Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2016

Opposition Motion—Pay Equity

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if I were to answer that member's excellent question, you would have to let me speak for the next 10 minutes.

It is rooted in the philosophical and historic fact that women did not work at a particular point in time. They were chattel and they were owned by their husbands. When women did go out into the workforce around and after the Second World War, they were doing “certain sectoral jobs”. Those jobs were seen as pink ghetto or women's work, and as such they were paid at a lower level because a woman was not supposed to be the breadwinner.

Today in Canada women have attained greater post-secondary education and greater abilities and credentials than men in many sectors. Yet, they do not seem to be able to get equal pay for work of equal value because that is sectoral. Women's work still remains.

One of the biggest things we need to talk about, if we want to talk about women having equal rights in the workforce, is that women have children and need to have good quality child care so they can work equal time or be as flexible as they want to be in the workforce.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go on with debate, I will point out a slight change on these opposition days.

On an opposition day that has been sponsored by the third party, the New Democratic Party in this case, members will see a different rotation with the way that we conduct the comments and questions part of the debate. When a member of either the official opposition or the government has just spoken, the first question will always go to the New Democratic Party, and then we will go in succession after that.

As a result of today's motion being a New Democratic Party motion, NDP members will get the first opportunity to pose a question to either a government member or a member of the opposition. We will be following that rotation, which is slightly different than the usual pattern that we follow in the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to contribute to the debate on pay equity in Canada. I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for bringing this important issue to the floor of the House. In 2016, it is not acceptable that women in Canada are still earning 23% less than men.

This morning, I had the honour of meeting with a group of grade five students from Woodroffe public school, in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean, who were touring Parliament. I told the students I was giving a speech later in the day, and they asked me the topic of my speech. I told them I would be talking about pay equity. I explained that means that men and women who are doing similar jobs should get similar pay. To the students, this is something that should be self-evident. When I told them that women are only making 73¢ for every $1 that men make in Canada, the students were terribly disappointed, and applauded me for speaking on this in the House today. This is an issue that even young children can understand, because it is an issue of basic fairness.

The face of poverty in Canada is female. There are 35% of single mothers who are living below the poverty line, compared to 17% for single dads. With regard to low-income seniors, 71% are women, a number that is even worse for senior women who live alone. Women are more likely than men to be working in minimum wage jobs, working part time, or doing shift work. In Ontario, 58% of minimum wage earners are women.

Women in Canada today earn just 67¢ for every $1 earned by men. I have heard some opponents say that women make different life choices, including taking time off for caregiving or working fewer hours, which they say accounts for this discrepancy. However, even when comparing people who are working full time, full year, in similar jobs, women are still earning only 73¢ on the dollar.

Even though women are now more educated than ever before, the gap continues. In fact, today more women than men between the ages of 25 and 34 have bachelor, master, and medical degrees. Therefore, the gap is not because women are less educated or qualified.

In Canada, this wage gap exists across all occupations, from the service industry, to scientists, to management. When factoring in aboriginal women, visible minorities, new immigrant women, women living with disabilities, and transgendered women, the wage gap is even greater. This is a glaring example of gender discrimination that must be dealt with.

We live in a society where we tell our children that they can do anything and be anything. We tell boys and girls that if they study hard and work hard they will succeed, and yet the deck is stacked from the beginning. Our daughters will not be as valued in the workplace as our sons, even if they have the same marks, the same educational levels, work just as hard, and are equally skilled. This is not an issue about numbers; it is an issue about fairness and human rights.

I would like to illustrate this with a real-life example of a couple I know. I will call them Jennifer and Steve. They went to university together. Jennifer completed her masters degree with first-class honours and then went on to work in a low-paying service job to help Steve get his masters degree. She then went back to school to get more professional qualifications, and went on to work in a predominantly female profession, making $35,000 a year.

