Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2016

Opposition Motion--Pay Equity

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to what the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville said.

All day today, during the course of this debate, we have heard support for pay equity on all sides of the House. We have heard some of the aspects of what the Conservative government did to advance the status of women in our country over the course of the last 10 years, as has been well said by my colleagues on this side of the House. However, there are a couple of challenges that we face, but the main one is our being pigeonholed by section (c) of the motion that somehow neglects or fails to recognize the work that has gone on over the past several decades, the past 100 years, of advancing women's issues in this country by all sides, whether Liberal or Conservative governments.

Would the member talk to her caucus and the mover of this motion consider taking that part, section (c), out of this? We can have talks with our caucus, but this is what is causing us a major concern right now.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I talked earlier in my speech about Fran Jones who was an incredible woman who encouraged me passionately. She was a devoted Conservative. She knew that women needed to be in politics, and she knew that people who are in this role take it as a secret oath to their riding.

Today, I am happy to hear how many strong women across party lines are here, standing up for their communities, and who I hope will have this as their discussion. I am excited to see this vote. It is time to vote to support women.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question to follow up on the two previous questions.

What if the member had the option of having the current motion as is and a large number of members of Parliament voting against it, or have a consensus on one aspect of it, with the potential of getting all members of the House supporting its intent? The intent is so wonderful, pay equity. That is what we should all be trying to achieve. It would appear as if the Conservatives are prepared to support it, if in fact there were an amendment moved.

Would the member rather see an amendment put forward and have everyone get behind it, or would she rather try to push this motion through even if it means that one of the major political parties votes against it?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not believe we can erase the history that is there. I believe that we need to stand up and be real about where we are today. I am happy to support this motion.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today on an issue that has long been near and dear to my heart, that being equity.

As the proud daughter of a hard-working mother and hard-working grandmothers, and as the proud mother of three daughters who are entirely capable, I burn with righteous indignation when I think of the value of the work they have done and have the potential of doing and realize that we have allowed ourselves to be skewered and talked into a legislated environment that today makes it acceptable to pay a woman less for equal work. That is why I am honoured to be part of the New Democrat caucus and to speak on behalf of our opposition day motion.

The motion 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 in 2009; to appoint a special committee to conduct hearings on pay equity and and to propose proactive pay equity legislation, which is the icing on the cake for me to expedite such an important issue.

It blows my mind that in the year 2016 we are actually talking about it. I wish it were a decade ago and I could be sharing in anticipation with my younger daughters the kind of future held out for them as they entered their era of political activism as young women.

Why pay equity? To paraphrase the Prime Minister, which we have done often here today, it is 2016 and women make nearly a quarter less than men on the dollar. Put simply, pay equity is a fundamental human right, the principle of equal pay for equal work.

In her 2012 paper, “A Living Wage As a Human Right”, Mary Cornish points out that by failing to achieve pay equity, Canada is in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related United Nations conventions, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The goal of pay equity is to stop discrimination related to the historic under-valuation of work traditionally performed by women, or “women's work” as they say. Let us be clear that pay inequity is a form of discrimination and the gender wage gap is usually greater for aboriginal women, women with disabilities, racialized, and immigrant women. The more categories a women occupies, the greater her financial disparity.

A good example of this can be taken from the area where I live in Windsor Essex County, where my riding, Windsor—Tecumseh, is located. Forty-one point eight per cent of female-led, lone parent families live in poverty, according to Pathway to Potential, Windsor's poverty reduction strategy. Here, pay equity is but a symptom of larger structural inequities, with women being hit the hardest, be they from a minority community, or aboriginal, or a person with disabilities, or merely single.

How did we get here? How did it happen that women came to earn 77¢ on the dollar of what a man makes? Lower rates of pay do not just emerge ex nihilo out of nothing. There are broad historical and cultural factors at play.

An interesting report from Status of Women Canada last year detailed some of these factors. These include a stubbornly consistent rate of violence against women in Canada despite dropping rates of violence against men; a greater vulnerability of aboriginal women to violence than non-aboriginal women; increasing poverty rates of single moms and senior women; and following from the above, a 20% income gap between men and women. This is two percentage points higher than the gap that exists in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, countries. While this report notes that Canadian women are better educated and are entering the workforce in greater numbers than men, the latter are still paid over 20% more than their female colleagues. This pay gap puts Canada fourth from the bottom of 34 OECD countries, with only South Korea, Japan, and Germany scoring worse.

What can we do? How can we fix the problem? According to a recent OECD report, “Achieving stronger growth by promoting a more gender-balanced economy”, there are certain enabling conditions that are needed to create an environment where gender equality and then pay equity are possible. These enabling conditions turn out to be concerns that New Democrats have been fighting for for generations. These conditions are maternal health measures such as prenatal, childbirth, post-natal, and reproductive health services.

