Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2016

Opposition Motion—Pay Equity

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member, who happens to represent my mother-in-law. She would be thrilled about this initiative.

Our government is committed to dealing with pay equity in a balanced and responsible way. We are developing a new direction and will be consulting on these matters with unions, stakeholders, and the members that she represented.

It is important to recognize that we may think more highly of ourselves and it is our obligation as parliamentarians to correct this perception across Canada. We are ranked 80th out of 145 countries in wage equality when it comes to women. That is clearly not good enough. We are ranked 30th out of 145 countries in overall gender gap ranking. Our government is particularly committed to economic, social, reproductive, and political equality for all.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. This is, indeed, a problem, and it is something we need to talk about. We completely agree that we need task forces and that we need to consult a number of stakeholders who experience this every day. This is an issue. Unfortunately, in a number of sectors, it is up to collective agreements to fix this issue, which should not be the case. Collective agreements should be about negotiating more benefits, and so on. They should not be about pay equity.

I hope that the government will put forward and apply our recommendations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of the comments that have been made by my colleagues across the floor.

The motion only relates to the public service in terms of pay equity and not women more broadly. I would like to ask the member why it is not more broad in context and why it is only focusing on the public sector.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

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

Since we are under federal jurisdiction, we want to focus on the public and private sides. We hope to work with task forces and with the committee that will be struck, to delve into this issue, and to fix this situation for all Canadian women.

Right now, there are more than 380,000 public servants working in various sectors of our economy. We hope to be able to come to a decision and close this subject, so that it does not come up again next year. We want this issue to be fixed, so that we can focus on other problems across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, why pay equity in 2016? As our Prime Minister has said, because it is 2016.

I have a question for my colleague from Jonquière and I want to congratulate her on her speech. After a decade of darkness under the Conservatives, women's rights unfortunately regressed.

Why is pay equity now an urgent issue? How will it change the lives of women? Why must we get moving, once again, on women's rights in Canada?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

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

This will increase women's buying power. I was walking down the street earlier, and I saw a group of women on their way to work, lunch boxes in hand. They were off to clean hotels. This will help those women support their families and play an active role in our country's economic activity.

In my speech just now, I mentioned the province of Quebec, which has been very active on the pay equity file. I strongly believe that the federal government can help these women, take the lead, and set an example for the whole world to follow.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on the issue of pay equity. I want to thank my NDP colleagues for bringing this issue forward to the House. I also want to remind the House that this is not a partisan issue. There is a lot of common ground within all political parties in the House on the issue of equality for women. It is also not an issue that should be just the focus of women.

This important issue does not affect only women. This is an issue that affects us all.

It affects families, for one. Think of the children who cannot spend time with their parents because their parents are working full time to earn one and a half incomes. Think of the couples who are worried about not earning enough money to pay for their children's education. Think of the fathers who are thinking of their daughters' future.

As a father of twin daughters, I can say that I want nothing more than to live in a Canada where there is no difference in the earnings potential between men and women, where Claire and Rose have an opportunity in the future to fully participate without barriers in the economy and in society.

A gender wage gap in this day and age is unacceptable. Differences in pay for comparable work simply based on gender are purely discriminatory. The Government of Canada believes that equal pay for work of equal value must be considered a human right. That is unequivocal and this basic principle was enshrined in the Canadian Human Rights Act, framed by constitutional guarantees of equality. Pay equity has been recognized as a fundamental human right for many decades at the international level. In fact, in 1951, the UN's International Labour Organisation adopted Convention No. 100, concerning equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. In 1972, as part of the response to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, Canada ratified ILO Convention No. 100. That is since 1972.

We have no intention of turning back the clock. In fact, it is time we turn the clock forward because, as the hon. member said, it is 2016. We understand that Canada is better off when the talents and skills of women are represented in every sector of society, in government at every level, and from the grassroots all the way up to the boardroom.

