Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2016

Opposition Motion—Pay Equity

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question and it is very necessary to address.

We welcomed the Auditor General's report on gender-based analysis in the federal government. Our government believes in accountability for our obligations to ensure that meaningful gender-based analysis informs our policies, programs, and legislation. We are committed to ensuring that federal departments are conducting gender-based analysis that has been required of them for the past 20 years. Use of gender-based analysis is a shared responsibility across all federal departments and agencies. Status of Women Canada is ensuring gender is considered in all government initiatives.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of what the President of the Treasury Board was saying this morning, regarding having a less biased and all-party approach to this problem, I wonder if the member would consider putting to our colleagues in the NDP the question of whether we could delete the words “...which was eliminated by the previous Conservative government in 2009;...” from part (c) of the motion? I do not see what it adds necessarily. The remainder of part (c) is clear, and I do not think there is any need to call out other parties with which we want to get involved in furthering the rights of all people.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the comment that we do not need to send an invitation for other parties to get involved. This is an issue that affects every single person in this country, in this Parliament. We will welcome anybody's views and opinions to be shared with us so we can make meaningful legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House of Commons today to talk about pay equity in the federal public service. Let me say at the outset that pay equity is of fundamental importance to this government, and that is why we are supporting this motion.

It is the government’s view that women who work in the public service of Canada—actually wherever they work in our country—should receive equal pay for work of equal value.

This is of fundamental importance to me personally as well. Forty years ago, I participated in consciousness-raising meetings at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, which was well known for challenging the status quo. I just want to take this moment to congratulate Simon Fraser University on its 50th anniversary this year, 50 years of growth and achievement.

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. This government is also committed to ensuring that pay equity extends to the cabinet table, an important signal that this government respects and values the full contribution of women in our society.

Women are fairly well represented in the Canadian federal public service, since they make up 55% of staff. They also occupy 46% of executive positions. Although this is not yet complete parity, it represents substantial progress since 1983, when they accounted for less than 5% of the executive group.

There is much more to be done to ensure that senior levels in the federal public service and government appointments to federal crown corporations and agencies reflect the full diversity of Canada. Our government remains committed to a public service that reflects today's society, and we will work to that objective.

We want a public service that is diverse, inclusive, innovative, and representative of all of Canada. We want today's public servants to be a beacon for future public service employees.

Consider the graduates of our colleges and universities. We want them to regard the Canadian public service not only as a place to build a fine career, but also as a place to contribute to building a better country. We want a public service that is diverse, innovative and representative of all of Canada. We also want Canadian public servants to be proud of the work they do, and we want them to know that the government fully respects their work and their role.

We have demonstrated that our approach to government will be different from the previous government.

I want to mention that in a previous political role as the minister of management services for the Province of British Columbia, I had the privilege of being responsible for the B.C. Public Service Agency, which managed 28,000 civil servants in our province. It was an amazing experience to see the professionalism, dedication, and capability of our civil servants.

Our government's approach to governing is collaborative. We firmly believe that Canadians can achieve greater results when working together rather than dividing into ideological camps. Canadians want a change in the way government deals with our partners in this great federation. This means working collaboratively and respectfully with unions and other partners.

The government is determined to restore respect for the public service, as well as respect, civility and good faith in labour relations. The government is also determined to bring about pay equity in the public service. We will rely on collaboration to ensure that the employer and the unions resolve these crucial issues together in a productive manner.

Let me take a moment to describe the way the public service had addressed pay equity in the past. In the past the pay equity system in the federal public service could be reactive, lengthy, costly, and adversarial. Action to address problems was taken only after complaints were filed.

The many years it could take to resolve complaints have taken their toll on resources, on our labour relations environment, and on women employees. The new approach is required in order to ensure that pay equity is pursued in ways that are balanced and responsible, and this is what our government will do.

Canada is recognized for its respect for human rights, whether in relation to fair compensation, working hours, or working conditions, including parental leave and occupational health and safety, and the government will continue to fight to protect human rights in our country.

The government understands the role that women play in the federal public service, and sees that role as a driver of positive change in Canada and in the world.