In Canada, women on average do 1.5 hours more unpaid work a day than men do, and the affordability and quality of child care overall in Canada is still an issue forcing many women to drop out of the labour market or reduce their working hours during their child-rearing years.

Gender equality in future labour force participation crucially involves policies enhancing gender equality in education, such as ensuring that boys and girls have equal access to good-quality education, ensuring equal rights and opportunities for them to successfully complete schooling, and helping students make informed choices about their field of study and career path.

I want to salute Unifor and Windsor's Women's Enterprise Skills Training for promoting awareness and mentorship. Members might check out the independent video Because It's 2016 and see why this video is getting well-deserved accolades for the awareness and mentorship of young women in skilled trades.

To this I would add that it is about having legislation, laws with real teeth that set out more that mere voluntary goals that feel and look good and that explode well in public attention during campaigns. Those kinds of fireworks disappoint and frustrate us when we are here in the House of Commons and hear the rhetoric first. Let us get some legislation with teeth, and having an independent committee is the most expeditious way for us to take that dedication seriously and do the work that really needs to be done.

Last, pay equity is not just about being the right and moral thing to do, although this alone should be cause enough to desire it. I look across the aisle at our other parties and I know that each and every member has a sister, a mother, or a daughter, and finds it unacceptable that females should be paid less than males for doing equal-value work.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today, not only to speak to the House but also to address Madam Speaker on this very important issue.

As a university professor, past associate dean, a business owner, and international exporter, I, like many of my colleagues in the House, have worked very hard to get here. We have an opportunity as politicians to be role models.

I would ask that the member across the aisle consider renegotiating and setting a tone of openness that we so desire in this House, as role models and in mentorship to others, whether male or female, by reconsidering part (c) of the motion. We all, I believe, have the ultimate goal of seeking pay equity. That is the ultimate goal. Let us set the tone.

Would the member consider renegotiating that and making that amendment so we can pass pay equity, because it is such an important cause?

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

Madam Speaker, at this point I feel overwhelmed by how we are wallowing in the past mostly because of the fact that it can be embarrassing or uncomfortable for some people who have tried to champion the cause. For us to move forward though we have to acknowledge past practice.

The member should look at the motion through the lens of Status of Women Canada in trying to expedite and acknowledge as we move forward the truth and reconciliation to how women are being treated in the workforce and our past practices having to be nullified. That would help in the context of how she could move forward to support this motion.

It is important for us to have an independent committee work on pay equity. The committee would look at the legislative environment in a way that would help us expedite pay equity as quickly as possible. Other barriers against women would gradually crumble because we would have taken care of the legislated environment. It is important for us to put forth the history of that legislated environment. It is not the same thing as talking about goals and policy that have been undermined. This is a regulated environment.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question and in the process correct the record.

It has been said in the House that there is no pay equity legislation in Manitoba and that is not the case. There is pay equity legislation in Manitoba and Nova Scotia in the public sector. Ontario and Quebec have pay equity in both the public and the private sector.

If we can pass the motion and get action on federal pay equity, would that not be a template or a motivator to bring in those other provinces and territories that do not yet have pay equity legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely. I mentioned a regulatory environment. Once we normalize, once we reach certain milestones, there are other sectors that can and will emulate that. They do look to government for leadership.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I cannot find any fault with any of the goals of the motion and what it wants to accomplish. We want to improve the rights of women and have equality in the workplace. We have a golden opportunity in the House today to have unanimous support for the motion. We understand that there is some history that the hon. member and her party wishes to acknowledge, but is there any way that removing this objectionable clause to get unanimous support would abrogate any of the rights of women in the workplace?

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately the damaging legislation that had been passed, which undermined the progress of the work of Status of Women Canada, was not passed unanimously. I do not know if this has merit in this case to stall us from working on this real milestone achievement that would help to negate the damage that has been done. We should be further ahead by now.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Surrey—Newton.

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this important discussion regarding federal pay equity policies. As we all know, this is not new. It is an important issue that governments and their partners have been working to address for many years.

Guy Ryder, director general of the International Labour Organization, made a statement last year on the occasion of International Women's Day. He said that, globally, only half of all women are in the labour force, compared to nearly 80% of men—a figure basically unchanged in 20 years. The large gender pay gap has not narrowed much, with women still earning on average 23% less than men.

Furthermore, new evidence is emerging that mothers suffer a wage penalty, often over and above the gender pay gap. We cannot accept that at current rates of change, it may take more than 70 years for women to achieve equal pay status with men. Now 70 years is a very long time to close that gap, and I am sure some of my colleagues may be wondering how closely these international figures reflect our current situation.

The principle of equal pay for work of equal value is enshrined in the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, the simple fact is that, on average, women still earn less than men. Even here in Canada, the gender-based wage gap persists.

