for Calgary Heritage declared that pay equity laws were a rip-off for taxpayers and said that the pay equity act was ridiculous.

From 1998 until 2016, the Conservatives have remained firm in their position. Do we dare hope that the party, which now has a female leader, will show the openness required to resolve this unfair situation? I certainly hope so.

All parties in this House should endorse the notion that pay equity is a right. I must admit, I find the discussion we have been having today refreshing because, for the most part, it has indeed been a discussion and not a debate. This respects not only the spirit, but also the letter of the motion we moved this morning.

This issue has been central to the NDP's political action for some time now. Through motions and private members' bills, we have steadfastly maintained the pressure and continued the fight.

I will end here, Mr. Speaker, because time is short and you are looking at me with an impatient smile. I welcome questions, and I invite all of my colleagues to vote in favour of the NDP motion.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, in my lifetime, I have seen advancements on pay equity. In Ontario in the early 1990s, with an NDP government in Queen's Park, to give credit where credit is due, we saw very strong pay equity legislation, only to be followed immediately by a Conservative government that effectively wiped it all out.

As we contemplate pay equity and a stronger campaign to ensure that women are paid properly, fairly, and that we achieve this important goal, what provisions would the Liberals contemplate to ensure that the next government could not come along, set the clock back, and put women in a position of vulnerability once again? What provisions could be put in place to ensure the next government, if there is one, and we hope there is not, could never roll back this important achievement being discussed and debated today?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The next government will be in four years' time, so we can talk about it again at that time.

For now, it is the responsibility of this duly elected government, a Liberal government. I would even say that the motion conveys some urgency, even though it is not explicitly stated.

Quebec resolved this issue in 1997. Nearly 20 years later, the federal government still has not taken the necessary action to make pay equity between men and women a reality.

Of course, the motion we moved here today not only gives us the means to gather information and make the necessary updates, but it also allows us to provide the framework for what would eventually become our national pay equity legislation.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his excellent speech and I congratulate him.

How urgent is it to achieve gender equity in his riding? If women's purchasing power were increased through pay equity, what impact would that have on economic growth in Trois-Rivières?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his excellent question.

Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to fully convey the economic situation in my riding. In short, it is one of the poorest in Quebec.

The Liberal government's tax measures seek to put more money into people's pockets. In Quebec, the median income is $31,000, and as we know, all those who earn $45,000 or less a year will get absolutely nothing out of the measures that were adopted in December. The first thing to do is to ensure that women achieve equity with men at least where this median income is concerned so that they can have a decent income, if I can call it that, and at least enjoy much more favourable economic conditions.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a question about the issue of equal pay for work of equal value. Could the member shed some light on the question of who is in the best position of assessing the value of work? Who is best to make that determination about the value of particular work in an individual context?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

Again, if the motion is adopted and we get the ball rolling and a committee starts sitting, then we could draw from the experience of those who have advanced this issue.

I come back to the example of Quebec, which resolved the issue in 1997 and put in place a number of processes and procedures for evaluating various tasks within a workplace and compatibilities between various jobs.

We could learn from and build on concrete examples. In this case, it is not about reinventing the wheel. It is about getting the wheel moving.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured and pleased to rise in the House to discuss the NDP motion moved by my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

This extremely important motion is very representative of the values that the NDP has always held. It is a perfect example of our concern for equality, equity, solidarity and support, as part of our efforts to ensure real and continuous progress for all groups in our society.

The NDP likes to walk the talk. We have been setting the example for a long time by having policies that include action plans to improve the status of women in our society, their safety, and their social, economic, and professional advancement. We try to set an example as often as possible.

In the fall election, the NDP had the highest percentage of female candidates. In fact, 43% of our candidates were women. That means that there is greater representation of women in the caucus. In the 41st Parliament, 40% of New Democrat MPs were women. Today 41% of New Democrat MPs are women, and the percentage is even as high as 43% in Quebec. I am extremely proud of that. We must continue on that path.

When women talk about issues that affect women in Parliament, it makes it possible for female MPs, such as the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, to move a motion on pay equity, as she did today. This issue has been completely absent from parliamentary debate in recent years. Unfortunately, as a result, the situation of women in almost every age group, every industry, and every economic sector in the country has regressed during that time.

This also brings to light the problem of systemic discrimination, which has been going on for a very long time. A few minutes is not enough time to really address the historical impact of discrimination against women, but it is very real. In the political sphere, which I just talked about, this discrimination existed when it came to the right to vote.

For example, women only got the right to vote in federal elections in 1918. In Quebec, women did not have the right to vote until 1940. That is not that long ago. For years, in workplaces, professional settings, and universities, women were left out of public debate and not given access to places where political, economic, and cultural decisions were made.