The arguments some people make for having more women at the cabinet table and at the boardroom table is often that it is good for women. As someone who served in cabinet before and has the opportunity to do so again, I can tell members that when there is diversity at the cabinet table, different perspectives, different experiences, and different life experiences render better decisions for all of us. The more we break down barriers and inspire young women and girls to pursue as wide a range of careers as possible, the stronger our country will be. We need to set the tone at the top.

The Prime Minister promised to appoint a gender-balanced cabinet, and he kept that promise, which is proof of his conviction that our country is stronger and benefits from better leadership when its leaders reflect Canada's diversity. This is a defining moment.

It is not just the fact that we have gender parity in the cabinet, but that cabinet positions to which women have been appointed are all absolutely vital to the success of our country. When the Prime Minister was asked why this was a priority for him, his response “because it is 2015” very simply stated not just to Canadians but to the world the priority our government places on equality.

It should go without saying as well that we are committed to pay equity at every level, including at the cabinet table. In 2016, women expect to be full participants in the economic, social, and democratic life of our country.

I believe that the Prime Minister's actions on gender parity actually will have a significant impact outside of government. The question was asked earlier by a Conservative colleague as to why this motion would only apply to government, and the New Democrat member responded. I would say that when government leads on an issue like gender equality, it has a significant effect outside of the government public service. As an example, I have spoken with senior bank executives who have told me that it has made a difference in the culture even in the banks in discussions among women executives about their futures. One corporate director I know, a male very senior corporate director in Canada, sent an email out to his fellow board members on several publicly traded company boards on which he serves saying that this is a game changer and that they have to get their act together at the corporate director level in Canada. Simply setting an example at the cabinet table does raise the bar in other areas of leadership, including in corporate Canada.

In terms of the public service, almost 55% of federal public servants are women. That compares to 42%, for instance, in 1983. This is a significant change. At the executive level, 46% of federal executives are women now. That compares to 5% in 1983. The number has more than tripled since 1993. There has been some progress, but there is a lot of work to be done. Women are increasingly taking their rightful place in the federal public service. They are taking senior positions, and across the public service we have seen an increase over time.

It has been referenced that we have a lot of work to do, for instance, in the House of Commons. All political parties need to be committed to making this place more family friendly broadly, not just for women but for parents of young children, regardless of gender. This place is not as family friendly as it ought to be.

In specific areas of the public service, we have seen some real strides for women. For instance, they are 57% of the law group in the public service, 56% of the economist group, and 47% of the commercial officer group. There is a lot more we can do to ensure that senior levels of government and appointments, including to federal boards, reflect today's diversity. I can assure all members of the House that the Government of Canada is firmly committed to a public service that reflects the diversity of society, which includes gender parity.

That is why we are putting in place a new government-wide appointment process that is open and more merit based. We believe that this is an important action and that it will result in more women being appointed to senior positions. In fact, the mandate letter of the Minister of Status of Women, who will be speaking to this motion later this morning, states very clearly that she is to support the Privy Council Office as it develops monitoring and reporting processes to ensure that government senior appointments are merit based and demonstrate gender parity.

It is important that we take a results-oriented approach, where we actually measure results and progress in this area. We cannot manage what we do not measure. This is one area that is a priority for our government, and we intend to measure and transparently report progress.

I am pleased to say that the senior executive committee of my own department, the Treasury Board Secretariat, is made up of 55% women, including the public-sector head of the department, the secretary of the Treasury Board, and our deputy minister. Overall, women form 62% of TBS employees. There is still progress that needs to be made. We are not content with the status quo.

Our government intends to make meaningful progress to reduce the wage gap between women and men in government and across the country. We need to be clear here that the wage gap still exists in the federal public service, where women make, on average, only about 91% of men's wages. That gap has closed over time, but any gap is unacceptable when based on gender. We need to deal with this gap in a balanced and responsible way that ensures women's right to equal pay for work of equal value.

