Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2016

Opposition Motion--Pay Equity

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has made reference to the fact that she comes from organized labour. As someone who understands what goes on with respect to collective bargaining, I wonder if she would comment on the fact that the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act made pay equity an issue for collective bargaining, rather than deeming it a human right, and imposed a $50,000 fine on any union that supported a member in filing a pay-equity complaint.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the previous government put many barriers in front of not only women but in front of organized labour. This was a further barrier to supporting women in our public sector and supporting the right to collective bargaining in our country, making it more difficult.

Women are joining unions at the highest rate. That is because being a member of a union and having collective bargaining language is an equalizer for women. It affords them the opportunity to make a good wage with good benefits and to provide for their families in the same way that men are in our society.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I am happy to rise in the House today in support of our motion by the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, it pains me to think that we are in the year 2016 and are still calling for the government to support legislation that ensures equal pay for women.

It is fitting that we are presenting this motion on Groundhog Day, because it is the same old story. Like the movie, small details, like whether it is a Conservative or a Liberal in power, may change, but the fundamental issue remains the same. We are still living in a country where women have not achieved pay equity, where we are still calling for justice, and where we are still waiting.

Equal pay for women is so achievable. It is within our grasp, if only our elected officials in government were to actually put the issue on the table. If only the Liberal governments under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin had used their 13 years in power to implement all, and not just a small portion, of the Pay Equity Commission's recommendations. If only the member for Vancouver Centre, who was the secretary of state for the status of women in 1997, had not eliminated program funding for women's organizations, starting in the 1998-99 fiscal year, dealing them a crippling blow. If only a previous Liberal government had not cut funding for women's organizations by more than 25% over the 1990s. If only they had not disbanded the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, which conducted research on a wide range of issues affecting women. If only they had not eliminated the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, which gave organizations of women, people of colour, and people living with disabilities a small voice in training policy. If only the Liberals, under Michael Ignatieff, had not held their noses with one hand and in the next breath said to the caucus that they would unanimously support the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act, a poison pill couched in the Conservatives' omnibus Bill C-10, placing restrictions on arbitrating gender-based pay equity complaints in the federal public service.

Pay equity is a right. Canada ratified the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1976 that makes pay equity a right. Canada also ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1981, which recognizes women's right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work.

Section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act states:

It is a discriminatory practice for an employer to establish or maintain differences in wages between male and female employees employed in the same establishment who are performing work of equal value.

That makes pay equity a right. That right, just as the right to personal liberty and freedom of expression, bargained away by the Liberal support of Bill C-51 in the last Parliament, cannot be bargained away in the interests of political expediency.

Even though it is 2016, pay equity has not made it onto the agenda for real change put forward by the government. It has not surfaced as an issue for the government. Even when the opportunity presented itself, the Prime Minister, in an effort to achieve gender balance in his cabinet, assigned women the lower paid roles of junior ministers. That is not pay equity. The Liberal platform makes no reference to pay equity, and neither does the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister for the Status of Women.

If only we did not have to keep making this argument over and over again. It is Groundhog Day 2016, and I stand here with the only effective opposition in the House calling for fairness, calling for equity, calling for justice, calling for equal pay for women.

Women receive, on average, wages that are 23% lower than men for doing the same work. However, it is not just equal wages for equal work that will create equity. Economic security for women hinges on some key and simple elements, such as access to child care and access to affordable housing as well as the ability to earn a decent living.

Both Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to address the need for affordable housing in Canada. The first step toward economic security for any person is a safe place to live. Despite this, the Liberals ended the federal role in social housing in 1996. Liberal and Conservative governments alike have failed to create universal, accessible, and affordable child care in this country. The combination of these factors creates a crisis of pay inequity for Canadian women, and because pay inequity contributes to poverty, it has devastating health and social consequences for children.

Pay inequity is also related to economic dependence, which can affect a woman's ability to leave an abusive relationship. The choice between abuse and poverty is one no person should ever have to make.

It is also true that women bring home lower paycheques and because of that receive lower retirement incomes. Too often, senior women live hand-to-mouth until the end of their lives. According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the consequences of these pay inequities follow workers throughout their lives, reducing their lifetime earnings and retirement income. In Canada, 42% of elderly women are poor, and the median income of retired women is almost half that of older men.