Steve found a position immediately after graduation in a predominantly male profession. He was making $75,000 a year. After a few years, they decided to have a baby. Even though Jennifer wanted to keep working, the cost of child care was almost as much as her salary. As Steve earned more, they made the decision that Jennifer would stay home until the child began school. That child is now nine years old, and Jennifer is making less than $20,000 a year working part time; Steve is making almost six figures.

One might say that this is not an example of pay equity because Jennifer and Steve are not working in the same fields, but her initial job required more education and had a greater level of responsibility than Steve's entry-level post. Had they been making the same salaries when they had their baby, she may have stayed in the labour force and the family might have made different choices.

Pay equity is not just about two people doing the same job; it is about a cycle of discrimination that limits opportunities for half the population.

Canada is also lagging behind internationally when it comes to equal pay for work of equal value. According to the World Economic Forum, Canada ranks 80 out of 145 countries in the wage equality for similar work indicator.

Pay equity is a fundamental human right that is enshrined in international treaties as well as the Canadian human right framework. For example, the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights includes fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, CEDAW, refers to a woman's right to equal remuneration and equal treatment in respect of work of equal value. Canada is also a signatory to the International Labour Organization's Convention No. 100 on equal remuneration.

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms calls for the equality of all citizens. Section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act specifically refers to equal pay for work of equal value. These rights were undermined in 2009, with the introduction of Bill C-10, the omnibus budget bill that replaced the term “pay equity” with “equitable compensation” and moved responsibility for pay equity from the Canadian Human Rights Commission to the Public Service Labour Relations Board, which had no mandate for protecting human rights, which fined unions for assisting with a complaint, and which combined pay equity with collective bargaining. This treated pay equity as a benefit that could be bargained away, as opposed to a fundamental right. It also goes against the recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force.

The 2004 task force called for stand-alone proactive pay equity legislation that would include a commitment to pay equity as a human right, that it apply equally to unionized and non-unionized workplaces, and that it include oversight agencies and an independent adjudicative body. The task force recommendations included a pay equity commission that could receive complaints and that could issue compliance orders, summon documents, and conduct audits. It also recommends a pay equity hearings tribunal. Several provinces already have similar mechanisms that have decreased the wage gap.

I am proud to have a number of public servants in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean. The gender wage gap is a little less in the public service at about 9%. However, this is still too large a gap. I am pleased that the Prime Minister committed to ending the wage gap in the federal public service in an interview with “Up for Debate” and the Alliance for Women's Rights. We will begin with consultations with unions, stakeholders, and public servants themselves on this.

Despite the work done by the task force over a decade ago, a young woman graduating from university today in Canada will still earn about $8,000 less than her male classmates in her first job, and will continue to earn less throughout her career despite the fact that she may be working in a job that requires the same qualifications and is similar in demands and level of expertise. By the time she is in her fifties she will be earning almost $23,000 less, and she will be far more likely to retire in poverty. By continuing to allow this gap and not acting on it, we are doing a disservice to women throughout Canada, but especially to those bright and aspiring young graduates entering the labour force who deserve an equal chance to succeed. At the current rate of increase, women will only achieve full gender equality in the year 2240.

This is not just about human rights. Studies show that there are economic benefits to pay equity. According to several studies, gender equality in the labour force could significantly increase GDP. Pay equity could also help to reduce poverty. A U.S. study found that if single working mothers were paid as much as their male counterparts, their poverty levels would be cut in half. Pay equity can also benefit men who work in predominantly female professions. They would be eligible for the same pay equity adjustments as women in their employment class.

We cannot afford to do nothing. Pay equity is a fundamental right, and we owe it to Canadians to take action.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I paid close attention to my colleague's speech, and I congratulate her.

I share her passion for the student community, and I know that young people today consider this issue to be altogether discriminatory. They think it is absurd that it has not yet, in 2016, been resolved.

Does the member think that limiting women's access to the resources they might employ to claim their rights is just as discriminatory? The Conservatives' 2009 law takes away some of their rights, including the right of unionized women to enlist the help of their union to defend their cause.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the things that I mentioned in my speech. It was very unfair that unions were not able to represent people under the 2009 law.