We have heard significant concerns about the public Sector Equitable Compensation Act as it now stands. As members know, the act was intended to set out a new process for pay equity in the federal public service. It was drafted to eliminate the complaint-based process conducted through the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the intent was to replace it with an approach to settling equitable compensation that integrated pay equity with collective bargaining. It moved the responsibility for overseeing pay equity from the Canadian Human Rights Commission to the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

However, within the Public Service Labour Relations Board, there is insufficient experience with pay equity and no mandate to actually protect human rights, so there is a misalignment there in terms of authority.

The government, at that time, claimed that these changes reflected the 2004 pay equity task force report. In reality, those changes did not conform completely with the recommendations of the report. Instead, the recommendations had included a new pay equity commission for the federal public service crown corporations and all federally regulated corporations.

The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act was also drafted to place an emphasis on market forces, which has not been an effective approach to addressing such discrimination.

The Public Sector Alliance of Canada, PSAC, and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada launched a charter challenge against the act on the grounds that it violated equality rights, freedom of expression, and freedom of association.

That said, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act was never brought into force. The regulations necessary for the implementation of the legislation were actually never finalized. The act did not strike the right balance, and this government will not be bringing it into force. It would be unfair to those affected. We need to hear from them and consult with them and take their views into account.

We are committed to dealing with pay equity in a balanced and responsible way, which is why the government is developing a new direction and will be consulting on these matters with unions and stakeholders.

We are serious about establishing and re-establishing a culture of respect for and within the public service. This is one of the areas where we believe there is a lot of common ground between the government and the public sector and the unions representing the public service.

The reason we are doing all this is that fairness is a key principle of our mandate as a government. If members look at our mandates broadly, we have fairness for middle-class Canadians. Our first act in government, from my colleague, the Minister of Finance, provides a significant tax cut to middle-class Canadians, rendering our tax system more progressive.

We did not feel that income splitting, as designed by the previous government, was fair. We felt that it provided, disproportionately, more benefits to those Canadian families who did not need the help the most and did not do enough for Canadian families who actually needed the help.

In the budget, and as we move forward with the Canada child benefit, we will be helping the Canadian families with children who need the help the most. I will give members an example. For Canadian families making $45,000 per year, they will be $4,000 better off after tax than they were previously. For Canadian families making $90,000 a year, with two children, they will be $2,500 better off. In fact, all Canadian families making less than $150,000 a year will be better off.

We have the potential with this policy, the new Canada child benefit, to raise 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty.

I am speaking to that, because it is an issue of fairness, and gender parity and equal pay for work of equal value is an issue of fairness. I think that regardless of party in this House, we should all be guided by principles of fairness and equality.

We will also reinstate a modernized and inclusive fair wages policy for federal procurement. We are going to restore integrity to our electoral process and improve the fairness of elections to help renew Canadians' faith in government and in participation.

We will also make the Canada Revenue Agency fairer, more helpful, and more user-friendly and something that has more of a customer focus to help Canadian individuals, Canadian taxpayers, Canadian businesses, and small businesses find it easier to work with CRA.

We will also make public the measurements in a lot of these areas. We will have a transparent process. For instance, when we set objectives on issues of gender parity, we will measure them and report them as part of a broader, more open, and transparent government focus.

In every decision we make, we will be considering and implementing gender-based analysis. When we do not measure something, we cannot really manage it, so measuring and having a results-oriented focus is the first step to progress.

We will restore fair and balanced labour laws that acknowledge the importance of organized labour in Canada. One of the first things I did as President of the Treasury Board was reach out to some of the public sector labour unions. I talked with Robyn Benson, president of PSAC, Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and Ron Cochrane, co-chair of the joint union and management National Joint Council, to discuss some of the issues that are important to them, and we agreed that there is a lot of common ground.

We are entering a period of negotiations now with the public service unions, and we are doing so at a time when the fiscal situation is tight. We inherited a deficit, but beyond that, we also inherited a slow-growth economy. Falling oil prices have made economic growth in Canada slower and our fiscal situation tighter. Despite that, we will negotiate in good faith. We will respect the negotiation process, and we will do so with the guiding principle of restoring a culture of respect for and within our public service.