I recently learned something completely shocking. For a brief time in the 19th century, women had the right to vote at the federal level if they owned property. Anyone who owned a home or other building could vote. In 1949, the Parliament of the Province of Canada decided that the definition of “property owner” included only men, so women lost their right to vote. We have come a long way, but we should still be a lot closer to equality today.

I have a simple example about workplaces. The last municipal civil service strike in Montreal was in 1967. Workers were challenging the fact that there were three categories of wages for the same job. There was a wage for married men, one for single men, and one for women. The unions fought to put an end to this type of discrimination. However, we have to continue that fight today and take it even further.

When I married my wife, I had the fortune of becoming the father of a blended family. We have two girls, aged 11 and 15. I want Parliament to ensure that when they start working and contributing to society, they will not be receiving three-quarters of the wage that their young male counterparts earn. We should keep them in mind and vote in favour of this motion, to require, once and for all, pay equity at the federal level. That would be an important step. We have fallen too far behind.

According to the World Economic Form, Canada is ranked 80th out of 145 countries in wage equality. Canada has refused to recognize pay equity as a fundamental right, and this has had consequences.

According to the OECD, Canada ranks 30th out of 34 countries. That is shameful. That is the result of inaction on the part of successive Liberal and Conservative governments. In recent years, the wage gap increased. It is even worse for aboriginal women. The NDP's motion seeks to create a committee that would examine these issues, to develop a proactive law with respect to pay equity.

Let us go back a little and talk about what could have been done and the damage caused by previous Liberal and Conservative governments, to show how far behind we are today. In 2004, a very interesting task force conducted very broad and exhaustive consultations all across the country. It met with employers, unions, women’s groups and academics. It submitted 113 recommendations for real measures to achieve pay equity. Some may think that perhaps the former Liberal government was unable to implement all of them, and that maybe 60 recommendations or so were acted on. No. There were not 60, or 25, or 10, or even 3 recommendations implemented. There was zero, nothing. Nothing happened. The report was put on a nice shelf, and once again women were told to wait. They were told that they would get their turn later.

Then the Conservative government was elected, and in 2009 it passed a law fraudulently called the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. This act is the equivalent of a chain saw massacre. It requires that 70% of workers be considered necessary in a unit or department if a profession is to be called female predominant. Seventy per cent is not a simple majority. It redefines the criteria used to determine whether positions are of equal value so as to include market forces, and that discriminates against women. However, that is not all.

This legislation makes pay equity an issue for collective bargaining only, not a human rights issue, and that has major consequences for any possible recourse. Women working in the federal public service are forced to file individual complaints only. The concept of collective recourse is ruled out and prohibited. Even in the case of individual complaints, the organizations of these female workers are prohibited from offering them assistance. If a union is caught red-handed helping a woman achieve pay equity, the Conservative law provides for a fine of up to $50,000. It also prohibits any recourse to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Those are some of the setbacks imposed by the Conservative government.

Today we have in the House an opportunity to repair what has been broken, to respect women and to continue the great march forward toward gender equality. This is why I invite all hon. members to support the NDP motion moved by my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith. I consider this an important and consequential issue. I join my colleague from Trois-Rivières in pointing out that this is something that is possible to do.

In 1997, nearly 20 years ago now, the Quebec National Assembly passed a pay equity law. This is a proactive law that, in both the public and private sectors, ensures that there are certain process obligations and results requirements to support pay equity. If a company has more than 100 employees, the legislation obliges it to have a plan for achieving pay equity. It must have a joint pay equity committee, jointly composed of management representatives and employee representatives. All of this could be set up by the parliamentary committee that the NDP wants to establish. That committee could review all of this to ensure that we finally achieve pay equity and that this fundamental right of women is finally respected in Canada.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that history and detail about this struggle.

I would like to ask a question of the hon. member because he mentioned where pay equity is in the world.

Speaking as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, it is in our mandate letter to re-energize Canadian leadership on key international issues, one of which is championing the rights of women.

I would like to ask if he would be prepared to take this fight further and to support our leadership in championing women's rights internationally.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

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

I made a comparison with what has existed in Quebec for nearly 20 years now, which we can use as a model. However that is not the only example, and we can perhaps draw inspiration from better practices that exist elsewhere in the world. Australia also has a law requiring employers with at least 100 employees to report on the pay of men and women. In the United Kingdom, David Cameron last summer announced plans to force big corporations to make reports on pay disparity public.