I believe that if pay equity is a matter of an individual person having to come forward as a particular case, that does not address the problem. In many cases, this is something that is a collective issue. We need to have mechanisms, particularly human rights mechanisms, through which women can come forward and be represented.

It also very important to recognize that this needs to apply to non-unionized workplaces as well. Pay equity needs to be across the board.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her years of work and service on human rights and women's equality issues.

When the member was speaking about the current absence of adequate mechanisms to ensure pay equity, she called that a disservice to women across Canada. I am thinking about Canada's role in and respect or influence on the world stage.

I would like to ask the member what impacts it might have on Canada's relationship with the other nations we partner with once we reduce or eliminate these gaps and introduce an effective pay equity approach.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that in many areas Canada is a leader in the world on gender and equality.

However, this particular area is one where Canada is falling behind. Out of 34 countries in the OECD, there are only 7 that are doing worse than us. We are number 29 in the OECD. This is amongst developed countries.

There is no reason for Canada to be lagging in this area. We have women who are attaining higher education levels, more than ever before. There is no reason that women would not be attaining pay equity.

There are countries, particularly the Nordic countries, that have exceptional models that we could be looking at. Hopefully in the near future Canada will once again become a leader in the world on this issue.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear the member is very passionate about this issue, and that is great to see.

I think all of us in this place would agree that this is a very important issue for all of to discuss. I had an opportunity to be a member of the status of women committee during my time here. It was one of the most rewarding experiences I have ever had. We did a lot of great work as part of that committee.

I am wondering if the member could explain why she feels it is important to start up another very expensive, time-consuming committee when we already have one in place that could very well deal with this issue. It has a great track record. That is what it was established for. Why do we need to start a whole other piece of bureaucracy? Why can it not just be in the purview of the status of women committee?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we have unanimity in the House on this very important issue.

I agree with the hon. member that we should not reinvent the wheel. There has been tremendous work done in this place on the issue of pay equity. There have been motions that have come before the House.

I am a member of the status of women committee, and this was in fact one of the issues that I as a member of Parliament was hoping to work on, and I do plan to work on. I think the motion before us talks about a special committee. The most important thing is that this be something that is given priority and is studied, whether it is in a special committee or in the status of women committee.

This is something where we all have an opportunity as members of Parliament to work together so that those young children who come here in the future with their school groups will not have to learn that women earn 73 cents on every dollar that men earn, and that in the future we will have parity when it comes to wages in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Three years ago, nearly to the day, I delivered a speech on this same topic before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. The debate was about a report published by a parliamentarian who raised the following points: profound changes are needed in people's mindsets to combat sexist stereotypes in the workplace, and when partners share family responsibilities and more fathers take parental leave, this definitely contributes to changing those mindsets.

In Canada, much like in Europe, when a couple decides which of the two parents is going to take parental leave, the decision is often based on the spouses' respective salaries. The one who earns less usually stays home with the baby. Studies show, beyond any doubt, that there is a gap between the salaries earned by men and women. Women who work full time earn about 77% of what men earn. Women aged 45 to 54 earn $23,600 less than men the same age, which means they will also have less pension income than their male counterparts. Actually, many retired women are living below the poverty line.

We also see a wage gap between young, educated women and men. The gap is even wider when it comes to aboriginal and immigrant women. These flagrant wage gaps between men and women are partly due to systemic gender-based discrimination. What does that mean? A few decades ago, it was the man who provided financial support in most families. Some women worked, but their salaries were considered supplementary income. As a result, jobs today are still generally evaluated based on more masculine traits, such as physical strength, for example. As a result, skills considered more feminine in nature are not as highly valued when the tasks of a position are being evaluated. That is why a secretarial job does not pay as well as a technician's job and why a zookeeper earns a higher salary than women who provide child care. It seems clear that if we want women's full and equal participation in the workforce, then we must eliminate this systemic wage gap.