We were elected with a very progressive mandate, a mandate to create jobs and growth and to invest in Canadians and Canadian communities. To fulfill that mandate, we need a motivated and engaged public service. We also need to negotiate realistically if we are to implement that mandate within the fiscal constraints we have as a government.

One of the first organizations I met with was the National Joint Council. We had an opportunity to discuss the importance of the collective bargaining process and to re-affirm that we will bargain in good faith. We also had an opportunity to talk about a recent report by the National Joint Council on the issue of mental health. The reason I mention that is that mental health in the workplace is one of the areas of common ground between the unions that represent the Canadian public service and the Government of Canada, and so are equality for women and diversity in the workplace.

The degree to which we work constructively and progressively with the public service in areas where there is common ground will actually help improve the environment within which we negotiate as we move forward. There are 27 collective bargaining agreements and 15 bargaining units, and we look forward to these negotiations as we move forward.

We will work as a government collaboratively with Canadians. That is a cornerstone of our platform. It is part of our mandate as a government. Part of that is working collaboratively with members of Parliament in this House and ensuring a culture of civility and a constructive approach to the these issues in this House.

Part of it is working with indigenous peoples by engaging indigenous peoples as partners in building a better Canada, with business leaders, and with provincial and municipal governments. Again, as we move forward, priorities like pay equity, equality, and diversity ought to be policies we can move forward together, not as one government or one political party in this House but as a Parliament. We can move forward and feel proud of what we are doing, working together to build a fairer and better Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government talks a good game when it comes to gender equality. Yet after promising a gender parity cabinet, it appointed a cabinet in which five of the women in that cabinet were getting paid less than the men were. When it was caught, it revised it, but still, in terms of who is actually running departments in the government, we have 16 men and 10 women. There is not gender parity in the cabinet at all. There was not pay equity in the cabinet until it got caught.

How does the minister square this sort of high-minded rhetoric with the reality of what the government's record is and its own actions within its cabinet?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, we are committed to pay equity in our cabinet, and the government will soon be bringing forward legislation to ensure that all cabinet ministers receive equal pay.

I appreciate the hon. member raising that. We are committed to addressing it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged to hear the comments from my colleagues, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country and the Treasury Board president.

I was feeling nervous about the government's commitment because pay equity was not in the Liberal election platform. It was not in the mandate letter to Minister of Status of Women. With the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act not being included in the list of bad Conservative labour bills that were announced to be withdrawn, we were feeling nervous.

Does the member intend to support our motion to implement pay equity, and get this done once and for all?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, yes, we intend on supporting the motion, and we would hope that all parties in the House would support it.

In the business of government, as we move forward, we need to work together. We have gone through the motion thoroughly. There is some work to be done on it, but that is what we are sent here to do. As the Prime Minister said, “it's 2015”. Now it is 2016, so it is even more urgent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, for his wide ranging discussion of the kind of progressive objectives that our government has and the values that equal pay for work of equal value demonstrate. Those values he discussed, such as equality, fairness, and rights, are certainly why our government is supporting the motion. It has been a proponent of improving pay equity over the years.

The President of the Treasury Board also spoke about the private sector, where the increase in women in leadership roles has been demonstrated to improve the results of a corporation when there are more women on boards. Does he see comparable gains in the results in the public sector as we reduce the pay gap and increase the percentage of women in leadership roles in the public service?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of progress within the private sector, it makes a difference when governments lead on this. Many members of the House may know that the hon. member, as an entrepreneur, actually helped build a company active in the tree-planting business, a company that was active in a green industry. This was during a time when leadership among women and entrepreneurs building a global company in a resource-based industry was a little more rare than it might be today. Therefore, she has been a pioneer in terms of business and building a successful international business in a cutting-edge green industry.

There is a leadership role. If governments cannot lead on some of these issues, then the question is, who can? I have had feedback from corporate Canada and corporate directors saying that this has created discussion in boardrooms and at directors' tables about how corporate Canada is going to respond to some of these initiatives, including gender parity, in cabinet.

