Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2016

Opposition Motion--Pay Equity

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was glad to hear the member mention in his speech the bill introduced by Conservatives in 2009. I was a little surprised to hear how critical he was of it, seeing as the Liberals voted for the bill to implement the changes that he himself just condemned in his speech.

Can the member explain why the Liberals voted for the bill, which was a budget bill, if I remember correctly? Was it a political move to avoid triggering an election?

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

Madam Speaker, when I was a member of Parliament in the previous Parliament, I remember a motion similar to the one the NDP is talking about today. It was Bill C-471, introduced by the then leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff.

It has always been the intent of the Liberal Party to bring equality for women.

Look at the charter. I am very proud to stand here today. The Right Hon. Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to enshrine equality, to enshrine individual rights, in our Constitution. I am very proud of the history of the Liberal Party. I am very proud of its present leadership. The Prime Minister brought in equality, with an equal number of female and male ministers in his cabinet, and equal pay for them all.

I am very proud of our record and will remain proud.

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

Madam Speaker, I was quite interested in the remarks from the member opposite. He seems to have been acknowledging the nature of the 2009 Conservative bill, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, as very problematic, as unacceptable. Yet, he seems, like others in the Conservative benches, determined to ignore the fact that there is a history behind the lack of pay equity in this legislature.

Also, I must say that we hear on both sides an excuse to not support this motion because section (c) is just not acceptable and they would like to have a unanimous response to it.

My question is, if they truly believe in the social and economic justice of the motion, why are they balking?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not balking. I am strongly supporting this motion that was brought forward by the NDP.

I mentioned the 2009 legislation. I had a problem with that legislation because it does not accept pay equity as a human right. It should be a human right. That is why I am standing here today to support the NDP motion that has been brought forward.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was concerned at times that in the member's speech he appeared to leave an impression the previous government did not hold the same ideals that I think all members of this House hold, in terms of equality of opportunity.

He may have missed the speech from his colleague, the minister, earlier today, where she recounted a number of exceptional programs that her department has been running and facilitating, working with a lot of partnership organizations across the country in recent years, that were all creations of the previous government.

Would it not be fair to say, if his minister is highlighting the exceptional work done by some of these programs to get women on corporate boards, get women into diverse trades and opportunities, that the last government did indeed do a lot on this very important topic?

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

Madam Speaker, as I said, today I heard very encouraging remarks from the Conservative benches, contrary to what I have heard in the past 10 years.

I also mentioned earlier that the previous Conservative government removed the word “equality” from the mandate of the Minister of Status of Women . That is the history. I spoke about it.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is my first speech in the House and I want to thank Hamilton Mountain residents for their support, as it is a privilege and honour to be here.

I would like to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for taking leadership on this important motion. I am disappointed that I am standing here, in my first speech, talking about this issue. We are in the year 2016 and we are still talking about equality for women. It is really very disappointing, because it is something that should have been done years ago.

I am a former member of the United Steelworkers, president of Local 5328. Having participated in collective bargaining throughout my life, I know that there used to be what was called a CWS, a co-operative wage study, to ensure that all wages were the same for equal work. It did not matter whether the worker were a man or a woman, the person was going to get paid a specified rate for that type of work. That was implemented back in 1956 and here we are in the year 2016 having trouble with the federal government trying to implement the same change.

We all heard many other speakers today go through the statistics of what was done. I heard some Conservative MPs state that they are hurt because of what was done in 2009 and they feel it is an embarrassment, but it is the truth.

Canada ratified the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1976, which ensures “Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with: (i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind...”. In 1981, Canada also ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which recognizes “The 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...”.

Then I found out that in 2009 a new act was implemented. The Conservatives passed the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. Women were forced to file individual complaints rather than allowing a union to support them. I do not see that being applied anywhere in the 1981 or 1976 ratifications. The unions were making pay equity an issue for collective bargaining. I have a hard time understanding that when there is nothing in 1976 and the 1981 ratifications that they agreed to. What happens if there is no union?

Madam Speaker, I neglected to let you know that I will be splitting my time with the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski. I should have said that earlier.