I am very pleased with the hon. member’s question, and I invite her to work with the NDP. We are prepared to work with the new Liberal government towards a law that is modelled on best practices in the world so as to achieve this fundamental objective of pay equity for women.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the last response from my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who was saying he wanted to work with the government. I am in complete agreement on working with the government, but we must also work with the opposition.

Looking at the composition of the parliamentary committee, we note that the Bloc Québécois is not included.

I would like to know if the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is prepared to work with the members of the Bloc Québécois.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his interest in the issues of women’s struggle and pay equity.

We in the NDP are ready to work with all parliamentarians to advance the rights of women. I am entirely ready, as are my colleagues, to receive his suggestions and good ideas so that we can create the best committee and the best law possible.

With regard to the rules concerning parliamentary committees, you know them as well as I, Mr. Speaker. Twelve members are needed to constitute a party recognized by the House. We are only applying the existing rules.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his excellent speech. It is clear to us that he knows a great deal about the issue.

With him, I would like to attempt a projection into the future. This summer, I had the chance to participate in the women’s march with him in Trois-Rivières. In his view, with a procedure in place that would take us toward pay equity, can we hope to see no further women’s marches without a resolution of the pay equity issue?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the struggle for women's rights and equality in our society is huge and complex. It should be over by now. We should be there already.

I hope that, one day, violence against women, gender discrimination, sexism, sexist advertising, and pay equity issues will be things of the past. I hope that our grandchildren will read about such things in the history books and have a good laugh about how weird their ancestors were, but that is not yet our reality. We have a lot of work to do and a lot of battles to fight.

I would like to point out to the House that pay equity problems in today's labour market affect women's capabilities and buying power, but these problems will also have repercussions down the road when women retire. Because of this issue, poverty is much more common among retired women than among retired men. We need a big-picture, long-term perspective on this problem so that we can help women who are working now and who will be retired in the future.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ottawa West—Nepean.

I stand here to support this motion by the New Democratic Party, which calls for closing the unacceptable pay gap between men and women that contributes to income inequality; to implement the 2004 task force on pay equity; and to do this starting within the public service.

This is eminently supportable, but sometimes people listening to this debate do not know what pay equity is. People may think that pay equity and employment equity are the same thing. We see today that there is an Employment Equity Act that requires that women not be discriminated against in the workplace. This came in as federal legislation about 20 years ago.

However, pay equity is very different. Pay equity is rooted in historic fact. Women worked in certain sectors as receptionists, nurses, etc. This was also known as the “pink ghetto”. They were paid less than men because they were doing women's work. That tradition has continued over the years. In Canada, women are attaining post-secondary education at a level equal to and surpassing men in terms of their abilities and their attainment. However, they are still earning 73¢ for every dollar that male counterparts earn. We need to rectify this. It is important that we do, and this motion asks us to do it which is why we support it.

Canada also has an international obligation under the United Nations and domestic obligations. Our international obligations under the United Nations are with the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 100. Our domestic obligations are with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

At the World Economic Forum, Canada is now in 19th place with regard to pay equity. The Nordic countries have surpassed us when looking at the issue of gender equity. However, that is not all. In 2001, Canada was number one in terms of all forms of gender equality. Today, we are 30th, so we have slid badly with regard to equality between men and women. In 2001, at that time under a Liberal government, the minister of labour and the minister of justice asked for a task force to report on the status of pay equity and what should be done to achieve pay equity in the future. The report came out in 2004. This is the one that the NDP is asking us to bring about and change. We are in agreement with that. However, what was wrong was that in 2009 we slid even further because the then-Conservative government removed the issue of pay equity from the Human Rights Commission and put it into the Labour Relations Board, which actually said that it was all about labour relations. It is not; it is about human rights. I want to remind everyone that in 1995, 20 years ago, at the Beijing conference, for the first time in the world, women's rights were considered to be human rights. This equality issue is about human rights and we need to deal with it right away.

One of the first things we need to do is to look at the fact that currently women in the labour force bring about $130 billion over 30 years into the GDP. However, if we implement pay equity and women are paid equal pay for work of equal value, which is what pay equity is, we would see that in the next 20 years that would go up from $130 billion to trillions of dollars. Therefore, Canada would benefit economically when women are allowed to fully participate in the economic life of this country. We make up 51% of the population. I do not know of any business, board, factory, or industry that would ignore 50% of its workforce and decide that it is ever going to make it. That is what we do when we do not talk about pay equity.

Now that we have Statistics Canada back, we might be able to look at disaggregated data to measure how many women are not being paid equally for work of equal value, to make this transparent; and to do the kind of data follow-up and evaluation that we need to track this issue. It is an issue that we must track.

