Robert Aubin

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2016]

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

Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to fully convey the economic situation in my riding. In short, it is one of the poorest in Quebec.

The Liberal government's tax measures seek to put more money into people's pockets. In Quebec, the median income is $31,000, and as we know, all those who earn $45,000 or less a year will get absolutely nothing out of the measures that were adopted in December. The first thing to do is to ensure that women achieve equity with men at least where this median income is concerned so that they can have a decent income, if I can call it that, and at least enjoy much more favourable economic conditions.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The next government will be in four years' time, so we can talk about it again at that time.

For now, it is the responsibility of this duly elected government, a Liberal government. I would even say that the motion conveys some urgency, even though it is not explicitly stated.

Quebec resolved this issue in 1997. Nearly 20 years later, the federal government still has not taken the necessary action to make pay equity between men and women a reality.

Of course, the motion we moved here today not only gives us the means to gather information and make the necessary updates, but it also allows us to provide the framework for what would eventually become our national pay equity legislation.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, given the interest in today's topic, many members wish to take the floor. I am therefore pleased to share my time with the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

It should be an honour and privilege to speak to a subject as important as pay equity and defend it as a fundamental right. Sadly, however, I am somewhat embarrassed and ashamed to see how many missed opportunities there have been. I hope we have it right this time and that the government will allow us all to put our words into action.

To still be talking about pay equity in Canada today, is to acknowledge that we still have not come far enough on matters of human rights. No one questions the merits of article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that all human beings are born free and equal. We can all agree that income earned from working is an important means for women to achieve that equality.

In my career as a teacher and a union representative in Quebec, I had the opportunity to take part in the implementation of the pay equity regime. It is hard for me to see that after all these years, Canada has not followed the course that is already set.

With the election of the Liberal government, there were glimmers of hope on the horizon, and a gender-balanced cabinet was probably the most concrete sign. As for the reasons behind this choice, many basic reasons could have been cited, but our Prime Minister summed up the facts and his rationale by saying that it was 2015.

Although his answer was short, I deduced that the Prime Minister was saying something like “it is obvious, it is a question we should no longer be asking”. Why then appoint women as ministers of state and give them a lower salary? I do recognize that after some public embarrassment and a little media frenzy, the situation was corrected, which was confirmed this morning by the President of the Treasury Board.

It is time we did the same for all Canadian workers so that Canada can stop lagging behind and start leading on pay equity issues, turning words into action. Unfortunately, this issue is not included in the Liberal Party's agenda, nor is it mentioned in the mandate letter for the Minister of Status of Women.

I was therefore very pleased to hear the President of the Treasury Board confirm in the House this morning that pay equity is one of his government's priorities. We are also very pleased that the Liberals are going to readjust their policies in this regard. After all, one might say, it is 2016.

What is the pay equity situation around the world and how does Canada measure up? According to the OECD, Canada ranks 30th out of 34 countries. That is nothing to brag about.

According to the World Economic Forum, Canada ranks 80th out of 145 countries. That is nothing to brag about either. Other governments have taken steps in the right direction or even solved the problem. Take Australia for example. It has a law that requires employers with 100 or more employees to report on their pay rates for men and women.

The United Kingdom is another example. Last summer, it announced its plans to force large corporations to release their reports on wage disparity. The United States also announced a plan to advance pay equity in the speech that Barack Obama made on January 29.

As I mentioned before, here in Canada, Quebec has once again shown leadership by addressing the issue in a law that was passed in 1997. We should draw on that work.

What has Canada done about this situation in the recent past? A pay equity task force was set up in 2001. It conducted extensive consultations with employers, unions and women's rights activists. The task force found the regime to be ineffective since it is entirely dependent on the employer's willingness to bring in pay equity. The report tabled by the task force in 2004 set out 113 recommendations to completely overhaul our approach to pay equity and to recognize pay equity as a fundamental right.

It has been 12 years since the task force reported its conclusions, and it is time for the new government and the entire House to stop paying lip service to this issue and restore the right to pay equity in the public service. The government must recognize that it has a responsibility to reduce income inequality between men and women, and it must take a leadership role in gradually putting an end to wage discrimination against women. We are prepared to offer the Liberal government our full support in putting an end to wage discrimination against women.

For many years, successive Conservative and Liberal governments have sometimes chosen to put their heads in the sand. The inequities we see now are a direct result of the Paul Martin government's refusal to implement the recommendations of the pay equity task force.

I remind members that women earn just 73¢ for every dollar that their male counterparts earn. This is still true today, and previous governments did nothing to make things better for women in this country. Paul Martin's Liberal government chose to ignore the task force's recommendations, even though Canada had ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which clearly states that we must ensure fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind.

The best example is probably Parliament, the assembly that we represent and belong to. We all come from very different fields where, in the market, salaries would probably differ dramatically based on each person's skills and qualifications. Here in the House, however, each member earns equal pay for equal work, the work of representing our constituents.