What happens if the public sector does not have a union? Do we just throw it out and say it is the workers' right and they should file a complaint. Why should they have to file a complaint? It should be the law. It is a right, not a gift. It is shameful that we have to go through this.

There is a positive side to it. I have heard that the Liberals would like to support this motion. I also heard that the Conservatives would like to support it if some language is taken out, but I am not sure why. If they are going to support it, they should support it for good reasons and not say it is because their nose was hurt.

In 2000, the task force was set up and everything was implemented, and then in 2004 there were 113 recommendations made. The former Liberal government at that time did not implement all of them. It is nice for Liberals to say that they will support this motion, and I am glad they will, but it is also important that they implement the task force recommendations.

I have three daughters who have all gone through university. Therefore, it would be an injustice to them if they went to get jobs in the federal government and found out that because they were girls they may not be paid the same amount in wages as the men doing the same jobs.

I also have a granddaughter and grandson, and my message to the House is this. What kind of message are we sending to our children if we teach them to be fair to everybody in our country and then they find out that while fairness has gone a long way, but if they are woman, they may be treated differently from men when it comes being paid for the same type of work? That is not the Canada I want and I do not want to raise my children that way.

Also, this is discriminatory under the Canadian Human Rights Act, so why are we arguing it? Section 11 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.

Under the Human Rights Act, we cannot pay women a different wage for the same type of work. Imagine if we paid female MPs less than male MPs. There would be an outcry.

Women should not have to file complaints, because the law should be the law. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec have this, and I believe most of the other provinces will come along if we adopt this motion.

It is 2016, so why has this not been done? It looks like the majority members will support the motion, but that is just for the task force or to get this started. However, we have to implement it. We have to stop this injustice.

Therefore, I ask the House and all of its parties to unanimously endorse this motion without any hesitation. We must move on. We have other things to do.

It is not that this is happens all across Canada. Some companies are very good and already pay equitably, but some do not. Why? This is the question we have to ask ourselves. I hope the motion passes unanimously.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain on his “in the union movement”, particularly as it relates to the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.

What are the member's thoughts relating to this legislation, which was passed by the Conservative government? It prohibits unions from filing pay equity complaints. Why is this particularly offensive to unions?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I found it unbelievable when I read about imposing a $50,000 fine for any union that supported members in filing a pay equity complaint. People who are unionized are there to represent employees. If they fail to do that, they can be charged under the act, and that is called “misrepresentation”. We have a job to do. However, to do what the last government did, I imagine it would have to go court. It is unbelievable.

I know from my own experience that if a person came to me with a grievance, I would look at it and ensure I had all of the facts. I just could not say that I could not do it because the company did not want me to. I had to go forward with it. If I did not, I could be charged under the Ontario government's labour laws.

I am not sure if that has any relevance to the member's question, but it is an insult to any union or people who pay union dues to have a union represent them, and then have legislation say that it cannot. It is wrong.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his inspiring speech. I too want to ask a question regarding his union background and about his riding in particular. I would love to hear some of the positive impacts he has observed with pay equity, having experienced that in his work environment in the past. If we could hear some of the pros, I think it would be beneficial at this point in the day.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, Hamilton is a steel city town. It is the hammer town. We are very well unionized there. We treat people in Hamilton the same as everyone else. When people have jobs, if they are doing the same type of work, they get the same pay.

We have to remember, back in the old days, I guess in my father's time, or even prior to that, people were paid differently, because families felt that the man was the breadwinner.

Times have changed, and the man is not the breadwinner anymore. There are a lot of women out there who are the breadwinners. Some are not married. Does that mean that they have to have less pay? Maybe something drastic has happened. They lose a spouse and there is nothing for them. They have to go out and get a job. Does that mean they have to have less support? They go to work to make a living, just like I do. They pay the same amount of money for bread and butter, and they want to do it.

It has been great in Hamilton. The people in Hamilton are treated fairly.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his passionate support of the beautiful women in his family.

I would like to ask him about April 17. Does he know that it is the day on which women finally catch up to their male counterparts? Men receive salaries from January to December, but it takes women until the following April to make up for lost wages.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I did not hear the full question. I am sorry.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time is up. I am sure that the member can ask the question during the next round of debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to stand in this House in support of our opposition day motion. I want to thank my colleague, the member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, for putting this NDP motion forward. It is something that is fundamental to our party, to our movement.