Canada ranks 30th out of 34 OECD countries for wage equity. Even in predominantly female occupations, such as teaching, nursing, and administration, women earn less than men. The wage gap for women working full time has become worse over the past three years for which there are data. The wage gap actually gets bigger for aboriginal, racialized, and immigrant women with university degrees. Women aged 45 to 54 earn, on average, $23,600 less than men doing the same work.

Female MBA grads fare worse than men from the start. They are not only likely to start out at a lower job level, they are also offered fewer career-accelerating work experiences and fewer international postings.

If an appeal for equity based in the interest of social justice and human rights is not enough of an argument, we in the effective New Democratic opposition can appeal to plain and common fiscal sense. Quite simply put, pay equity makes for a healthier economy.

In Canada, RBC estimates that closing the gap in participation rates over the next two decades would boost GDP by 4% in 2032. The New Democrat proposal in today's motion calls upon the government to:

recognize pay equity as a right; ...implement the recommendations of the 2004 Pay Equity Task Force Report and restore the right to pay equity in the public service which was eliminated by the previous Conservative government in 2009....

Again, that was with the support of the Liberals.

The motion also calls on the government to appoint a special committee to conduct hearings on pay equity and propose proactive legislation.

In the words of Rosemary Brown, and these words ring truer than ever in this instance: “Until all of us have made it, none of us have made it”.

Achieving pay equity for Canadian women once and for all is good for everyone. We cannot afford inequity. Let us get off this Groundhog Day merry-go-round of ignorance and injustice once and for all. Let us do what is right for Canada, for women, for their families, and for the children of the future.

New Democrats want to work with the new government to do precisely that. Let us get started. Let us get started by approving this motion and making sure that this is the last Groundhog Day on which we talk about the inequity that too many women face in this country.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her review of the history and for setting out what some of the problems are for women and pay equity.

We heard from the Minister of Status of Women earlier today. She talked about our commitment to applying gender-based analysis going forward across all areas of government and all levels of government to improve the equity of women.

I was wondering if the member could comment on how the application of a gender-based analysis going forward would be of assistance in improving the status of women across our country.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a very good first step and I know that previous Liberal and Conservative governments have been aware of GBA. I also know that the report today said that too many departments are not observing GBA. It is still Groundhog Day because members of the NDP caucus and I addressed this over and over again in previous parliaments.

Yes, by all means let us get on with GBA, but I too remember the red book of 1993, 1997, 2000, and 2003, in which there were all kinds of Liberal promises. I am just a little jaded sometimes. I want to see action.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are in total agreement with the motion on pay equity.

From the NDP, we are hearing arguments on the struggle against inequality, on democracy and on fair gender representation. What fine principles.

However, the composition of the committee as presented leads to another major inequality that we find unacceptable in terms of fair representation, given that the people represented by the Bloc Québécois will not be represented on the committee.

Let us take Quebec as an example. In Quebec, the smallest opposition party has three members. Those three members have the same rights; they have funding proportional to their representation, and they sit on committees. They are therefore able to represent their constituents in a fair and equitable manner. The 16 NDP members from Quebec know this.

Will the so-called New Democratic Party live up to its name and amend its motion so as to recognize everyone’s right to fair representation?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the membership of committees is determined by the party representation in the House which is determined by the people of Canada. They determine the composition of the House and ultimately of our committees. While I understand her concern, I am absolutely confident that my colleagues from the province of Quebec will do a really remarkable job in terms of this committee work.

I would also like to say that the province of Quebec has been a real leader in regard to pay equity. It is hard work. When I was a member of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, we also did some very good work. It is hard work, but it is important work and I hope that this Parliament will see fit to pursue it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about “if only” and I think she means it in the fashion of blaming the Conservatives and perhaps even the Liberals. As I have indicated in the past, I come from the province of Manitoba where the NDP has been in power for 15 years and has not done much on the issue of pay equity. I say that to indicate clearly to the House that no political party can proclaim the high moral ground. All of us should try to get behind this issue. The government has recognized the value of the motion and supports the motion. Liberals provided a report under Paul Martin to further progress us on this issue.

Does the member not believe it is best that we work together in recognizing the inequity that exists and start to deal with it in a very tangible way? One of those ways is by acknowledging that the Government of Canada is going ahead with this committee in order to get the job done.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are all kinds of blame and it can certainly be shared. Lots of blame to go around. I recall that the member was an MLA in Manitoba. I hope that as an MLA he made representation to that government to act.