This is one of the issues, equal pay for work of equal value, that needs to be addressed, as does pay equity, but there is more. Having workplaces like Parliament that are more family friendly can make a difference. I talk to women, sometimes potential candidates, who raise issues of Parliament being family friendly. I do not want to generalize, but I am told by women, and this perhaps is anecdotal, that when they watch question period, they find it creates the impression of an old boys club, not a place where we, in a civilized manner, discuss important issues and try to come to common ground and achieve progress in Canada. I am told this by women to whom I am speaking about potentially entering politics. That is the feedback I receive.

There is a whole lot that we can do as a Parliament and as government following today's motion. It is a significant step, and I appreciate the NDP having brought it forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the President of the Treasury Board on his restraint in answering the question from the Conservatives. Quite frankly, after the 10 years of darkness that we endured in terms of gender equality and pay equity under the Conservative government, it boggles my mind that any Conservative would actually ask a question on this, or challenge it.

The history of the Liberal Party has not been one of combatting pay equity and gender equality, which is certainly the history of the Conservative Party. The history of the Liberal Party has been indifference. We have seen reports have gone nowhere. Certainly, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister made no commitment around pay equity. We did not see in any of the mandate letters any reference to pay equity.

Is the President of the Treasury Board signalling today, as a result of the NDP motion, that the new government will actually take seriously the issue of pay equity and will drive it forward as one of its priorities, even though it was not part of the election platform or the mandate letters?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member goes back a while, when Michael Ignatieff was leader of the Liberal Party, we committed to policies that reflected what is in today's motion. He should take yes for an answer. We support today's motion. However, I would caution him against trying to create a blame game or finger-pointing exercise around an issue where there should be common ground.

He is right that I demonstrated some restraint to a question I received from the Conservatives, and that is because I want us to achieve common ground on areas of progressive social policy in the House. I would urge him not to try to make this a partisan issue. The New Democrats do not have a monopoly on virtue. They do not have a monopoly on principles of equality. I would like to believe that all members of the House, regardless of party, are guided by basic fairness. The degree to which we try to divide people in the House and score points on this will reduce the capacity we have to work together to really move the needle in areas of social progress.

Let us not point fingers. Let us not play a blame game. Let us actually appeal to people's better angels and not try to appeal to their dark side and partisanship on important debates where we can really make a difference. I would urge the hon. member and all members of the House to do as we move forward to try to make a difference for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the subject of pay equity. I will be sharing my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock.

I am going to begin by reading verbatim from our Conservative Party policy statement:

The Conservative Party supports the full participation of women in the social, economic, and cultural life of Canada. The Canadian workforce has evolved to include more women than ever. We believe all Canadians have the right to freedom from discrimination in the workplace and equality of opportunity. Individuals should be only judged on skills, qualifications and merits. Women must be entitled to equal pay for equal work.

This is what our party believes, and this is what I believe.

Over the last 10 years, our party has taken steps to improve the status of women in our country. We put the first woman in cabinet. We put the first woman in Senate. We put the first female engineer in the House.

Our women on boards initiative increased by 20% the representation of women on executive boards across the country in just under two years. We placed the first female clerk of the Privy Council in the House. All of these women were paid equitably.

I fully support the statement in paragraph (a) of the NDP's opposition day motion, which calls on the House to recognize that the government must take action to close the unacceptable gap in pay between men and women, which contributes to income inequality and discriminates against women.

I was a victim of pay inequity on several occasions throughout my 32 year career in engineering. In one instance, a human resources lawyer was called in after years of complaints from numerous women. I, along with several women in similar circumstances, was given a 17% pay increase while I was off on maternity leave. When I asked if it was in recognition of the amazing work I had done while on leave or whether I should be expecting a retroactive cheque for the years I had been inequitably paid, I was told I would be better off if I took the increase without question.