As New Democrats, one of the key tenets of our party is the pursuit of and struggle for equality. There is perhaps no more clear example of the need for work on our behalf than the existing and persistent gender inequality that exists in our country today. Of course, a clear example of that is the wage gap, what is known as pay inequity. There is a need to pursue pay equity.

I am very proud that today we put forward, as the progressive opposition, a motion that seeks to close that gap. It makes the very clear statement that the federal government has not just a role but a duty to play a leadership role on this front.

Our motion today calls on the government to recognize pay equity as a right; to finally implement the recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force report; to restore the right to pay equity in the public service, which was eliminated by the Conservatives in 2009, with the support of the Liberals I might add; and to appoint a special committee to conduct hearings on pay equity and propose proactive pay equity legislation.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

That sounds good to me.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, it does sound good, and it sounds like something that should never have been repealed, as was done by the Conservatives previously. It certainly is a motion that many of us are saying is high time for us to act on.

Why are we having this debate right now? Canada is one of the worst countries in the developed world when it comes to pay equity. The World Economic Forum ranks us as 80 out of 145 countries, something that most people in Canada would find shocking. We know that it contributes to income inequality, and of course it discriminates against women. It is time for real tangible progress. We believe that in 2016 it is more than time for the federal government to take action to recognize pay equity as a right. That is why we are tabling this motion in the House today.

We are certainly glad to see the support that Liberal members have shown so far. It is unfortunate that Conservative members of this House are not seeing a change of direction on this front as well, like others they have seen in recent weeks, to be able to support this motion in its entirety.

However, I do want to note that unfortunately the Liberal support for pay equity has not always been there. I was in the House when the omnibus bill was put forward that included a repeal of pay equity legislation. Of course, we fought vehemently against that bill. Unfortunately, the Liberals voted in favour of it. When asked about the changes, former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said we have made it clear that we are not pursuing an amendment strategy but sometimes we have to hold our nose. While we certainly appreciate the sentiment of support today, we recognize that a few short years ago not only was there no support, but a comment that was quite dismissive of the importance of pay equity legislation by the Liberal leader.

Today the majority of the House is acknowledging that the NDP motion is the way to go, that striking a committee is critical, and that recognizing pay equity as a right is fundamental. That is extremely important. It is a key piece in what should be our approach as a country in addressing income inequality. Income inequality, as we know, is increasing in Canada by leaps and bounds. In fact, starting from the mid-nineties, income inequality has increased significantly in our country, again under Liberal governments, and it continued under Conservative governments. We find ourselves in a situation today where there is an increase in the gap between those who have and everybody else. None of this is by accident.

I know we have heard many speeches today about the importance of pay equity. However, I want to talk more broadly about the agenda of the federal government over the last number of years that has actually set women further back. If we go back to the nineties and look at some of the decisions made by the Liberal government at the time, we know that there were some important systemic changes made at that time that set women back.

First, there were cuts to women's advocacy so that women's organizations no longer had the ability or the resources to be able to advocate. We know that there were cuts to social transfers with respect to health and education that affected sectors that women are both employed in and benefit from a great deal, as they are often the primary caregivers. We know that there were commitments to a national child care program that never materialized, except in some of our regions, which came at the eleventh hour and thus too late for most Canadian women. We also know there were cuts to employment insurance and other critical social programs made at that time, programs that in many cases have helped support women and men when they fall on hard times. We also know that particular sectors of women paid an especially high price when these cuts started coming down.

As a feminist, I am proud to be part of a feminist party and realize that it is important to apply an intersectional lens and recognize that in many cases these cuts deeply affected indigenous women. For example, I think of the particular cuts to education and other social transfers to indigenous communities that disproportionately affected indigenous women, the poorest women in our country.

We know that racialized women, disabled women, and immigrant women have paid the price. Generally, we started seeing that women in our country were starting to lose more and more ground, despite the gains that had been made in the couple of decades prior. I do not think I am surprising anyone in this House when I say it is important to note that this occurred under Liberal governments and the decisions that could now be called austerity that led to a regression of the gains made by women in the decades prior.