While I am glad that the government is supporting this motion, my concern is that these motions can pass the House and then be ignored. I want to see action. Words come easily. Actions are a little more difficult and it is time for action.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville. I am proud to rise in the House on today's opposition motion. To begin, as a woman and mother, I will always support an effective motion for equal pay and compensation for equal work. It is important that every Canadian entering the workplace receives equal compensation.

In 2012, the Conservative government successfully passed the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. This act affirms that women in the federal public sector should receive equal pay for work of equal value, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This act included significant objectives, including timely and efficient resolutions for compensation matters as well as accountability, definition, processes, and transparency. I am proud to say that in the last 10 years, we have seen an increase of women in the public sector. Fifty-five per cent of the federal public service are women and we have seen the gap in pay equity decrease in the public sector. Currently the pay gap between women and men aged 35 and less has lowered to 2.2%.

The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and the reform of pay equity is the only act that advances joint union-employer accountability, providing a proactive process, collective bargaining, and the right to equal pay for equal value. This is just one advancement put forward by the past Conservative government.

Our party was the first party to have a female cabinet minister as well as the first female senator, and the most current support can be seen by our very own leadership.

Studies completed in the 41st Parliament include: “Women in Skilled Trades and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Occupations”; “Promising Practices to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls”; “Economic Leadership and Prosperity of Canadian Women”; “Eating Disorders Amongst Girls and Women”; and “Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace”. We have an excellent track record.

I would support this motion with the following amendment, “That, given that the Conservative Party absolutely supports pay equity, the motion be amended to delete part (c) and part (d) in their entirety.” Part (c) accuses the Conservative Party of removing the rights of public service employees to pay equity, which is not factual, and part (d) calls for a special committee to look at the pay equity issues for women, and this committee would duplicate the work of the status of women committee.

Today, I am joined to speak on this motion by fellow Conservative members representing Sarnia—Lambton, South Surrey—White Rock, and Yorkton—Melville, great women from across this country.

Women represent nearly half of the Canadian workforce. Women make up the majority of enrolments in college programs and the number is higher among graduates. The majority of graduates from university since the early 1990s have been women.

I am proud to stand in this House as the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London. I am proud to share that at my party's nomination, four of the six candidates were women. In the 2015 election, three of the six candidates bidding to represent my riding were women.

Furthermore, in my own constituency, there are a large number of females in leadership roles including chief financial officers and chief administrative officers in many of the municipalities that I represent. Many of the successful small and large corporations in my riding are run by women, including construction companies, financial institutions, and automobile dealerships.

I come from a family with very strong-willed women in leadership roles. My sister Linda is a principal. My sister Ann is the head of a science department at a high school. My sister-in-law Lisa is in charge of logistics for a successful trucking company. My own mother ran the business side of the family farm.

Personally, I have dealt with pay equity issues. In 1989, after working two and a half years at a business in my community, it came to the attention of a co-worker and I that the male employees were being paid almost $2 more an hour. Our action was to take this issue and address it with management and the board of directors. Shortly after, this issue was ratified and equal pay for equal work was the policy.

Maybe as a young woman, I did not realize that a girl playing on an all-boys baseball team was strange. Maybe I was not aware that playing ice hockey and football in the schoolyard was not supposed to be for girls, or maybe I have always seen myself as an equal.

Women's issues are very important in this country and I believe we must focus on important issues, including violence against women and children as well as self-esteem issues. We must educate our youth to be sure that we condemn abuse to others, and we must work to instill values of equality in all people, including young girls.

We must support programs on mental health as well as local programs in our communities to improve self worth. We must work together as a society to be inclusive.

As I said so many times, I am a proud mother of two teenaged daughters. I have five nieces and one great-niece. Just yesterday, one of my daughters found out that she was accepted into a program at St. Clair College for protection, security, and investigation. My niece Britney just received a recognition as the College Hockey America player of the month, and my niece Sarah was awarded the sportswoman of the year for the Mid-American Conference for golf. At one time, these were all-male dominated fields and activities.

Last year, I was proud to be one of the speakers at the Elgin Business Resource Centre's International Women's Day event. I was surrounded by successful businesswomen, including two local business owners who were also presenting. The room was filled with successful businesswomen and entrepreneurs.

I would like to share with members a few exciting facts. Women represent nearly half the workforce in Canada. Women are senior executives, CEOs, and board members here and across this country.