More than half of all humans are women. It is proven that women earn less than men. Do we really want half the population to continue to be discriminated against?

Allow me to digress a bit.

Many people believe that pay equity means “equal work for equal pay”. That is not the case. That problem was solved a long time ago. A female nurse and a male nurse at the same level earn the same salary. Pay equity means equal pay for work of equal value. It is a somewhat more complex concept, but what happens in Quebec makes it easy to understand.

In 1966, Quebec passed its pay equity legislation for workers governed by the Quebec Labour Code. One of the important elements of this legislation is the set of four factors used to assess jobs and establish equitable pay for work of equal value, no matter the position. These four factors are responsibilities of the position, required qualifications, work conditions and effort required.

Points are awarded for each of these factors and their sub-factors. For example, the “effort” factor recognizes concentration as much as physical effort. When the points are tallied, if the total value of the two different positions is equal, the pay must be equal. This process recognizes the value of jobs traditionally or predominantly held by women by eliminating bias to the extent possible.

Another important aspect of the legislation is that it seeks to maintain equity. Reassessments must be carried out every five years to ensure that wage increases have not led to equity gaps. Finally, a commission is responsible for providing information, tools and dispute resolution services. In Quebec, any business with at least 10 employees must undergo a pay equity process. The requirements vary according to the size of the business. Pay equity is a principle that is recognized around the world, and not just by members of the Council of Europe. In the United Kingdom, even Conservative David Cameron is tackling the problem of wage inequality.

Canada has ratified international treaties that address the issue of equal pay for work of equal value. Unfortunately, both Liberal and Conservative governments have not always been able to walk the talk, as my leader likes to say.

The Liberals' platform made no mention of pay equity. In 2004, Paul Martin chose not to implement the recommendations of a federal task force that was examining this issue. As for the Conservatives, they made it extremely difficult for the public service to achieve pay equity when they changed the rules in 2009. They had the support of the Liberals.

As a result, Canada has a poor record on pay equity among OECD countries. Earlier, I heard that Canada was ranked 29th. According to my figures, Canada is ranked 30th out of 34. That is quite shameful.

Many members of the NDP have been fighting for years to correct this injustice against women. Our former leader, Nycole Turmel, emphatically defended this principle when she was the president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. The colleague with whom I have the honour of sharing a desk, the member for London—Fanshawe, introduced a number of equity bills, which were later brought back by another colleague, Françoise Boivin. These women and many others, along with many men, understood that ensuring that women have a decent salary is a way of combatting poverty, social exclusion, and inequality in our society.

The motion moved today by the NDP proposes practical solutions to these problems. We need to combat the systemic discrimination against women and the resulting social and financial inequality by recognizing pay equity as a right; implementing the recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force report; restoring the right to pay equity in the public service, which was undermined by the previous Conservative government in 2009 with the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act; and appointing a special committee to propose legislation based on public consultation.

In closing, the traditional sharing of responsibilities, whereby women take care of the household and the children, still exists. Although more and more men and women are working hard to combat them, gender stereotypes unfortunately still haunt us today.

Pay equity is an important tool in creating new habits, raising awareness, and making profound changes to how we see gender roles in the workforce. The Quebec example may not be perfect, but it shows that in order to achieve this goal, any legislation in that regard needs to contain clearly defined parameters, audit mechanisms, and a conflict resolution process.

Canada needs pay equity legislation. I am hopeful that the Liberals and the Conservatives recently elected to the House will be more open to this reality than their predecessors were. If the last speech I heard is any indication, I think that this is the case. Many members currently sitting in the House are women; surely they will support this motion. As for the men, they have mothers, sisters, daughters, spouses, and friends who are counting on them to make a difference. We cannot turn our backs on 50% of the Canadian population.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments of my colleague across the way and take very seriously her challenge to remember our sisters, our mothers, particularly my mother, and our daughters.