That was followed by a Conservative era in which many of us have said there was an open war on women's equality, whether it was the attack on a woman's right to choose, whether it was the failure to support an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women, or whether it was the ongoing culture of fear vis-à-vis advocacy organizations and research service-oriented organizations that predominantly focused on women. There is no question that over the last nine years Canadian women have lost significant ground.

The question is this. Where are we today? This motion is an important step forward. However, there is a lot more that needs to be done.

I want to acknowledge that there has been some positive use of language, such as the use of the word “feminist”, and a commitment to gender balance in the cabinet. However, the reality is that Canadian women are seeing the need for immediate action to address the gap they are facing, not only in terms of wages but more broadly in terms of the standard of living, in terms of opportunity, and the understanding that in a country like Canada, in the year 2016, we should be moving forward not just on behalf of some women but on behalf of all women.

This motion today is a step forward in that direction, and I certainly look forward to working with my colleagues in the NDP to continue to drive a feminist agenda, not just for Parliament but more importantly for Canadian women.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to give the member a reality check. It goes far beyond the New Democrats in the House of Commons of those who support pay equity. The NDP does a disservice when it tries to portray itself as the only party that cares about this issue. Those members often make reference to the 2009 vote that took place. The member needs to realize that the 2004 task force was a Liberal task force. Many of the recommendations were not implemented because the Liberal government fell when the NDP voted against the Liberals when they attempted to bring in child care from coast to coast to coast.

Some of the most serious problems with respect to pay equity are in our home province of Manitoba where the NDP has governed for over 15 years. There is a lot of room for improvement, even among the New Democrats.

We have an opportunity here. The Prime Minister and our government have said that we see this as a positive step forward. We support the motion.

Does the member believe that it is in Parliament's best interests to have unanimous support, if possible, so we can get this issue dealt with in a more apolitical fashion.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, unlike the member across, I had the honour of being in the House when the omnibus bill was voted on, so I do not need to take any advice from anybody as to what happened at that time. I read the then Liberal leader's words into the record. What was clear was the dismissive attitude toward pay equity for women. Any attempt to rewrite that history would be a futile one.

As we look forward, we welcome the support of the Liberals for the motion.

Our message today is that this is only the beginning. Canadians, Canadian women in particular, are hopeful that beyond some of the change in language that action will be taken to make equality a reality for women.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for her tireless work on this issue.

I am always a little surprised by the comments from my colleagues across the way as they try to rewrite history. My colleague from Winnipeg North really likes to talk about the non-partisan and unanimous things we should do, but his statements used to be somewhat more partisan.

If we do not take steps immediately, and if this problem is not resolved in the next few years, what impact does my colleague think income inequality could have on our economy and our society?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his important question. He is quite right. Pay equity for women would have positive effects on the economy in general, if only because women would get the pay they deserve.

In western Canada, near my home, there have been many job losses, especially in sectors dominated by men. Thus, families there are relying heavily on the salaries of women, which are much lower just because they are women. If women were treated fairly, all families would fare better in the current economic situation.

It also goes without saying that women would make a huge contribution to the economy if they had pay equity. Gender equality is important, but this issue has an economic aspect. That is why we must take action.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this particular issue today. It is especially nice to see you in the chair, someone with whom I spent many hours at airports having discussions on a variety of issues, and this is a good chance to get to know each other.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to a very important motion put forward by one of the hon. members on the opposite side of the House urging the federal government to tackle the wage gap between men and women in Canada. My colleague spoke a moment ago about how important that issue is to her in particular. In work that the two of us have done on the Status of Women committee in a previous Parliament, these issues about balancing this House were raised many times.

This issue, which is so fundamental to human justice and fairness, clearly merits the attention of a government that came to power on the promise of building a better country. That promise has excited all of us here and all of us as Canadians. It is to advance a better, more fair country for everyone, not just one side. That means visible minorities, it means women, and it means all Canadians.

The fact is that Canadian women have fought too long and too hard for equality with men in every respect to be denied pay equity in the year 2016.