Our party's view is that Canada will be far better off when the full potential of women and girls is represented in every sector of the economy and society.

The previous government launched the successful “It Starts with One—Be her Champion”, seeking 5,000 leaders to not just counsel those they mentor, but to truly champion young women.

In budget 2015, status of women was mentioned multiple times, and $700 million was invested in the Business Development Corporation. Our government also introduced changes to the Labour Code that have supported longer leaves for families. In 2012, the federal budget announced women on boards. Then again, in 2015, the first women's trade mission took place in Brazil, and our Conservative government created the women's entrepreneur forum, a national conference for women entrepreneurs.

I must reiterate that I fully support equal pay for equal work. However, portions of the motion before us duplicate an act that we already have in place, and that we already have seen provides excellent growth for women. We must continue to support women in the workplace and provide opportunities for them. However, the request for a committee consisting of 10 members, and that includes more resources, would just duplicate the work that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women already does. I am a proud member of that committee.

The mandate for the status of women committee already allows for subcommittees to focus on particular issues as well as to study policies, programs, expenditures, and legislation of departments and agencies. The motion would duplicate a committee as well as have an added expense for the taxpayers. The status of women committee under its mandate already focuses on equality, poverty of women, and violence experienced by women. I cannot support additional funds for an additional committee when one already exists.

When reviewing the motion, I will accept points (a) and (b). I believe it is important to continue to close the unacceptable gap in pay between men and women, which contributes to income inequality and discriminates against women. I do recognize that pay equity is a right. As a proud woman, I will always support equal pay for equal work. Unfortunately, the motion does nothing further for any cause for Canadians.

The Conservative Party supports pay equity for women. By introducing the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, Conservatives ensured that pay equity cases were dealt with fairly, quickly, and directly through collective bargaining. The act ensures pay equity issues are dealt with forthright instead of lingering for up to 15 years as in the previous Canadian Human Rights Commission process. That is not fair for anyone.

The motion also seeks to create a special committee of the House. There is no need for another special committee to be created. The House has a standing committee on human resources as well as the status of women committee that could certainly examine this if they wished. We need to be accountable to taxpayers, and additional funds for duplicate committees is not about spending well.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that in 2009 the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act was introduced, which might be one of the most deceiving titles for a law in Canadian history.

I would like to bring to the attention of the member comments by Margot Young, a professor of law at the University of British Columbia, who said the act “...effectively treats pay equity as if it's not a human right”.

Would the member care to comment on that?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the act was put in place in 2012, not 2009. I am not sure we are looking at the same thing, but we probably are. The act sits there as a guideline. It sits there as our legislation. It is important that we enforce this.

Even today's motion is a template for Canadians to follow. It is up to us as Canadians to make sure we are abiding by this new legislation and these new laws.

Although I am not sure of the quote that this lady has used, legislation of this sort is important. The motion on the table is important. We must close the gap on gender equality when it comes to pay.

At the same time, my concerns are with sections (c) and (d). I do not stand for the quotes that they said about the Conservative Party because there is some incorrect information there. I am also concerned, as are the taxpayers of Canada, that we spend taxpayers' money well. I do not believe setting up another committee would do that.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could tell me what she considers to be an acceptable level of difference in pay. What percentage of difference is acceptable to the member? What are some of the barriers that my colleague thinks account for those differences, and what should be done to lower those barriers? I look forward to her answers.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, equal pay for work of equal value is important. That is basically what I stated. If there is a difference, then we must look at other variables. Is the person doing the same level of work? If the answer is no, then I can understand there being a bit of a difference. However, at the same time, there must be equal pay for equal work. That is what I believe.

I recognize that at this time we do not have total equality. As I indicated, there is still a 2.2% gap for individuals under the age of 35. I recognize that. It is important that we work together as Canadians to continue to close that gap. It is not perfect, and we must work together to make sure that it does become effective. As I indicated, we have seen a decrease in the gap. We have also seen an increase in the number of federal public servants who are women.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member's point that the Conservative government is above reproach in its position on gender equity, I wonder if she could explain why in the early years of the previous prime minister's mandate the goal of achieving equality for women was removed from the mandate of Status of Women Canada.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we had a strong Status of Women Canada mandate. I cannot speak for the 2005-06 period that my colleague may be referring to, but with the leadership we had, we saw many changes. We saw this compensation act come into force in 2012, and we saw a variety of other things that we could do.