The concept of equal pay for equal work is hopefully rooted in all of our consciences now, but it goes beyond that. The issues the hon. member has spoken to illustrate how much more work is done beyond the pay slip. It is also about ensuring that equal opportunity is afforded to women so they can take their place, as my colleague, a minister in the previous government, stated, in the social, economic, cultural, and in all realms of the country.

Pay equity is the first step. What does the member see as the next step we need to take to ensure that women have their rights and their position in society properly sorted by this Parliament?

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

Mr. Speaker, we can do a number of things here in Parliament. We can encourage women to run for political office. We represent a population composed of more than 50% women. Our role could quite easily be to encourage women to enter politics to better represent this percentage.

During the last Parliament, the NDP was made up of 40% women and there were many young people. This significantly changed the way of thinking here in the House. For example, some of the young women wanted some changes to be made and those changes were indeed made.

We are continuing to work on that. This time, the Liberals and Conservatives elected a lot of women. There are more women in the House of Commons.

I think we can keep working on that, but there are a number of other aspects we could work on, such as better representation of women on boards of directors. We introduced a bill to that effect during the last Parliament and we would like to bring that bill back during this Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, there certainly is no dispute about the value of pay equity, but it sounds now like the NDP is calling for major additional administrative processes where the state effectively assesses the value of work in the private sector. The member has talked about a model where there is a state-run points-based system to say what the value of work is.

That is very different from the way wages are generally set in the private sector. They are based on the value of work that is assessed by the marketplace and by the employer.

Therefore, while we share a belief in the principle, does the member not think there is a better way of achieving the same objective than having government assess the value of work in every case? Does she not think that would impose very high practical costs on businesses and, frankly, make it harder for them to create jobs in the first place?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a stretch to say that there is too much bureaucracy when we are trying to fix a problem that affects 50% of the population.

Furthermore, I participated in the pay equity process at Pointe-à-Callière, a museum of archaeology and history I worked at. The government does not impose the process. We created our own weighting system, in which points were awarded for each criterion. The employer created a pay equity committee to do so, and the union and the employer worked together on it. We set the value of the points ourselves. In Quebec, the government does not set the criteria; it proposes a framework, which each company customizes.

I think that answers my colleague's questions.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree with the proposal, with the exception of one aspect that is fundamentally unfair. I would like to know what the member for Hochelaga thinks about this.

Does she agree with the democratic principle that all citizens have the right to be fairly represented in the House? That is not the case now, because the opposition parties, including the NDP, refuse to acknowledge the Bloc Québécois or the Green Party of Canada as recognized parties, on the basis of completely arbitrary criteria.

Regardless of the party line, which I realize is difficult to get around, does the member think that members of all the parties, who represent the public, should have the right to fair representation on the pay equity committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would love to hear my Bloc Québécois colleague's suggestions, and I completely agree with him, if it were not for the rules of the House of Commons, which state that a party that is not recognized cannot have seats on a committee. There are all kinds of other ways to proceed. They can send us their suggestions and can testify. If we hold public consultations, they can certainly participate in those. There are many other ways to proceed that would enable them to share their thoughts.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to discuss equity in the House, because it is a subject of great concern to me. People often tend to confuse equality and equity, and therefore I will take the time to clarify these two terms.

Equality means that two people doing the same work earn the same pay. Naturally, it would be illegal to pay a female nurse less than a male nurse if they were doing the exact same job. We no longer need to fight for equality. Most collective agreements provide protection for employees in this regard.

Equity means that two similar jobs are compensated in a similar manner. Here, the problem is that there is still work to do even though there have been some settlements. Let us compare a nurse who works in an aboriginal community to a police officer. We can say that these two jobs are comparable in that they require the same level of education. In Quebec, both jobs require a college diploma. Furthermore, both these jobs are demanding and have a fairly high level of responsibility. Thus, we can say that these two jobs are equivalent.