Consider a few key indicators. According to the Statistics Canada 2015 labour force survey, women earn almost $0.82 compared to every dollar earned by men. In 2013, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development released a report showing that Canada’s unadjusted gender wage gap, the difference between median earnings of men and women, was 19%. While we have made some progress in the area of equal pay for work of equal value, we find these continuing disparities troubling and unacceptable. Much more needs to be done.

In the not-too-distant past, the Government of Canada undertook efforts to help understand how to better achieve pay equity. In 2000, the Bilson Pay Equity Task Force was formed and mandated to conduct an in-depth review of the existing federal pay equity legislation. This task force outlined 113 recommendations in its report on pay equity reform in 2004. These recommendations included a number of rich and innovative ideas to help reform the federal government's approach to pay equity. At the time, consensus could not be reached on the implementation of these recommendations.

However, the task force’s recommendations now merit a closer look. A lot has changed since 2000, and we need to carefully review these forward-thinking recommendations. Such a review includes engaging with our partners, including at the provincial level, and drawing on their feedback and first-hand experiences.

The current government is deeply committed to pay equity and the fair treatment of all workers in the workplace. The government is also committed to open dialogue with our stakeholders, academic experts and organizations that support pay equity.

This way, we can make, and move forward with, the best decisions possible. From our point of view, this will mean undertaking consultations with our stakeholders, including federally regulated employers, and other organizations, before we move to implement legislative changes.

Our government will fulfill its ambitious, new mandate by working cooperatively with our many partners, with a renewed spirit of innovation, openness and collaboration.

As we mentioned in our Speech from the Throne, Canada succeeds in large part because we value diverse perspectives and different opinions. We all know that more work needs to be done.

Our government has made equity and diversity a priority in mandate letters for Ministers, and in how the Cabinet was formed. Our government values fairness, transparency, and collaboration. We put the well-being of Canadians first, and we understand that their interests and views need to be considered in every decision we make. That is why we are committed to reaching out and engaging with our stakeholders and other partners across Canada.

Pay equity is an important issue for Canadians, and they want us to find a fair and balanced approach. Too many women still face unfair challenges in the workplace, even in 2016. We need to work together to ensure that all women have the opportunity to fully participate on an equal footing in the workplace. It is both the right thing to do and a certain path to economic growth.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate.

What will the repercussions be if we fail to give serious consideration to this subject and the recommendations that the committee will produce in an effort to achieve equality? What will the long-term consequences be if we fail to take action today and consider the useful recommendations that we receive from the committee responsible for studying the matter?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I also thank the NDP for raising this issue in the House today.

I am very proud of the steps the government has already taken to begin examining social equality and pay equity. The committee must do its work, conduct research and discuss the issue with the provinces, private sector players and union leaders, in order to make recommendations.

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

Madam Speaker, I will not pass up the opportunity to ask a question on such an important issue as pay equity. For many years, even in the Manitoba legislature, many individuals have been engaged in the importance of this issue, recognizing that women and girls are entitled to the same rate of pay for the same type of work.

I suspect we will hear this at the committee level where we will get presentations that say that Ottawa has to play a role. I am glad to convey that our Prime Minister and the government as a whole are very supportive of pay equity, and we will play a leadership role in this.

However, we also need to signal that others need to play a role, especially other forms of government, whether it is provincial, municipal, school trustees or school boards, and so forth. We need to encourage and demonstrate that leadership so other jurisdictions look to Ottawa and recognize that what is happening is a good thing.

This is one of the benefits of having a standing committee or a committee of this nature to review this. There is a great deal of pride. Both men and women from both sides of the House appear to be very supportive of the motion.

Would the member provide his perspective on the importance of this issue and having the national government play a leading role in this?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Of course I am very proud of the government's commitment. The first measure we implemented, as we said earlier, was gender parity in cabinet, that is, a cabinet made up of an equal number of men and women.

We will also examine the issue of infrastructure and housing for the homeless and seniors. Our investments in first nations communities will also be very important. We also plan to look after young Canadians. These important aspects will be considered when we examine those investments. I am therefore very proud to be part of this government.

I have four daughters, so this is a personal commitment I want to make to take care of their future by ensuring that they are treated fairly and regarded as equals, and that they can also fulfill all of their dreams.

It is therefore very important to me that we take a closer look at the role of the federal government and the private sector in these areas.

I have also been a school trustee, so I have a lot of experience working with students and teachers. This issue is important to me and to this government. I will continue to work hard on this file.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is on the legislation passed by the Conservatives in 2009. My colleague may recall that the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act was amended and that a number of the new criteria made it much more difficult to achieve equity.

At the time, Mr. Ignatieff, who unfortunately voted in favour of the bill, said, “We have made it clear that we are not pursuing an amendment strategy. Sometimes we have to hold our nose”.