I stand here with my colleague from London—Fanshawe. It is people like her and me, who within our constituencies can mentor young women. We are sitting here as examples of what Canadian women can be and what we can obtain. I am proud for doing that.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today to speak to the importance of pay equity, equal pay for work of equal value, for women in the Canadian workforce. All Canadians need to know that when they enter the workforce they will receive equal compensation.

This is very important to me personally. This was an issue in my own life. As a young university student in the seventies I was working at a summer job where the men were doing the same work as I was and yet were being paid a higher wage. The issue was approached, was addressed, and I received a much appreciated bonus cheque after returning to my studies.

Therefore, on a personal level, I appreciate how important it is that we have pay equity. It is important to me personally, and to the Conservative Party, as has been said over and over again today. The Conservative Party has always been deeply invested in improving the financial success of women in whatever venture or occupation they choose.

I take great pride in the fact that the first female cabinet minister and the first female senator were Conservatives. Another exceptional example to young women seeking job equity is Janice Charette, the former clerk of the Privy Council, who did much of the heavy lifting on the Liberals' transition into power before being replaced by the current government.

One of our three pillars for the Status of Women Canada mandate while in government was to advance equality for women by increasing women's economic security and prosperity.Through the economic action plan of 2015, our Conservative government affirmed our unwavering support for work and pay equity for women, in a multiplicity of ways.

As it was 2015, I am thankful that the Minister of Status of Women indicated today that the Liberals will continue to build on successful initiatives. She has much to choose from here.

We amended the Canada Business Corporations Act to promote gender diversity among public companies, and in just one and a half years, we saw female participation in private sector boards increase from 12% to 20%. We created online platforms to foster networking among women, and introduced the “It Starts With One” campaign to ensure mentorship and the championing of women. We provided the first women's trade mission, in May 2015, to Brazil. We committed $700 million over three years to finance women-owned businesses, and enhanced support for small and medium-sized businesses. We provided $14 million over two years to Futurpreneur Canada in support of young entrepreneurs, many of whom we hear are young women.

We provided $37 million annually to extend the 2014 employment insurance compassionate care benefits from six weeks to six months, which would allow caregivers, often women, who are away from work temporarily, to care for family members who are gravely ill. We have to appreciate that women are extremely complicated and we have a lot of hats to wear. It is important that we value all of those roles equally. Part of that is taking care of people we love, those who are older in our family, our spouses, and our children.

Since 2007, more than $18 million was approved through Status of Women Canada for projects that support women in skilled trades and technical professions. There were 45 projects that promote women in skilled trades, including mining, construction, shipbuilding, energy, manufacturing, and agriculture. I can tell members that in my riding, where the mining and agriculture sectors are very strong, women are everywhere, in every role, in those areas.

I fully support (a) and (b) in the NDP's motion today. However item (c) is completely incorrect when it says “pay equity...was eliminated by the previous Conservative government in 2009”. In reality, in 2009 the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act came into place. The act was designed to see issues of equal pay for men and women in the public service dealt with through collective bargaining between union and employer. Complaints are referred to the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

The process we instituted leads to speedier resolution of disputes, some of which dragged on in previous processes for years and years. For example, the Treasury Board testified in front of the Senate Committee on Human Rights that most complaints took at least six years to resolve, while one case took 15 years. It also stated that the Canadian Human Rights Commission found that pay equity cases represented less than 8% of all cases but absorbed one half of the commission's total spending on legal fees.

Also, in section (d), the motion seeks to create a special committee of the House when we have vehicles in place, also through the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, to champion these concerns.

I cannot tell members how much I want to vote in favour of this motion. However, I feel that intentional roadblocks were included.

A member for the Liberal Party to my right mentioned today that there are inflammatory statements in here that are not crucial to this motion, that are causing angst on this side of the floor and not enabling us to support something that we clearly do support. I am very frustrated by that. It prevents me from being able to support clauses (a) and (b) in this motion in the way that I very much want to as a woman in this House who has worked very hard to get here.

The responsibility of government is to ensure a fair environment, in which women have the freedom to make their own choices as to where and when they want to work and have a family, career, and profession. This includes recognizing pay equity as a right and ensuring equal opportunity for employment and service.

With the right environment for choice and opportunity, women have a very unique part to play and much to contribute to our society, our culture, our communities, and our economic prosperity as a country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to hear this astonishing change in tone from the Conservative bench. Clearly voters have sent a different brand of Conservative to the House. I appreciate very much the strong statements of support for pay equity. I too would like to see the members all support this motion unanimously.