In another role, I was given a zero bonus one year even though I was top rated. I was told the company was on hard times, and it was. However, my male counterparts each received between 5% and 10% of their salary as a bonus at the same time.

Although laws have been put in place to ensure that men and women are paid equally for the same work, there are still ways to discriminate, including time to promotion, bonuses, and disparity within a pay band.

I have two daughters who are just starting in the workforce, and I want to do everything possible to ensure they will be paid equitably with their counterparts.

Part (b) in the opposition motion calls to “recognize pay equity as a right”. As the President of the Treasury Board has pointed out, this has already been established in section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act as a fundamental human right, also known as equal pay for work of equal value. Some of the work still to be done is the identification of the method by which non-similar jobs can be compared to determine if there is equity.

Another area of opportunity is enforcement to ensure the good pay equity measures put into place by companies across the country remain vigilant.

When it comes to part (c) of the opposition motion, the NDP has referred to the “2004 Pay Equity Task Force Report”. There is a lot of information in the report where the recommendations have been followed up on, but there is still more work to be done. Although I do not agree with all the recommendations in the report, I agree we still need to do work on it.

However, part of the opposition motion calls to “restore the right to pay equity in the public service...”. That states that this was somehow removed by our party in 2009. This is absolutely untrue. A fundamental right that is part of the Canadian Human Rights Act is not something that can be or was removed. Pay equity exists in the public sector. As evidence I would put forward the following facts.

In 2013, 55% of public sector employees were women. This data comes from public service hiring and staffing activity files. The percentage of women in executive positions in the public sector is 46%, as was pointed out.

The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, which is accessible on the government web page where it is displayed transparently, reiterates the requirement for men and women to be equally compensated for work of equal value. What really happened in 2009 was that 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 the union and the employer, with complaints referred to the Public Service Labour Board for expeditious resolution. This solved the issue of complaints previously brought to the Human Rights Commission, which the Senate committee on human rights testified were each taking at least six years to resolve, and in some cases up to 15 years. Pay equity cases, although they are only 8% of the caseload, absorbed half of the spending on legal fees by the Human Rights Commission.

A fact and evidence-based approach forces me to reject the wording in section (c) of the motion because the facts do not support it. Public service workers have pay equity rights and the Conservative Party did not remove their rights.

Section (d) of today's motion calls for a special committee to be put in place with a membership that looks like the representation we have today on the committee for the status of women. The committee would work on pay equity, which I understand the status of women committee has already worked on, and appropriately so. As a new member of this committee, I was quite impressed looking back over the previous Parliament's work to find that the majority of the time this committee operated in a nonpartisan fashion where gender issues impacting women were scrutinized with passion and intelligence.

In 2015, an investment of $700 million was made through the Business Development Bank of Canada for women entrepreneurs. Changes to the labour code to allow longer leave for families were also made in 2015. The first women's trade mission was implemented.

The committee also studied Bill S-2, which specifically dealt with ensuring that first nation women were granted appropriate equal property rights on reserve in matrimonial cases, something every other woman in Canada would consider a natural right practically.

A study looking at improving economic prospects for Canadian girls was undertaken to look at what could be done to improve the fiscal prosperity outlook for women and girls across all backgrounds in Canada, including marginalized groups, such as first nation women or new Canadians, for example.

Furthermore, and something I am pleased to say occurred under the previous government, the government committee recommended that departments conduct gender-based analysis of the legislation we introduce here.

In 2010, we saw a report that talked about the elevation of debate in the House of Commons in order to attract and retain more good women in politics and better showcase the good work that is being done.

Women make up the majority of enrollments now in college programs. Women are the majority in full-time undergraduate programs. There is another generation of women graduating now that need to be assured of equal opportunity and pay equity.

All of these efforts were taken by the status of women committee in a non-partisan, open and transparent fashion. With this in mind, I would urge the NDP to rethink why their motion today is basically calling for the exact duplication of the work that can be done by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

For this reason, we would not be supportive of part (d) of the opposition motion, because it would create, at additional expense, a structure that is already in place and capable to do the same thing.