It is now 34 years since the bill of rights was entrenched in our Constitution of Canada, the bill that concerned the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Women in the public service help deliver thousands of high-quality programs and services to Canadians, and help promote Canadian values and interests on the world stage. This government has also clearly stated that we want to make meaningful progress on reducing the wage gap between men and women across the country. Women in Canada still earn 23% less than men, and that gap is even greater for indigenous women, women of colour, transgendered women, and women living with disabilities. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Past governments have missed critical opportunities to take action on the pay gap. There is no reason why women of equivalent education and seniority should earn less than men. We are committed to closing that gap.

In conclusion, I want to repeat that the government is determined to protect the right to an equal wage for work of equal value, and that it will seek out the best way to establish and maintain this equality.

We are committed to consulting with unions and stakeholders to deal with pay equity in a balanced and responsible way, and to ensure women's right to equal pay for work of equal value.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise for the first time today on the opposition motion, which I support. I thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for bringing the motion forward.

My question for the member for Vancouver Quadra relates to a point made earlier by one of her colleagues, a parliamentary secretary, that the number of women represented in the House of Commons did not reflect the full participation of women in Canadian society. I think all parties have at various times said that they wished to see more women parliamentarians elected.

We have an opportunity in the upcoming review of electoral processes and electoral reform under the responsibility of the Minister of Democratic Institutions. However, it is very clear that systems of government and democracies that vote by proportional representation have much higher levels of female participation in their parliaments. Could the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra comment on that aspect of improving equity in Canadian society?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate that Canada lags so far behind many other nations on this metric of gender equality in Parliament, and we have to do better.

The member is right to point out that electoral reform is an opportunity to shift that imbalance of gender inequity in Parliament. I am confident that the parliamentary committee, made up of members from all parties, will have that as one of the things it looks for as its discusses the options, hears about other systems in other countries, and considers what might be the right electoral model for our vast and unique country.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, gender equality is central to the concerns of the Quebec population. This is especially true of pay equity, including in the public service. However the proposal of a special committee, by virtue of its form, raises another injustice. The million citizens represented by the members of the Bloc Québécois, like the hundreds of thousands of citizens represented by the member of the Green Party, cannot be represented on this committee. Consider that it is sufficient for a committee member to oppose our taking the floor for us to be reduced to silence.

The Canadian Parliament is one of the last democratic parliaments to not recognize all of the parties represented in it. This therefore creates two classes of members.

Is the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra in favour of a representative of the Bloc Québécois and a representative of the Green Party being allowed to sit on this committee? After all, to repeat the now-famous saying, this is 2016.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for asking that question.

I also wish to congratulate him on his party's support for pay equity for women in the public service and women's equality in general. I am sure that the Bloc Québécois members will find many ways to support this issue and achieve this very important goal in our public life.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. parliamentary secretary was very intelligent and well reasoned.

There is a provision in the motion for a special committee to hold hearings across the country. Could the member speak a little on the benefit of such a committee and does she have ideas on where it should visit?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his deep interest in the issue of pay equity and women's equality in his community and throughout his work.

One of the key principles our government is bringing to the table is openness, transparency and collaboration, which means not making decisions behind closed doors and announcing them on some international stage. Rather, we will work and consult with Canadians, with the labour movement, and with the public service.

I am confident that in this process of developing a framework for the effective application of pay equity, Canadians will be fully consulted about whatever mechanism it may take to do that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Salaberry—Suroît.

In 1977, Canada enacted its first pay equity legislation following its ratification of the International Labour Organization Convention No. 100, Equal Remuneration Convention. It stipulates that there shall be equal pay for work of equal value for men and women.

Today is 2016, 39 years later. How have we done as a nation in closing the wage gap between men and women? I am sad to say that among the OECD countries, Canada ranks 30 out of 34 countries. In other words, Canada is among the worst in the developed countries in addressing pay equity, this despite the fact that section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act states that it is discriminatory to pay men and women different wages for work of equal value.

In fact, in 2000, a pay equity task force was established. After extensive consultation in 2004, 113 recommendations were made stemming from the work of the task force. Key areas that needed changes included legislative changes, collective bargaining, oversight and enforcement. To the dismay of many of the stakeholders who participated, who put their time and effort into this work, from the advocates to the women's rights activists, to trade unionists, to people who believed in the basic principle of fairness, feminists, and some have died, to fight for the cause of equality for all women, in many ways the work of the task force was for naught.

The Liberal government of the day, under the leadership of Paul Martin, failed to implement most of the recommendations. To make matters worse, in 2009, the Conservative government passed the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. What did this act do? I am sad to say that the Conservatives actually put in measures that made it more difficult for women in the public sector to achieve pay equity.