However, although pay equity settlements may restore the pay balance between some jobs, over time, negotiations and pay raises may create a new pay imbalance. That is why work on pay equity is ongoing. It is important to always be asking ourselves questions in this regard in order to ensure that pay equity is not lost over time, even if it was achieved for a certain period.

In 2013, the wage gap between equivalent jobs was the highest it has been in 10 years, mainly because women's average hourly wage increased by only 0.7% while men's average hourly wage increased by 2.2%. For every hour worked, men earned an average of $2.91 more than women.

Despite the efforts to reduce this imbalance, wage gaps still exist. The main reason is that, unfortunately, there is a high concentration of women in a small number of low-paying job groups. The fact is that women are more likely than men to make arrangements to balance paid and unpaid work. Unfortunately, women often end up losing out.

It is important to understand that the intention of the NDP’s motion to create a committee on this issue is to have concrete and binding work done. When a committee is created, it has to report on the work done on a daily basis. Since people are able to read the minutes of all committee meetings, committee members are required to carry out the work they have been asked to do.

There is also a participatory aspect to committees. We in the NDP do not believe that the study of pay equity must be confined to the government and its officials. We believe that all parliamentarians from all political parties must be involved in the cause of pay equity and, more generally, in the cause of women.

Let us therefore support the work of a committee that will be made up of members from all recognized parties and provided with mechanisms to allow the participation of parties that are not officially recognized in the House. I would point out that any member of the House may attend committee meetings, unless those meetings are conducted in camera. Apart from working meetings, the meetings of such a committee will be conducted publicly.

Any member may appear at and attend the entire meeting with no problem, even if the person is not an official member of the committee. There is a way to speak with the parties in order to have documents tabled. The rules of the House provide for important mechanisms that allow all members to participate. This is an essential point.

Now, this is also a participatory committee because it reaches out to the entire population. People who are interested in testifying and who believe they have something to contribute can contact the political parties and the Speaker of the House to ask to appear as witnesses. If their testimony cannot be accepted for various reasons, for example, if they cannot testify because of the time frames involved or because of a conflict with the committee schedule, they can decide to make a submission on the topic being discussed.

The committee is designed to be participatory. It will reach out to the population as a whole, rather than place the work on pay equity solely on the shoulders of a minister and her officials, something that would not be beneficial. This is precisely why we want a committee. It is to ensure that everyone can participate and work effectively.

I would like to point out that, unfortunately, Canada is well down the list of developed countries in the area of pay equity. According to the World Economic Forum, Canada ranks 80th out of 145 countries in this regard. Accordingly, since we are so far down the list, a pay equity committee is really a good way of ensuring that we make progress. We heard the Prime Minister say in Davos that he was a feminist. By agreeing to support the NDP motion, when the vote is taken tomorrow, he will show that he truly cares about feminist interests. In addition, his support would show that he clearly understands the inclusive nature of the motion and that, when it comes to improving the living conditions of women, it is important to bring everyone together, to work as a team, to avoid partisanship and to really bring solutions to the table. It is also time to take meaningful action. I believe we are at that point now. After all, this is 2016. It is important to see to it that pay equity is finally recognized as a right.

We also have to realize that public policy does not have the same impact on women as it has on men. We must take that into account when we make our decisions. We sometimes have to ensure that we push harder and make meaningful progress. Sometimes, when we support a relaxed approach we fail to achieve concrete results.

As we know, women make up about 50% of the population. However, there are always cases where women do not achieve equality. When it comes to representativeness on boards of directors or in various bodies to which people are appointed, or when it comes to public policy, we do not appoint women to those positions, although there are competent women. We really have to adopt policies that will bring about meaningful action. If we wait for things to happen by themselves, we will not succeed. We have to have the political will to change things and put clear policies in place.

It is high time we balanced women’s job-related responsibilities and family life, to ensure that things are much more egalitarian and equitable for half the population and that jobs that fall under federal jurisdiction, whether they are in the public or private sector, remain attractive for women.