Although I am passionate about pay equity and about making sure that the playing field is an equal opportunity one for men and women, I do not see anything in the motion that would add to the improvements our party has put in place, so I have an amendment to the motion. I move, seconded by the member for South Surrey—White Rock that the motion be amended by deleting sections (c) and (d).

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before proceeding to questions and comments it is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith if she consents to this amendment being moved.

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

Mr. Speaker, we do not consent. Removing the section on implementing the task force recommendations and asking for the committee to advise Parliament on how to make that implementation would remove any real action from the motion. It would put us right back to where we were 40 years ago. We do not consent.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

There is no consent. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a house with a mother who dedicated her life to this issue. She encouraged women to run so that they could sit in this House, which I am very proud of. She raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to help women achieve that goal, which begs the question why I am standing here. I do not have any sisters.

I recall early on in my life asking her, “Why are you doing this? Why is it so important to you?” The answer was, “Because it's 1985”. In fact, it might have been 1975. I cannot remember. My point in saying that is that we need to go beyond catchphrases. We should no longer be in a situation where we have to say, “It is 2015”, in order to justify something. We need to get to a stage where the answer is, “That is the way it is because it should be that way.”

My question is this. Why can we not all agree to support this motion, move on, and get things done, so that we do not have to talk about this any more because we should not be, and it is just the way it is?

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly we have to keep persevering. As the member said, in 1985 his mother was talking about the same issues.

When I first started in engineering women made up less than 10% of that field. Everywhere I went I built a washroom because there was none for women. We now see the demographic coming up. I am so pleased that 55% of the public sector is women. We really have a representation of the demographic that is there. Although there continue to be issues, we are moving continually in the direction of good. I think all parties are aligned on that. We need to keep working on it. I think we have mechanisms in place in Parliament, like the status of women committee, which I will be on. I will be proud to continue to work on issues of pay equity and to make sure that one day we do not need a status of women committee because all of the issues will have been resolved and there will be equity.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for sharing her personal story.

She also talked about the Conservative track record in standing up for the rights of women. The Conservatives are known for gutting the status of women in Canada in the last government. They refused to fund any group doing advocacy, and removed equality from the mandate of Status of Women Canada.

Now that the Conservative Party is under new leadership, will the Conservatives stop their attack on the equality of women and support their basic rights, including the right to a decent income?

I have this question for the member. Will she support this motion?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is right that we can do nothing about the past, but only about the future. I will certainly be an advocate for pay equity and for solving some of the remaining issues.

There was a comment made by the President of the Treasury Board about how we need to stop the partisan politics when it comes to these issues of social responsibility. In part (c) of the motion, I see the accusation that we removed the rights of people. This is a false accusation as I have said. They still have that right and we are still continuing to work in the direction of good. I outlined the numerous excellent things that the Conservative Party did to promote women. We need to continue that. However, because of the language in part (c) and the fact that it would put a whole new committee in place when there is already a committee, and cost of huge amount of taxpayer dollars, I do not feel that this would be the best use of their work. Therefore, we will not be supporting this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the motion put forward by my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith. I want to be perfectly clear that the only acceptable position by any member in the House is equal pay for equal work, and every person, regardless of race, religion, or gender needs to know that when they enter the workforce they will receive equal compensation.

We, as the Conservative Party, have always supported that position. In fact, it was the Conservative government that introduced the Employment Equity Act in 1984. It was also the Conservative government that appointed the very first woman to cabinet. We also appointed the very first woman to the Senate and the very first female as Clerk of the Privy Council, whom I understand, unfortunately, has recently been removed.

I know that many of my female colleagues rose in the House last week and spoke on the 100th anniversary of Manitoba women being allowed the right to vote, and we will continue to celebrate that passion, that determination, and that inspiration. There are many women, including me, who have struggled in the workforce and had to work harder for less pay. It is incumbent upon all of us to right those wrongs. I would suggest that most of the women who sit in the House have gone through similar trials and tribulations throughout their career and can speak to those issues at great length.