Instead of getting things right in 2009, the Conservative government passed the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, the purpose of which was to sabotage female public servants who were seeking pay equity. The Conservatives deprived female public servants of the right to go before the Canadian Human Rights Commission to defend their right to the same pay as men. To deter women from lodging complaints about pay inequity, the Conservatives' law forces women to lodge complaints as individuals rather than seek the support of their union. The Conservatives' orchestrated attacks date back to at least 1998, when the member for Calgary Heritage declared that pay equity laws were a rip-off for taxpayers and said that the pay equity act was ridiculous.

From 1998 until 2016, the Conservatives have remained firm in their position. Do we dare hope that the party, which now has a female leader, will show the openness required to resolve this unfair situation? I certainly hope so.

All parties in this House should endorse the notion that pay equity is a right. I must admit, I find the discussion we have been having today refreshing because, for the most part, it has indeed been a discussion and not a debate. This respects not only the spirit, but also the letter of the motion we moved this morning.

This issue has been central to the NDP's political action for some time now. Through motions and private members' bills, we have steadfastly maintained the pressure and continued the fight.

I will end here, Mr. Speaker, because time is short and you are looking at me with an impatient smile. I welcome questions, and I invite all of my colleagues to vote in favour of the NDP motion.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 8th, 2015]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mississauga—Erin Mills for her first speech.

I paid particular attention to the part on gender equality. Naturally, I am pleased to see this equality reflected in cabinet. As we prepare for the potential upcoming review of our voting system and our entire democratic process, would it not be a good idea to consider gender equality for election candidates, to ensure that elections fully represent the society we are meant to represent in the House?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 8th, 2015]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for his first speech, which was quite interesting. His bits of humour kept me interested, especially when he said that the people at the top knew exactly how to get their hands on what was good for us.

My question is directly related to this statement and to the statement he made about the previous government apparently making good choices. My question is very simple.

When the Conservatives and Liberals used the employment insurance fund for purposes other than those for which the money was collected, was that just another way for the people at the top to get their hands on what was good for us and for all the contributors to the EI plan?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 8th, 2015]

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your new role.

Speaking in the House is always a privilege. However, the opportunity to speak is a responsibility we must all honour and I promise to do that on behalf of the people of Trois Rivières who did me the honour of re-electing me.

The part in my colleague's speech about employment insurance in particular caught my attention. We know what workers and employers in our respective regions need in terms of employment insurance.

Does my colleague think that his government will make a steadfast commitment, a commitment that I did not see in the Speech from the Throne, to ensure that employers' and workers' contributions are used only for the purposes they were intended for or, in other words, not used for purposes other than those they were intended for?

[Commissioner for Children and Young Persons in Canada Act, June 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, although time is running out, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That in the opinion of the House, the government must adopt a contingency plan to help and support pyrrhotite victims, which includes: (a) increased quality standards for aggregates used in concrete; (b) the rapid implementation of a tax deduction for pyrrhotite testing; and (c) the implementation of a fund to advance the amounts granted to victims by the courts during the court proceedings.

[Employment Insurance, June 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about another Conservative failure.

Some 230 former Aveos workers just won a major victory thanks to the hard work of lawyer Hans Marotte. The Employment Insurance Commission spent over two years asking the workers to pay back on average $18,000 in benefits received after they lost their jobs. Their only crime was to receive the severance pay to which they were entitled upon losing their jobs.

When will the Conservatives acknowledge that employment insurance belongs to workers and that they are entitled to the benefits they have paid for?

[Life Means Life Act, June 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his analogies, which always bring smiles to our faces or at least a bit of a smirk.

To pick up on his analogy about big drug companies, the big difference is that in their search for molecules, they sometimes find them, and while research aimed at finding a drug to treat one disease can fail, it can result in a drug to treat another disease. In the case before us today, for one thing, nothing is ever found, and for another, there is not much to fix because the parole system as a whole does not permit automatic parole for dangerous criminals after 25 years. That is all there is to it. Members of an organization not bound by politics judge whether applications can be approved, and their number one criterion is always public safety. Those people are not politicians. They are experts.

Parole is a conditional release. Offenders might not be granted parole, but if they are, it comes with conditions that they must fulfill for the rest of their lives.

As I said, the number one criterion is always public safety, not creating a climate of fear for the purpose of raising money.

[Life Means Life Act, June 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and I have to tell him that he seems to have inadvertently fallen for the trap.

In the preamble to his question he mentioned that the Conservative government comes across as being really tough on crime, but they are not. They would love to have us believe that they are tough on crime and that they are stronger than all the other parties. However, it is Canada's own system that is strong, and the measures proposed in Bill C-53 contribute absolutely nothing to our existing public safety regime.

The Conservatives have launched a branding campaign and are trying to make the public believe that they are tougher on crime than the other parties, when that is not the case. The truth is that they are more partisan on crime issues than the other parties.

We will continue to protect public safety, as the existing measures already do. Bill C-53 adds nothing. Moreover, as members of Parliament from Quebec, I think we have made it quite clear that we must focus on real solutions such as prevention, support and rehabilitation measures in order to lower crime rates across the country and to ensure that our communities feel safe instead of afraid.