In one fell swoop, section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was negated. Pay equity is no longer a human right, but rather an issue for collective bargaining. The number of workers required to consider an occupation “female predominate” was increased to 70%. The criteria to determine whether jobs were of equal value included “market forces”. Enforcement fell to individual complainants and a fine of $50,000 was to be imposed if any union provided support to the women faced with this inequity.

True to form, the Conservatives made these changes as part of a budget implementation bill. The Liberals at the time voted in favour of the bill. When challenged on this point, Michael lgnatieff, the then leader of the Federal Liberal party said, “We have made it clear that we are not pursing an amendment strategy...Sometimes we have to hold our nose”, thus making it clear to Canadians that this fundamental human right for women was simply not worth fighting for. Never mind that Canada ratified the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1976, which requires “remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with...fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind.”

Let us ignore the fact that Canada also ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1981, which recognizes women's “right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value, as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work.”

Let us pretend for a minute that Canada did not have section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which 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.

Let us imagine for a minute how we might feel if we were told that the value of our work was less than that of our male counterparts simply because we are women. This is not just academic or theoretical; the consequences for Canadian women are real, and they shall not be forgotten. The reality is that women who are working full time, year round, in Canada are making only about 75% of what men earn. This is the case even in predominantly female occupations, such as teaching, nursing, and administration. Women earn less than men, and the wage gap is even bigger for aboriginal, racialized, and immigrant women with university degrees.

In Vancouver East, the riding I am so proud and honoured to represent, I see many women struggling. Many of them are living in poverty, many of their children are living in poverty, and they retire in poverty. The irony of all of this is that economists estimate that closing the gap would boost Canada's GDP.

This is not just a social issue or an economic issue, but a human rights issue. The implications are far-reaching. There is absolutely no excuse for tolerating this inequality any more. As members of the House, we should be using all of the legislative tools we have available to correct the situation. The pay disparity is an obstacle to the financial independence of women.

The RBC estimates that in Canada, closing the gap in participation rates over the next two decades would boost GDP by 4% in 2032.

The impact of pay equity is not just felt by women but by the entire nation. With today's motion, we have choices to make: do we move forward and recognize pay equity as a right or sit on our hands and watch yet another generation of women be treated unfairly and unjustly; will we act on the recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force report or do we continue to violate our own Canadian Human Rights Act; and, will we restore the right to pay equity in the public service that was eliminated by the Conservatives in 2009 or will we soundly reject economic discrimination in the workplace for women?

New Democrats stand firm in our belief that pay equity is a fundamental right. We have a long tradition of fighting for this right. This motion calls for an investment in gender equality. It is time for real action. Words or good intentions will do no good for the women who are living in precarious conditions, the immigrant women who are starting a new life and home in Canada, the single mothers who are accumulating low-paying part-time jobs, and the women in urban areas who are losing job opportunities because affordable child care is out of reach.

I urge all government MPs to support this motion. Let us get the job done once and for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank the member for Vancouver East for her contribution to this debate. We can see from her passion that she will make incredible contributions to this House.

On this side of the House, members can see that we have no substantive disagreement with the motion before the House. Rather, I have more of a comment.

I happen to sit on the procedure and House affairs committee. One of the only concerns I have with this motion is the decision to refer this matter to a special committee as opposed to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Does the hon. member have a particular reason why the New Democratic caucus has decided to proceed by way of a special committee as opposed to having it referred back to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his kind comment. My spirit is lifted when I hear that the government MPs will be supporting the motion. It is more than time to move forward on this. It is unfortunate, though, that it was not done before by the previous administration. We can imagine, had it been done, how far along we would be in addressing the real issues of pay inequality for women and what that would mean substantively for the people on the ground who are struggling each and every day because of this inequality.

On the question about the special committee, I support the motion and the need for a special committee. It allows for the range of things that need to be done, for people to travel the country to different provinces and parts of the nation, to invite input, and to ensure that we bring in all the necessary measures. I hope the recommendations stemming from that work will be adopted by the House, with budgetary support from the government for their implementation, so that we will no longer have to stand in the House and talk about how important this work is but would simply know that it has been enacted and is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order please.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate a fellow British Columbian on both her electoral victory last fall and her speech and intervention today.