Let me say a couple of things to try to help them get there.

The first point is that we have not had pay equity in legislation for Canada in all this time, so we need section (c), which is implementing the recommendations of the pay equity task force report. If we do not vote in favour of that, nothing happens. We have to move there.

I appreciate that some members are saying they do not agree that they took away the right to pay equity in the public service. They are going to have more members on the committee than the NDP will, and they can argue that point and make that recommendation to Parliament.

The third point is that using the status of women committee over all these decades, with all this great work, did not get the job done. We need a single focus, a specific mandate, a one-track focus for this committee so we can get this done well.

My question for the member is that with those, I hope, persuasive reassurances, is it possible for the members to my right to support the motion and finally close the wage gap for women in Canada?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are on the same page, even with clause (c), until we come to the part where the member chooses to be derogatory in her motion, her statement, toward the Conservative Party. We have done many good things.

The minister on the other side of the House has said that where good things have happened they do not want to rewrite the rule book; they want to work and build on it. I have heard from all over the House that people want to work together.

I heard from over here that it is time. It is time.

Yet, this motion has been put forward in a way that causes issues for the Conservatives you want to work with.

That is my issue. I feel the wording was put into the motion in an inflammatory way and was not necessary.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her presentation about gender equity and parity. I particularly like the part where she suggested that we value all of our roles as women. In my own experience, as someone who practised law for a number years and then chose to raise my family for a few years, I understand all of those roles.

My question for my friend, as a woman who has worked hard to get here, is whether she has any ideas, having reviewed the history in this House about how we have worked toward gender parity and equity, on how we can increase female participation in the House, given that we are only 26%.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I think a large part of that comes with what I have heard in the House today as we have debated this.

We have heard about how things have been improving. I think we need to continue to build on that and encourage women to participate here. This is not something that I saw doing at a young age because my priorities were different.

I want to say to young women all over our country that you can do it all, but you do not have to do it all at once. There is this amazing stage of life that I am in, and I have a lot to contribute. I think there are a lot of things that we as women can do. However, quite honestly, the men around me are very supportive as well in continuing to see things improve in our country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, just as a reminder for all hon. members that from time to time members are finding it easy to slip into the second person form of speech in the House, addressing other members as “you” and so on. I have a couple of tips perhaps for hon. members. They are not just for new members, without pointing anyone out, but this is just the style of speech we use in the House.

First, members should address the Speaker in the course of their comments, even when posing a question. It is fine to pivot to members opposite from time to time, but generally speaking, they are to address the Chair in the course of their remarks. That way members are not necessarily looking at the other members to whom their comments might be directed.

Second, if members find themselves using the word “you” in the course of their commentary, this is a first sign that perhaps they are slipping into that mode and they should come back and start referring to other hon. members as “other members” or “he”, “she”, “they” and so on.

Those are just some tips.

Resume debate, the hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

Today we are speaking on the important issue of pay equity. I am proud to stand in the House to speak in support of the motion. I would be remiss though if I did not take this opportunity to mention the woman who pushed me toward considering politics.

In 2005, I received a phone call from Fran Jones while working for Homalco First Nation. Fran, a women of great integrity and dedication, wanted to discuss how to increase opportunities for aboriginal youth to work in our community.

For the following years, I had the honour of calling Fran a friend. She encouraged me to think about politics. She brought me multiple articles about women in politics and why it was so necessary for women to take their space. She knew that women had to take up space to create a better country. Fran left us not too long ago. If it were not for her, I would not have even thought to put my name forward when asked to run in 2014. It is women like her who make the world a better place and she is sorely missed.

Across my riding women are working hard. They are leaders in their workplaces, their communities, and in their families. Yet it is still largely the work of women that is undervalued. In fact, in Canada, women working full-time are making only 77% of what men make. Even in occupations with high levels of women, for example, nurses, teachers, and administrative workers, women often still earn less than their male counterparts.

Today, I stand in the House to encourage all members to stand with us to bring forward this change. It is time for Canada to be a leader in pay equity rather than to continue to see our country move down the list. We are now ranked by the World Economic Forum as 80th out of 145 countries when it comes to pay equity.