The 2004 task force said that we need legislation and that legislation must be very clear. It must give clear criteria for what pay equity means. Pay equity is about similar duties and responsibilities. It is about similar qualifications, similar access to benefits, and similar rates of pay for men and women who do the same work. That is a very clear set of criteria that we would have to follow in implementing legislation.

We want to look at major wage discrimination that occurs in the workforce, not only against women, but aboriginal peoples, the disabled, visible minorities. Are they being paid equal pay for work of equal value?

We also want to make sure that we do not restrict legislation only to unionized workers but expand it to non-unionized workers.

If we are setting up legislation, we want to monitor and maintain good pay equity legislation and pay equity policies. We need to look at how all employees participate. That means that 50% of the employees who are participating in this process must be women.

We want to look at how we would follow up on complaints. There must be some kind of mechanism where people have an opportunity to follow up on complaints.

This is a matter of political will and a commitment to human rights. It is for this reason that the Liberal government supports this motion.

Michael Ignatieff, when he was the leader of the opposition, brought a similar motion to this one. It did not pass in the House, but it was calling for the implementation of the 2004 task force recommendations on pay equity. It was also a way of talking about how we, as a federal government, could play a part.

When we look at places like England, etc., there is a difference in terms of federal and provincial legislation. We cannot demand that provincial legislation and the private sector actually follow pay equity. However, if we bring in legislation and work clearly with them as partners, we can set the criteria. We could look at how we can finally give women an opportunity to play their full role in society, to improve our economic performance in Canada, and play a strong role in competitiveness in the new global marketplace.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Vancouver Centre for her very elegant and eloquent speech. She has been a strong defender of women's equality in the House. That is reflected in how she has approached this issue, and how she has approached many others.

Unfortunately, her eloquence has not always been matched in the past by the actions of the Liberal government. The President of the Treasury Board said a little while ago that we should not be talking about the past, that we should be talking about the present. That is fair enough. I would like to ask the member what the plans of the new government were to move forward on pay equity. We certainly did not see anything in the mandate letters, and we certainly did not see anything raised in the election campaign.

The President of the Treasury Board said that there were plans afoot. We brought forward the motion today, which I believe will have the support of the majority of the House. That is a very welcome step forward for pay equity and gender equality in the country; there is no doubt. However, if we had not brought it forward today, what were the plans of the new government? How did it plan to move forward?

That is my question for the member. Again, I would like to compliment the member for her speech. As always, she is very eloquent and very much on point when she speaks in the House.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his kind words.

We now agree on this issue, and we can move together on it. With respect to the idea that something is not in a mandate letter, if we put in every single thing, we would have a 24-page to 30-page mandate letter.

However, the commitment to gender equality in our government is clear. This is the first time that a prime minister has had 50% of women and 50% of men in his cabinet, and he took extra steps to make sure that occurred.

We have been committed to gender equality for a long time. Michael Ignatieff brought in a very similar motion when he was leader of the opposition, but it did not fly in the House at the time.

I agree that we do not always want to look to the past, but the commitment and the political will are here. We heard it from the President of the Treasury Board. This is something that we fully support in many ways. We need to bring forward the kind of legislation that would ensure the federal government is leading by example.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see that in the House today we have unanimous support for pay equity and plans to continue working on this important issue moving forward.

One of the things I appreciated about what the member said was that everything cannot be put into the mandate letter. In conversations I have had with the Minister of Status of Women and the member who brought the motion forward today, it is clear that pay equity is going to be part of the work of that committee. I am very much looking forward to that.

Could the member tell me what specific plans she knows of in terms of the recommendations in the 2004 report?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the 2004 report talked about legislation and what the legislation should look like. It talked about how employees need to play a strong role in ensuring that implementation occurs. It talked about a tribunal with the ability to seek some sort of review if employees felt they were not being given appropriate pay equity. It also talked about measuring, and ensuring that we continue to monitor and evaluate.

It is really about women's rights as human rights. It is about ensuring that women have every opportunity to play an equal role in the economic, political, social, and cultural life of this country. All of us in this country will be better off for it.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I am very inspired to hear the motion today. I am also inspired to hear collective support for pursuing this endeavour.

While pay equity is a critical element, is there a root cause? Is it a philosophical issue that we are addressing as to how women are viewed in our society?

Does the member think there is a link between women in leadership positions in this country and the fact that we have not achieved pay equity? We have not moved for 20 years in terms of the leadership positions that we have for women, and while this government and its cabinet have made great strides, the country lags behind.

Is there a connection between women in leadership and pay equity? What can we do to achieve balance?