Obviously, there has been a lot of agreement in the House on this particular issue. I heard a number of times the Conservative as well as Liberal members raise this question. We all feel very strongly about the issue. We all want to seek a resolution, but the question is, why create a new committee rather than refer the issue to a current standing committee?

I have sat on the status of women committee. It has institutional knowledge. It has connections. The clerks will have at their disposal witness lists of stakeholders who could come forward. That particular committee can travel. The time, energy, and set of costs, as well as populating the new list of committee members required—we know that we have had some issues with getting our committees started—would slow down what is a very good measure. Therefore, why does the NDP persist in slowing down the process when we have a standing committee, in the status of women, that is ready to go and whose mandate this clearly falls under?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservatives who slowed this work down. It was the Conservatives who brought in regressive changes that set the clock back for women in their pursuit of pay equality in the workplace.

The special committee would ensure that this is a priority item for the government. It would do the necessary work. With any luck, if all the words of the many people who have spoken today ring true, we will have this work done and legislation would be brought in to address the issue of pay equality for women and we would enact the recommendations of the task force that were already made back in 2004. We would move forward to make sure that we do not miss any other work that needs to be done for the women of tomorrow.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House to deliver my first speech on such an important issue for all of us, pay equity.

Since this is the first time that I have risen in the House in this Parliament, I want to take a moment to thank the people of Salaberry—Suroît for electing me. I especially want to thank everyone who worked so hard to help me once again be the member of Parliament for the riding that I adore. I am talking about my wonderful volunteers, as well as my team: Jean-Marc, Isabelle, Glen, and Julie. I also thank my family and friends, as well as the two loves of my life, Mathieu and Mila.

The people chose me to represent them here in the House of Commons for a second time. Everyone who accepts such a mandate knows that it is their responsibility to be a voice for everyone in their riding. This is a serious responsibility and an important role. Giving a voice to those who have none will by my priority.

Today, I am here to talk about pay equity on behalf of all the women of Salaberry—Suroît. Many of them are still excluded from economic equality or live on low incomes, and some of them are poor. I am also speaking on behalf of all the single mothers who struggle every day to give their children what they need. I represent the voices of thousands of women today.

Some say that we have achieved gender equality, that things have changed, and that we should stop talking about it. Unfortunately, they are wrong, so I would like them to listen closely to what I have to say.

I would like to paint a picture of the women in my riding using data from an economic profile created by an organization called Relais-femmes for the Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent conference of regional elected officials. In my region, 25% of families are single-parent families. Of those, 75% have a female head of household. The average employment income of women is $32,000 per year, but that of men is $46,000 per year. That is a difference of $14,000 just because they are women. At least, that is what society tells them.

On average, women living in the Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent earn 70% of what men earn, and 12% of them live in poverty, whereas 10% of the men live in poverty.

I will not bludgeon my colleagues with any more statistics, but these numbers are similar across Canada. Those who say that we have achieved gender equality are wrong. We still have a lot of work to do.

Every day, organizations in my riding help women who are stretched to their limit. These “do-it-all moms” hold down several part-time jobs, take their kids to school, do the laundry and the cooking, and take care of their kids and their aging parents. Of course they have a hard time making ends meet. How does society support them? They sure do not get much from the federal government.

Since 1989, the Salaberry-de-Valleyfield women's centre, Centre D'Main de Femmes, has been providing services to help women in need. The centre's coordinator, Jacynthe Dubien, says that women end up in poverty as a result of systemic barriers.

She said that having to hold down several precarious, part-time jobs penalizes women. If they quit their job to take another that offers more hours, but then end up unemployed, their EI benefits get cut because they had several part-time jobs and not enough accumulated hours.

Ms. Dubien also said that inequality emerges very early on in young women's lives. Often girls drop out of school because of family responsibilities. Less education leads to lower-paying jobs. With her first pregnancy, a woman has to temporarily withdraw from the labour market to take care of her child, and when she returns to work her salary is sometimes lower. This creates gaps, according to Ms. Dubien.

This is unacceptable because women do this work in order to give the best they can to their children, the future generation, the future society. In 2016, it is absurd that their pay is cut when they return to work, that they are told their work is worth less because they devoted their time to their family.

If women have the same qualifications, why do they earn less than men? Is it simply because they are women? That is not a reason.

