House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was workers.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Conservative MP for Jonquière—Alma (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 35% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply November 1st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I think that the member fails to grasp the importance of the question of pay equity in the workplace.

We already have a law. At one point, the call was for the Wilson report to be adopted and another pay equity law to be written. The problem was not a shortage of laws, but a shortage of personnel to enforce the law. We were short of people with the political will to really do something.

At that time, the Liberal Party was in power. And it failed to do anything at all throughout its term in office. When we came to power, we looked at this question and we saw that we did not need a new law, we just needed to enforce the law already in place.

We therefore sent out our inspectors, and we do in fact have inspectors in the Labour Program for which I am responsible, to visit the companies. They go out to meet with employers and also with union representatives, to determine whether they are applying the principles of the Employment Equity Act. If they are not doing that, the inspectors inform them about the provisions of the Act and the consequences it provides for. We are proactive, so that they will move forward. That is what we are doing.

Over the last year we have visited 250 companies. We are in the process of preparing our information kit and we will be targeting companies where we think it is most important for us to step in.

I would point out that even though Quebec has its Pay Equity Act, unless I am mistaken, almost 60% of employers at present are not in full compliance with their obligations under the Act. Certainly, there has to be a law, and we have one. The problem is in enforcing it.

Business of Supply November 1st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that, with your permission, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

What should we be asking ourselves this afternoon? What are we doing as a government to ensure women's economic security through pay equity? I would like to point out first of all that the government and I, as Minister of Labour, believe in fairness and equality for all women. Our government is proud of the decisive measures it has taken to improve federal pay equity. We are convinced that women in the federal public service will also applaud these measures. These workers have waited long enough for real action.

The principle of equal pay for equal work was recognized as early as 1977 and was entrenched in the Canadian Human Rights Act. In 1986, as a member of Parliament—because I was here in this House at the time—I supported the equal pay guidelines that took effect under the Conservatives. I am still a strong advocate for pay equity today.

However, it turned out to be very difficult for employers and unions to apply these principles and there was a lot of litigation over key elements in the act. In 2001, a working group was tasked with studying the pay equity plan. Its members consulted a tremendous number of employers, unions, and equity defence groups. Three years later in 2004, they submitted a lengthy report.

One year later in 2005, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women submitted its own report in which it presented a bill to implement the working group’s report. A little later, in 2006, the standing committee submitted another report on pay equity, the sixth in the series. Through the pay equity legislation that has been passed, our government is sending women in the workplace the following message: the wait is now over.

After years of discussions, studies and interminable debates, the stakeholders feel it is clear that everyone agrees on the need for pay equity. Everybody wants it. All parties have recognized that more needs to be done to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, including on the basis of sex. There was no agreement, however, on the best way to proceed. Everyone had a different view.

At the time when the working group on pay equity submitted its report, it was clear that it would be very difficult to get all the parties to move forward together on this matter. The shortcomings in the report proved insurmountable. We had to look elsewhere. We needed a solution that was flexible enough to meet all the various needs of the federal private sector. However, so much flexibility was simply unattainable. That is why a consensus could never be reached on how to proceed. Nevertheless, a lack of consensus is no excuse for inaction—I repeat: a lack of consensus is no excuse for inaction—or for the kind of senseless delays we have seen.

After looking at the experiences of other levels of government in Canada and of other governments on the international scene, we realized that a lack of consensus on how to handle pay equity seemed to be the norm rather than the exception. Some provinces, including Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, have specific legislation on pay equity. It applies, however, to their respective public sectors. Other provinces, such as British Columbia, still do not have any specific pay equity legislation.

In Europe, the pay equity initiatives are far from comprehensive. In New Zealand, there is an act requiring pay equity for women doing the same work as men, but there are no policies on pay equity for work of equal value.

Here, in Canada, our collective experience with pay equity is among the greatest and most varied in the world. This has been achieved in part because the federal and provincial governments actively consulted stakeholders, and also because at key points in our country's history, they chose to act based on the most reasonable understanding of the facts.

We listened to the interested parties and came up with a response that would make positive changes in the workplace.

The measures we are now taking to support partners of federal workplaces are threefold.

First, we are striving to improve and increase the participation of education stakeholders in order to help federally regulated employers, workers and unions understand their rights and obligations in terms of pay equity plans.

Labour program officers have already visited 250 employers to inform them of their legal obligations. A training document and tools have been developed to provide better information for employers on what they must do. The Labour program has already provided specialized training on pay equity to 23 officers, and training sessions will be given to more officers again this year.

Second, what did we do? We established specialized mediation assistance for partners in the occupational setting who wished to cooperate in order to enforce pay equity. Mediation and conciliation officers were given specialized training in pay equity and can provide specialized services to employers and unions that need them.

The chief mediator even met with business representatives and other stakeholders, and offered specialized mediation services. Furthermore, the association that represents major unionized employers—FETCO—expressed its gratitude for the assistance we were able to provide regarding addressing pay equity in the context of collective bargaining.