They have to be able to choose their job voluntarily and dedicate themselves fully to it. Society will then go forward without losing sight of the pay equity issue, so that wins do not turn into losses in a few years and we do not lose what we have gained after so much effort.

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

Mr. Speaker, going through the election campaign I did not hear anything, not one issue, come up with respect to pay equity. I did not hear anything in terms of the Conservative plan on pay equity. Yet today, in the context of this motion, we see as part of this motion a backhanded slap at the Conservative Party. There is not one member on this side who does not agree with pay equity and equal work for equal value.

I will ask the member this. Why would her party not consider removing, as was proposed by the member for South Surrey—White Rock and the member for Sarnia—Lambton, any reference in section (c) to the Conservative Party? I would also ask, if this issue has been dealt with so much by the status of women committee and there are opportunities for Canadians to go in front of that committee, why we are doing this again?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to tell my colleague that he may not have followed my personal election campaign, since I am sure that in that campaign, I spoke about women’s issues at some length. It is unfortunate that he did not follow my election campaign. I realize that there were many local campaigns, but I can assure him that it was discussed during the election campaign.

With regard to the committee, we do not want it to be just a study by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We really want the committee to focus on the pay equity issue and do concrete work on the subject. We believe that this mandate is important enough and broad enough to occupy a committee for some time. We do not want it to be a single study that will take up two or three meetings of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We believe that the issue is important enough for people to study the matter for an appreciable length of time. That is why we are requesting a special committee.

That said, if the member believes that this motion does not require the attention it deserves, that is very unfortunate. Personally, however, I am convinced that we need to study this issue for a sufficiently long period of time. Although we had achieved equity in some occupations, there have unfortunately been setbacks over the years, because wage increases have not adhered to the equity principle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP member for her comments.

Our government has also clearly indicated that it wants to make significant progress in closing the wage gap between men and women in Canada. Our government is introducing a new policy to reform pay equity for public sector employees.

What can we, as members of Parliament, do in our work to reinforce the significant progress that we all want to see in the private sector?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing to do would obviously be to support our motion. This committee will give all members an opportunity to take part. As I said, all members can assist in a committee’s work, and it can be done at the same time as the work that the minister is doing on the issue of pay equity.

The committee will allow a much broader and more participatory effort by all members, and the minister will work on the matters that fall within her purview. The two things can be done in parallel. However, the committee is really very important. I therefore urge my colleague to support the establishment of this committee, and perhaps she will have an opportunity to sit on the committee. We will be able to have worthwhile discussions there.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in this important debate on pay equity.

This side of the House supports the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. I am proud to be part of a government that recognizes the importance of pay equity and introduced amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to enshrine this important principle in law in 1977.

We are living in a time of change. Women in Canada today are seizing opportunities and reaching for their dreams. Whether we look at women in post-secondary education, women in the legal profession, or women in business, in almost every sector and field of endeavour women are excelling, making a contribution, and fulfilling their personal goals and potential. They are doing so in greater numbers than ever before. They are creating jobs, they are entrepreneurs, and they are innovators.

Yet women continue to comprise a majority of employees in many low-wage sectors. Closing the gap on pay equity is but one of the solutions needed.

Some further issues that persist and need to be addressed include the overrepresentation of women in part-time work, workplace bias and discrimination, and women being passed over for work that is obsoletely viewed as non-traditional or not feminine.

The reality is that women have the greater share of unpaid work related to caregiving for children and sick family members.

Making progress on this issue is important, because today's economy is changing rapidly. Women contribute $130 billion annually to our economy and make up nearly half of our workforce, with many also being the primary earners for their families. Their earnings drive essential economic decisions, including decisions about quality of housing, educational attainment for children, child care, housing, and food. Their income has a long-term effect on women's ability to save and prepare for retirement. When women are shortchanged, their personal financial stability suffers, and their families suffer.