We are still far from achieving pay equity. Not only are we are far from it, but we have taken a step backwards. In Canada, the status of women is not improving simply because the government is standing in the way of change. The pay equity task force made 113 recommendations in 2004 with a view to improving pay equity. That was 12 years ago. What did the Liberal government in power at the time do? It did not implement any of the recommendations. Even worse, in 2009 the Conservatives passed the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, with the support of the Liberals, which made it more difficult to achieve equity in the public service.

How did that make it more difficult? By setting the threshold for female predominance in a profession at 70%—the principle of 50% plus one never applied here—by making pay equity a collective bargaining issue and not a right—Canada refused to consider it a right when it signed a treaty that I will discuss a little later—by forcing women to file individual complaints, by imposing a $50,000 fine on unions that helped their members file complaints, and by prohibiting recourse to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That was in 2009, and we say that we live in a democratic country. So much for that.

It is disgusting that nothing has changed. We sit in a Parliament in which women are encouraged to run for office, and we are talking about work-life balance, which the Prime Minister boasts about championing.

This government says that gender equality is important. The Prime Minister says he is proud of having formed a gender-balanced cabinet. That is good. I commend him on this initiative, and I am very happy that a government has finally understood that women and men do the same job in Parliament. However, for there to be a serious, fundamental change, we need to see more than female ministers. The government will have to make decisions and take meaningful action. Is this government prepared to do so and to take this action?

The motion by my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith is an opportunity to take action. It is possible for Parliament and the government to take action. Will they do so, or will they continue to impede women's equality?

Yesterday morning, the Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent conference of regional elected officials organized a day of debate on gender equality. Louis-André Lussier, an advisor on equality, social economy, and solidarity, said that small gains had been made, but that equality was still a long way away.

According to Mr. Lussier, employers have to look at systemic discrimination in wages. Mr. Lussier notes that some companies have examined the pay differential between positions dominated by women and positions dominated by men, but they did not consult with employees. It would therefore be useful to improve this exercise and, why not, pass legislation to prohibit racial discrimination.

Pay equity is not a luxury; it is a right. Equality is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but in practice, women have still not achieved equality with men. Canada claims to be a democracy under the rule of law and to have laws to protect women's rights, but the most basic right, women’s social and economic right, is violated every day.

The World Economic Forum puts Canada in 80th place in the area of pay equity. It ranks 80th out of 145 countries, even though we are one of the mostly highly developed and wealthiest countries in the world. It is a poor performance for an OECD country. Nevertheless, Canada signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which endorses equal pay for equal work. In 1981, Canada ratified the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

When will this government take action to ensure that Canada fulfils its commitments and respects its citizens?

As Louis-André Lussier, from the conference of regional elected officials, said, we now need the political will to make equality a priority. Here is a possible solution: stop taking women’s social and family work for granted.

Jacynthe Dubien, from the Centre D’Main des femmes, believes that the government should pass legislation to support women when they are taking care of children or serving as informal caregivers, and to make it easier for them to enter the labour market after maternity leave by developing federal programs that meet their needs.

I will conclude by saying that I hope all members—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Time has expired.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

Shefford

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is home to the Grand Prix Ski-doo de Valcourt, the biggest snowmobile race event in the world.

Valcourt, the birthplace of the snowmobile, first hosted this event in 1983. With 1,000 athletes from around the world, 250 volunteers and plenty of family activities, this hugely spectacular event will take place from February 12 to 14.

This winter, the riding of Shefford will also host two big hockey tournaments, the 42nd Waterloo National Pee-Wee Tournament and the 45th Granby International Bantam Tournament. Teams from all over Canada, the United States, and Europe play in these tournaments.

I myself participated in these tournaments when I was young, so I know that they teach young people discipline and healthy competition. I would also like to point out that these events, which would not be possible without dedicated volunteers, also generate major economic spinoffs for our region.

Hockey Day in Canada

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the city of Kamloops, British Columbia is proud to host Hockey Day in Canada. Hockey is a key part of Canada's identity and the identity of Kamloops, with over 86 teams in our city.

Rogers Media said that we were the perfect setting for the 16th annual nationwide hockey celebration, and I could not agree more. Many residents have been working hard to bring this incredible event to life. We will be joined by Don Cherry; Ron MacLean; former Canucks captain, Trevor Linden; and my favourite visitor, Lord Stanley's cup itself.