Third, by hiring 15 compensation specialists, we can monitor the situation more closely in order to ensure compliance with equity principles and measure the progress made towards eliminating gender-based discrimination in wages.

Lastly, when an employer refuses to take proactive measures to correct an unfair wage gap, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be notified and asked to investigate.

In closing, we have taken the proper approach to resolving the contentious issues involved in federal pay equity.

Instead of creating a situation in which women must wait and wait for new legislation to be passed, we thought, and we still believe, that we could improve the existing pay equity system.

As Minister of Labour, my role is to make decisions that offer practical solutions for everyone involved. The pay equity measures that we have established allow for flexible, concrete enforcement of pay equity principles in the workplace.

We will continue to consult the major players, particularly, employer and employee representatives, to hear their points of view on the best way to implement measures to establish pay equity.

Very recently, we met with major stakeholders such as the CLC, CSN, Canadian Bankers Association and FETCO, and other meetings with key stakeholders will be held as needed, as questions arise.

I am confident that our approach will serve to support our vision of Canada's workforce, where industrial relations are strong and durable.

Let us be clear, our government is committed to the principle of pay equity and our goal is to eliminate wage disparities based on gender, in sectors under our jurisdiction. What do the Labour Program officers do in this regard? They promote the pay equity program, they educate employers about the program requirements and about their obligations and responsibilities. To date, in less than a year, meetings have been held with 250 employers. They have been asked whether they apply pay equity principles. They have been told what the law requires of them, what they have to do, and what progress they have to make. We are educating them about this, and we are supporting them, we are helping them to implement pay equity principles.

That is what we are doing. This fall, an information product, as it is called, and a toolkit will be sent out to employers to give them more information so that they will move forward with putting pay equity principles into practice in their own companies.

Labour November 1st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, Canada is currently negotiating a free trade agreement with Peru and Columbia and, along with it, a labour agreement.

I will be travelling to these countries in the next few days to advance these discussions. Our goal is to include provisions on labour law that will be stronger than those negotiated in previous agreements.

The best way to make progress is to include our partners and not to ignore them. That is how we will be proceeding.

Forestry Industry November 1st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the ARC Resins file is indeed very interesting. It is a wonderful project, especially since it involves re-manufacturing. The company wants to manufacture railway ties.

Initially, the file was not one of the regional office's priorities. However, it was brought to my attention and I asked to see the file. I can inform the hon. member that the file is currently being examined. We hope to reach an agreement with the sponsor and the partners to get this new project off the ground. If we are successful, that would be great.

Regional Economic Development November 1st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, allow me to read this quote from the association of manufacturers and exporters of Quebec—and I did say Quebec: “—we congratulate the Minister of Finance for recognizing the challenges faced by manufacturers with regard to competition.” What more can I add.

The throne speech mentions that we will intervene in the forestry sector. That commitment was made by our Prime Minister and, as a general rule, when our leader, our Prime Minister, says he is going to do something, he does it.

Manufacturing and Forestry Industries November 1st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Bloc Québécois members have not read the latest polls as we have. They would have seen that things are not so rosy for them.

That said, we know there are problems in the forestry sector. This was clearly indicated in the Speech from the Throne. People know that when the Prime Minister makes a promise like the one he made in the Speech from the Throne—he said he was going to address the forestry situation—he keeps his word.

Manufacturing and Forestry Industries November 1st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know where the Bloc Québécois was in 1993 when the forestry crisis first broke out. What did they do at the time to convince the Parti Québécois to take action?

I also want to remind hon. members that we took action in the softwood lumber industry by investing $400 million in innovation in forestry. We corrected the fiscal imbalance. We gave $4.1 billion to Mr. Charest's government to take action in sectors under its jurisdiction, sectors like forestry.

Manufacturing and Forestry Industries November 1st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois must have asked 6,000 questions since he became a member of Parliament. What does he have to show for it? What has he achieved with all his questions? We are taking action.

We have acted on softwood lumber. We have invested $400 million in innovation in the forestry sector. We have also corrected the fiscal imbalance. And this is what manufacturers and exporters in Quebec had to say about our economic statement this week:

The reduction of federal corporate tax rates is an important measure that will enable Canada to maintain the level of private investment and attract foreign investment. We are therefore preserving our long-term global competitiveness—

Manufacturing and Forestry Industries November 1st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I see that the leader of the Bloc Québécois is very good at asking questions in this House, but that unfortunately he forgets to listen to the answers.

What did we do this week? We announced our economic statement. We told Canadians that we were going to reduce the GST by 1%, which means that even people who do not pay tax will benefit from this cut.

We also announced individual and corporate tax cuts. Once again, we will all benefit from these measures.

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act October 29th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, members will recall that certain amendments were made. We will respect the will of the House. Our intention is to send this bill directly to the Senate, if members so wish.