Consider the milestones that have been achieved in the struggle for women's rights since Confederation. In 1872, for example, the Ontario legislature passed the Married Women's Property Act. This act gave a married woman the right to her own wage earnings, free from her husband's control, something we would be absolutely astonished by in 2016, but in those days, it was perfectly acceptable.

Then in 1909, the Canadian suffrage organization, the Women's Christian Temperance Union, and many others organized a delegation of over 1,000 people to the Ontario legislature on March 14. A petition of 100,000 names of people supporting suffrage was presented.

Then in 1971, amendments were made to the Canadian Labour Code that also included a prohibition against discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status, the provision of 17 weeks of maternity leave, and a strong reinforcement of the principle of equal pay for equal work. It sounds so simple: equal pay for equal work. We would hope that equal pay and equal respect would be there.

The people who stood up for women's rights and fought for these victories, were they not fighting for human dignity and basic human rights at the same time? I think they were.

Last week in the House we talked about the Manitoba legislature and the things that were done there to advance women's rights. Today we have a chance here in the House, with unanimous consent, to pass a bill that I think we all believe in, that we all would like to see happen. We can only hope to get unanimous consent to move it forward faster so that we can start trying to get this to happen. Clearly that fight is not over. We must continue their cause in this century and push for pay equity across this great land of ours.

We know that the situation concerning pay equity in the federal public service needs reform. We have known that for many years. Unfortunately, the previous government did not believe it and did not move it forward. The Liberals have always believed in this.

Canada's federal public service has the proud reputation of serving Canadians with excellence, and we have to extend that tradition of excellence by working diligently to move toward pay equity.

Federal employees work in more than 200 federal organizations in dozens of different occupations. Many of those occupations are occupations that women would not normally be working in, but they certainly are every bit as capable as any man of doing them. It was often their choice to choose a different career path, for many other reasons, but now, from border guards to food inspectors, from public health specialists to diplomats, we are seeing women doing the same jobs as men, every bit as good, sometimes better, as any other person is doing them. They deserve to be recognized and given the pay equal to that and the level of respect for that.

As a result, the public service of Canada attracts men and women with competitive salaries and a full range of family-friendly benefits, something that I think we should be talking about more in this House, about how we can make this environment of ours friendly to families.

On all sides of the House, we have many younger members who have small children, who are trying to balance all the things that life puts in front of them. It is very difficult. If we can build on the pay equity, and the good feeling in the House today on this particular motion, we could actually put it into motion in other areas, like making this place much friendly to families.

The federal public service has also made strides toward greater gender balance, especially within the senior ranks with many more women being deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers. Our federal public service also reflects the diversity of our great country. In the federal public service, women, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, and members of visible minority groups are fully represented in the core federal public service, and have been for some time.

In fact, all four employment equity groups that I just mentioned, women, visible minorities, indigenous peoples, and persons with disabilities, continue to exceed workforce availability. Today, in the federal public service, women and men have equal access to all positions and identical wages within the same groups and levels. I think that sets a very good example for the rest of the country and for the rest of the world.

However, we cannot grow complacent, because the situation, as we all know, is still very far from perfect. The wage gap still exists in Canada, even in the public service, where women still earn about 10% less on average for work of equal value. We cannot be content with the situation today, and we cannot point to progress in the past in a way that absolves us of the hard work that remains to be done.

The work will not be finished until pay equity is a reality across our land. We understand that Canada is stronger and our government is better when decision-makers reflect Canada's diversity. We also understand that in 2016, women expect to be full participants in the economic, social, and democratic life of Canada.

That is why one of the first actions of our Prime Minister was to appoint an equal number of men and women to his cabinet, and why this cabinet will ensure that there is pay equity in the cabinet and elsewhere.

This government will work to ensure that the struggle for justice and fairness in whatever form it takes in Canada in 2016 will not be rolled back. It was far too hard to get it to where it is today, and we are looking forward to advancing it, not having it go back.

I can see that I have run out of time and that you, Madam Speaker, are giving me the signal.

I do hope that we get this passed very quickly so that we move on it and get busy working on it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry that the member had to be cut off. Unfortunately, we are at the end of debate. A lot of people were trying to get more information on this and were very involved in listening to the discussion, even in Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, February 3, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it, you will find the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as 6:30 p.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?