Pay equity is important as it means that jobs must be evaluated on their skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. Too long have job titles been used to pay women less in many sectors. I know that in my travels across the riding I am consistently talking to women around striving toward leadership positions and politics.

In fact, after the October 19 election, I was interviewed by a local paper about being a woman elected to a Parliament with 88 female members, a movement in the right direction. At 88, we are almost at one-third of the members of Parliament. One of my favourite sayings has always been “to regain balance you must move from one extreme to another”. I look forward to a day when the House is full of women.

I am also proud to come from a party that does the important work of making space for this change. By committing to increasing women to 50% of our representation, we must take active steps in making this a reality. It is the only way that people must reflect on what the barriers are that are preventing women from taking this much needed step.

During this interview, we also contemplated the question of why women still did not make up larger numbers in roles of power. We must encourage women to step forward and encourage one another in these roles. I am proud to be one of the 88 women parliamentarians, but we still have much work to do.

We also talked about the fact that my granny could not vote until 1960, when aboriginal people were finally given the right. It is with great pride that I stand here in her memory. The fact that I am even in the House, that I am in this role, would not have been part of her vision for me. This is what oppression does. It narrows the vision for people. I am proud that it will be a vision for my granddaughter.

This is why pay equity is more important than we can comprehend. Valuing work, valuing women widens the vision for women and for all Canadians. Pay equity is often seen as a woman's issue. This is a societal issue. Until we value people for the work they do in a fair way, it says much about our society and about our country. It also means less opportunity.

Multiple research efforts have been focused on diversity and its positive impacts on business and innovation. Diversity means a focus on multiple stakeholders and potential markets. This only builds competitiveness and creativity. Pay equity will assist with building a better Canada.

The motion put forward today is also based on the hard-working women in labour. In the 1950s and 1960s, these women fought hard for pay equity. Standing next to their male counterparts, they knew they were doing the same jobs and receiving less pay. This fight built a stronger framework and today women in unions are paid, on average, over $6 more than women who are not.

In May of 2015, a report called “Women as a Catalyst for Economic Growth” was released. This report showed that Canadian working women were making $8,000 less than men doing an equivalent job. This gap is double the global average of $4,000. This report confirmed that although women comprised nearly half the Canadian labour force, they made up just 5.4% of Canadian CEOs.

There is much work to be done. As I knocked on many doors in my riding, I heard the story repeatedly of women who had given up their work because child care was too expensive. They simply were not making enough. These women were worried and shared their concerns about retirement, about building their careers, and about being examples to their children. Pay equity is key in this discussion, because women are retiring with less, not because they did not work hard enough but because they were not paid fairly.

I have met many senior women in my riding who live in poverty. They have worked all of their lives. Because they were paid less, often for the same work, they had less opportunity and were challenged to support themselves as they aged. This is simply not fair.

In 2009, the right to pay equity in the public service was eliminated by the Conservatives, while the then Liberal leader held his nose and voted with them. This must be restored. The public service should be a leader across Canada, not contributing to the issue and discrimination of pay equity. Pay equity is a human right, not an issue to be negotiated during collective bargaining.

The motion before the House today calls on the government to: first, recognize that pay equity is a right; second, finally implement the recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force report; third, restore the right to pay equity in public service; and, fourth, appoint a special committee to conduct hearings on pay equity and propose proactive pay equity legislation.

Today, in the year 2016, it is time for the federal government to take action. It is time to finally stand up for all the people of Canada and say that this issue is important and that it is time to get it right.

Yesterday, many members of my riding were sending me reminders that the lunar new year was only days away. It is time to clean one's home and prepare for family celebration of the new year. Today, I hope we will clean this important House of Canada by supporting a motion that will benefit everyone.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has been wonderful to hear all of the speakers today. There is great support in the House for gender parity and the pay equity issue in the motion before us.

I have heard some concerns from my friends across the aisle in the Conservative opposition about some of the wording in what I believe is paragraph (c). Would my friend consider, because it might be stronger to have the entire House stand as a whole in support of this motion, putting forward an amendment so the offending provision might be removed? Perhaps we could then have the support of the Conservative opposition.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, my response to that is simply the fact that we need to have a focused discussion. A committee needs to deal with this issue and the members of that committee can discuss how that detail is going to play out.

The reality is that women are worth it, young children are worth it, and young girls are worth it. We need to ensure we have pay equity moving into the future and that it is in legislation. I hope today everyone will stand and vote for it, because women are worth it.