Women's earnings impact other sectors of the economy and local communities, since lower pay means that fewer dollars are spent in local businesses or invested in new ventures.

For these reasons, pay equity is important for our nation, the broader economic security of our families, and the growth of the middle class.

There is room for improvement. A widely debated contention about the wage gap is that it is attributable to women's choice to put family ahead of work. Research has shown that there is a motherhood penalty for many women who may stay at home for a period to raise their families or because of other biases about working mothers. However, it does not seem that men face the same challenges. I believe that we need to look at this further.

We also know that while female labour force participation rates are close to those of men, the glass ceiling that blocks women's advancement in many fields still persists.

Let us take a moment to look at women's representation around us in this chamber. The number of women in Parliament is still below the critical mass level of 30%, which the United Nations indicates is the target needed for women to meaningfully influence decision-making processes. In fact, Canada currently ranks 30th of 145 countries in the World Economic Forum's global gender gap index when we look at the representation of women in leadership roles in this country.

Some groups of women are also overrepresented among those living on low incomes, a trend that has not changed in the last decade. For example, using one measure, 36% of single mothers and 30% of aboriginal women live on low incomes.

In addition, we also know that women with disabilities, immigrant women, and visible minority women are more likely to experience low incomes. That is why increasing women's economic security is a priority of our government.

We recognize the importance of helping women and men balance work and family responsibilities, and of assisting vulnerable groups in achieving greater economic independence and security. Therefore, we are taking action with a wide range of initiatives that will help women meet the opportunities and the challenges available to them in Canada today. Our government is taking action to enhance women's economic security through improved access to child care; introduction of the new tax-free and income-tied Canada child benefit to provide support to those who need help the most, including single parents and low-income families; working to increase women's representation in key growth sectors of the economy, business, and political leadership; and investments in home care and palliative care.

Our government has already made historical changes by ensuring that our cabinet is 50% female and 50% male. This is already a huge step in our commitment to ensure that women are in positions of leadership and decision-making roles.

These and other government initiatives that address women's economic security mean real results for women and girls today and in the future. They mean concrete, lasting change. They mean increased opportunities for women to more fully participate in the life of their communities and their nation, and to enjoy lives that are financially secure and free from poverty.

As we look to the future and to ensuring that Canada continues to be one of the most prosperous countries in the world, we need to strengthen women's participation in the labour force and to support their life course choices. There are many elements to economic growth; the most essential is a high-performing workforce. Let us win this fight for equality. As was the message of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 in Beijing over 20 years ago, the same message still rings true: Human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights.

Our future prosperity as a nation is closely tied to the prosperity of women and their families.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member on her position as Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women. As I said earlier, I had an opportunity to serve on that committee. It was one of the most rewarding experiences I have had as a parliamentarian and we were able to accomplish a great deal on that committee: STEM projects, attracting women to skilled trades, and those kinds of initiatives.

This is a very important issue we are all talking about today, I think all of us would agree that this is a topic worth discussing, but I would ask why does the member feel it is important to form an entire new piece of bureaucracy, a new committee, when I would think that this would fit perfectly under the purview of the status of women committee that already exists.

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to having gender equality and gender parity in every aspect of the workforce, whether it be high-level or low-level positions. This is our commitment. We cannot get ahead by leaving half the population behind, so it is very important. It is not just our government or our party that should be making this effort; it should be every single party in the House to ensure gender parity.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report, released this morning, suggested that concrete policies are needed. It is clear that the Conservatives' commitment to gender-based analysis was simply non-existent over the last term of government, so very little progress was made here since the last audit in 2009. Six departments that had committed to implementing the government-wide gender-based analysis departmental action plan implemented no gender-based analysis at all.

Twenty years of encouragement from the Status of Women ministry, encouraging departments to take steps to integrate gender-based analysis into their ministries' work, has not had the effect we needed.

Can we expect the Minister of Status of Women to take an active role in overseeing the implementation of proactive legislation as laid out in our motion today?