How does the hon. member explain the position of the Liberals, who voted in favour of the bill at the time?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of problems with the legislation passed in 2009. As a result, a number of things have to be amended. The House acknowledged that and we are working on making the necessary changes in order to have a more positive impact on pay equity.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following the motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order, at the conclusion of the debate on today's opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, February 3, 2016, at the conclusion of oral questions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

(Motion agreed to)

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member from Nickel Belt for his passion about bringing real change and equality for all women.

I am pleased to offer my remarks today in favour of this motion. I would like to thank the NDP member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for bringing this motion forward.

It is most encouraging that on the Conservative benches I see members speaking in favour, but on the other hand, the members from the NDP have a valid point that we have to bring the history out. At the same time, I would also encourage the NDP members to take the word “Conservative” out. If we could have the support of the Conservative members, we could have unanimous support of the motion.

Next year will mark the 50th anniversary of the Government of Canada appointing the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. The mandate of this commission was “to ensure for women equal opportunities with men in all aspects of Canadian society”.

Three years after being formed, the commission tabled a report of recommendations, and one of the core recommendations was for legislation to ensure that equal work between men and women was given equal value.

This report then led to this concept being included in the Canadian Human Rights Act, which became law in 1977, a law to provide equal opportunity to individuals without discrimination based on gender, religion, or disability.

Then, of course, in 1981, Canada became a model for the world by introducing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is where the equality of all citizens became a fundamental principle of Canadian society. That is why I chose Canada to be my home and why I wanted to raise my family here. I am proud that the people of Surrey—Newton have allowed me the opportunity and privilege to sit in this House, for the third time, so that I am able to speak on their behalf to bring in a change that I aspired to bring before moving to this great nation.

In 1999, the Government of Canada created a pay equity task force, which in 2004 released a final report of recommendations. This included a commitment to the principle of pay equity, recognition that the basic principle of equal pay is a human right, and an acknowledgement that employers are obliged to take positive steps to eliminate wage differences that discriminate based on gender.

This is just a brief history of how long we have been talking about pay equity in Canada, and yet here we stand in 2016 debating this motion, which by now should be a normal part of our thinking. Unfortunately, this concept of equality still remains elusive.

I am the proud father of two young women, Keerat and Joat, who graduated with degrees in medicine and who are both starting their careers in the medical profession. Their ambition and their accomplishments make me very proud.

My wife, Roni, and I have always taught them that there is nothing that can stop them from pursuing their dreams and succeeding. It is a good thing we brought this resolution today. Every woman in Canada should be able to have the same opportunities as my daughters.

What we did not realize was how the previous Conservative government worked against the notion of pay equity in this country. Under the previous government, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act was introduced, which might be one of the most deceiving titles for a law in Canadian history. I earlier mentioned this in the House. According to Margot Young, a professor of law at the University of British Columbia, the act “effectively treats pay equity as if it's not a human right”.

The act speaks a lot about qualifications and market forces. This is code for completely ignoring the fact that women in Canada are paid on average about 27% less than their male counterparts. The act gutted the ability of women to expect equal pay in two ways. First, it allowed employers to use qualifications, job descriptions, and employer needs as a justification to bypass equal pay within the workforce. Second, it did not recognize pay equity as a fundamental human right of every Canadian citizen.

Change, and I mean real change, takes leadership from the top. Let me provide some contrast for Canadians and in the House. When he was head of the National Citizens Coalition in 1998, the former prime minister and current member of Parliament for Calgary Heritage said that for taxpayers, pay equity is a “rip-off. And it has nothing to do with gender....That's why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law.”

However, here is what the current Prime Minister and the member of Parliament for Papineau stated about pay equity in 2014: “Too many women face unacceptable discrimination in pay equity, barriers to employment.... Liberals will continue to stand for action, and we will always advocate for women's full economic, social, reproductive, and political equality”.

This is real leadership. It is why this government, as one of its first acts, is correcting the imbalance in pay within cabinet so that all ministers, whether with a department or as a minister of state, will receive equal pay and equal status. It is also why my government colleagues and I stand today to show support for the motion. Pay equity should be returned to the public service as a fundamental right, not a negotiating position.

Further, a special committee with all of the budget power and respect of any other parliamentary standing committee should be created.

What we do not need more of are reports or recommendations that never go anywhere. This is why allowing this special committee to report back with a defined plan is necessary and long overdue. It is absolutely amazing that we have spoken about this issue in the House of Commons for almost half a century. We still have progress to make in achieving pay equity, both in the public service and for every job across Canada.

Tomorrow, members from all parties can correct this delay. The concept is very simple. Women must receive equal pay. The workplace can no longer be an institution of discrimination between genders. Most importantly, the House has to step up and correct this long-standing injustice.

I strongly encourage every member of the House to join me in voting in favour of this motion tomorrow and in case anyone might be asking why, the answer is very simple: because it is 2016 and the time for action is now.