We have come a very long way in spite of those wrongs. I am proud to say that during my time as the mayor of Surrey, we enjoyed a council that had a majority of women for many years. Being the first female mayor elected in that city, I had the good fortune to work with many women CEOs, business owners, public sector workers, or private sector employees. We have had those discussions around pay equity.

I believe that working with, supporting, and helping to empower the next generation of young women is something that we should all embrace. Several of my colleagues and I who are speaking on this issue today are very passionate about this topic. Indeed, I would suggest that we are all very passionate about this topic. We firmly support the basic principles of equality and equal pay for equal work.

I want to speak to my colleague's proposed amendment that was not accepted and just go through the points in the motion. Point (a) of the motion reads:

recognize that the government must take action to close the unacceptable gap in pay between men and women which contributes to income inequality and discriminates against women;

I absolutely agree that everything should be done to ensure that any gap in pay between men and women is rectified immediately. We heard from other members that in many different areas there is inequity. I would say that whether it is in the private or public sector, equal pay for equal work is essential for everyone.

Point (b) of the motion states that we should recognize pay equity as a right. Absolutely, it is a human right for all people. This point only reinforces my previous comments, and again, my colleagues and I fully agree with equal pay for equal work.

Point (c) is where we run into some difficulty. We heard from my colleague who put the amendment forward that this statement is factually incorrect. I do support my colleague, the member for Sarnia—Lambton, that we remove that point from the body of the motion. It is very unfortunate that the amendment was not supported, because its language is not factual and not supportable.

In fact, in 2009, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act came into place. Again, this act reflects the issues that we are discussing here today. The act states that:

3 (1) An employer shall, in respect of its non-unionized employees, take measures to provide them with equitable compensation in accordance with this Act. In the case of unionized employees, the employer and the bargaining agent shall take measures to provide those employees with equitable compensation in accordance with this Act.

Those measures are in place. The act goes on to state:

4 (1) An equitable compensation assessment under this Act assesses, without gender bias, the value of work performed by employees in a job group or a job class and identifies, by taking into account the prescribed factors, whether an equitable compensation matter exists.

Therefore, those elements are in the act.

However, point (d) of the opposition motion states:

(d) appoint a special committee with the mandate to conduct hearings on the matter of pay equity and to propose a plan to adopt a proactive federal pay equity regime, both legislative and otherwise, and...

It then goes on to define the structure of that committee.

Again, as previously stated, the status of women committee has done extraordinary work. I know that it will continue to do extraordinary work, because this is an issue that crosses party lines, and it is a place where these issues can be addressed. They should be dealt with within the existing framework and the existing structure. If they cannot be addressed in that committee, and there are significant labour issues, then it should be referred to the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

We heard from the President of the Treasury Board that the government is undergoing a new direction and a new process. I am very curious to understand what that would look like. Again, as he stated, this is would not be partisan. It would include all of the comments that we have made here today.

I would stress again that this is an issue that affects all of us. I think of my two daughters who are just entering the workforce, and I think of my fellow women sitting in this chamber today. I think of all the women in the next generation who are relying on us to ensure that they are treated fairly, equitably, and with respect. I think of those brave women in Manitoba who struggled and took those important first steps 100 years ago to help us to get to where we are today. Therefore, we must address all of these issues and ensure equal pay for equal work.

I would like to thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for bringing this motion forward. I would suggest that it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that there is equality and equity among employers, in both the private and the public sector.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned previously, this is an issue that women have been fighting for decades and decades.

I had a meeting with my local chapter of the Canadian Federation of University Women recently in Burlington and they raised this issue. They have been working on it for 40 years.

I would ask my hon. colleague who so passionately supports pay equity: How can members of her party justify not supporting this motion today and go back to the individuals in their communities who have been working so doggedly for 40 or 50 years on an issue that we should not have to be dealing with in 2016?