We have world-class facilities and athletes and a beautifully rich sports history. Later this year, in April, we will also be welcoming hockey fans for the women's world championship.

This is our favourite game. Come celebrate Hockey Day in Canada, hockey day in Kamloops.

Hon. T. Alex Hickman

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the life of the Hon. T. Alex Hickman, who died last month at the age of 90.

A proud native of Grand Bank, he served his province and his country with great distinction. First elected to the Newfoundland House of Assembly in 1966, he served as a minister in both the Smallwood and Morris cabinets. In 1979 he was appointed chief justice of the Newfoundland trial division, where he professionalized the system by which magistrates were selected and trained.

He chaired two royal commissions. The Ocean Ranger commission uncovered and changed forever a culture of lax safety procedures aboard Canada's oil rigs, and the Marshall commission recommended ways to ensure more equitable treatment of black and indigenous Canadians in the criminal justice system.

Mr. Hickman was named an Officer of the Order of Canada in 2003.

Canada is stronger because of his contributions. He was exceptional and will be greatly missed.

Gasoline Prices

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here is a lesson in classic Canadian economics. Have members ever noticed that when the price of a barrel of crude jumps on the international market, the price at the pumps goes up within seconds? Why is that? They say it is the input price of the commodity being reflected to the consumer.

When the price of a barrel drops, say 70%, what happens at the pumps? For people living in northern Ontario, the price remains high. Why is that? The answers get a little more vague. It is a lack of refining. It is the low value of the loonie. It is yada yada yada. Meanwhile, people in Timmins are paying about 20% more than in Toronto and about 35% more than in Regina.

It is hard-working families in the north who are subsidizing the refineries every time they have to go to work, and it is northern Ontario businesses that are taking the hit. I am pleased that the City of Timmins has stood up on this issue of gas fairness. I am inviting all northern municipalities to do the same, because we need to stand up for our residents who are being hosed at the pumps by big oil and gouged in their pocketbooks. In this time of economic downturn, how about a bit of fairness for hard-working Canadians?

Xavier-Tristan Péloquin

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I rise to tell you that the community of Thérèse-De-Blainville has been in mourning for the past few weeks.

Eight-year-old Xavier-Tristan Péloquin, whom many people affectionately knew as “le Capitaine”, passed away on January 6 after a courageous battle that lasted nearly three years. He had a type of cancer called neuroblastoma, which is more common in infants and young children.

For the past three years, our community mobilized to organize record-breaking blood drives, as well as major fundraising campaigns for the Canadian Cancer Society.

As we mark World Cancer Day later this week, I want to pay tribute to the memory of our dear Capitaine, who is now sailing calmer seas. I extend my condolences to his mother, Annick Deslongchamps, his father, Robert Péloquin, as well as his two brothers and his entire family.

Dick Kirkland

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I pay respect today to the passing of former Point Edward Mayor Dick Kirkland from my riding of Sarnia—Lambton.

Dick was born 83 years ago, one of very few citizens to actually possess a Point Edward village birth certificate. His community service spanned over 60 years in office.

In addition to bringing the Point Edward casino to his community, he was an avid sportsman who was inducted into the Sarnia Sports Hall of Fame for hockey and baseball. His support of the volunteer fire department, the fish hatchery, and the Tuscan Lodge is still celebrated today.

The positive impact brought to Point Edward and surrounding area by his lifelong service is truly a legacy that will live on.

May Dick rest in peace.

Bon Soo Winter Carnival

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to stand in the House of Commons to wish the organizers, volunteers, and participants in this year's Bon Soo Winter Carnival the best of luck.

The first Bon Soo was held in 1964 as a way to celebrate and make the best of northern Ontario's cold winters. It was the brainchild of Sault Ste. Marie businessman Henry Bullock, and was named by then ten-year-old Donald Norman.

Over the years, Bon Soo has become a winter staple in Sault Ste. Marie. It is an opportunity for residents of our community to get together with their friends and family and enjoy winter activities, including ice slides, a winter playground, and as reported this weekend's National Post, a Polar bear swim.

As the member of Parliament for Sault Ste. Marie, I am delighted to have this opportunity to congratulate my community on the opening of the Bon Soo Winter Carnival, which will begin on February 4 and last 10 days.

I invite all members of the House to visit my riding and enjoy Bon Soo.