Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on the issue of pay equity. I want to thank my NDP colleagues for bringing this issue forward to the House. I also want to remind the House that this is not a partisan issue. There is a lot of common ground within all political parties in the House on the issue of equality for women. It is also not an issue that should be just the focus of women.
This important issue does not affect only women. This is an issue that affects us all.
It affects families, for one. Think of the children who cannot spend time with their parents because their parents are working full time to earn one and a half incomes. Think of the couples who are worried about not earning enough money to pay for their children's education. Think of the fathers who are thinking of their daughters' future.
As a father of twin daughters, I can say that I want nothing more than to live in a Canada where there is no difference in the earnings potential between men and women, where Claire and Rose have an opportunity in the future to fully participate without barriers in the economy and in society.
A gender wage gap in this day and age is unacceptable. Differences in pay for comparable work simply based on gender are purely discriminatory. The Government of Canada believes that equal pay for work of equal value must be considered a human right. That is unequivocal and this basic principle was enshrined in the Canadian Human Rights Act, framed by constitutional guarantees of equality. Pay equity has been recognized as a fundamental human right for many decades at the international level. In fact, in 1951, the UN's International Labour Organisation adopted Convention No. 100, concerning equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. In 1972, as part of the response to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, Canada ratified ILO Convention No. 100. That is since 1972.
We have no intention of turning back the clock. In fact, it is time we turn the clock forward because, as the hon. member said, it is 2016. We understand that Canada is better off when the talents and skills of women are represented in every sector of society, in government at every level, and from the grassroots all the way up to the boardroom.
The arguments some people make for having more women at the cabinet table and at the boardroom table is often that it is good for women. As someone who served in cabinet before and has the opportunity to do so again, I can tell members that when there is diversity at the cabinet table, different perspectives, different experiences, and different life experiences render better decisions for all of us. The more we break down barriers and inspire young women and girls to pursue as wide a range of careers as possible, the stronger our country will be. We need to set the tone at the top.
The Prime Minister promised to appoint a gender-balanced cabinet, and he kept that promise, which is proof of his conviction that our country is stronger and benefits from better leadership when its leaders reflect Canada's diversity. This is a defining moment.
It is not just the fact that we have gender parity in the cabinet, but that cabinet positions to which women have been appointed are all absolutely vital to the success of our country. When the Prime Minister was asked why this was a priority for him, his response “because it is 2015” very simply stated not just to Canadians but to the world the priority our government places on equality.
It should go without saying as well that we are committed to pay equity at every level, including at the cabinet table. In 2016, women expect to be full participants in the economic, social, and democratic life of our country.
I believe that the Prime Minister's actions on gender parity actually will have a significant impact outside of government. The question was asked earlier by a Conservative colleague as to why this motion would only apply to government, and the New Democrat member responded. I would say that when government leads on an issue like gender equality, it has a significant effect outside of the government public service. As an example, I have spoken with senior bank executives who have told me that it has made a difference in the culture even in the banks in discussions among women executives about their futures. One corporate director I know, a male very senior corporate director in Canada, sent an email out to his fellow board members on several publicly traded company boards on which he serves saying that this is a game changer and that they have to get their act together at the corporate director level in Canada. Simply setting an example at the cabinet table does raise the bar in other areas of leadership, including in corporate Canada.
In terms of the public service, almost 55% of federal public servants are women. That compares to 42%, for instance, in 1983. This is a significant change. At the executive level, 46% of federal executives are women now. That compares to 5% in 1983. The number has more than tripled since 1993. There has been some progress, but there is a lot of work to be done. Women are increasingly taking their rightful place in the federal public service. They are taking senior positions, and across the public service we have seen an increase over time.
It has been referenced that we have a lot of work to do, for instance, in the House of Commons. All political parties need to be committed to making this place more family-friendly broadly, not just for women but for parents of young children, regardless of gender. This place is not as family-friendly as it ought to be.
In specific areas of the public service, we have seen some real strides for women. For instance, they are 57% of the law group in the public service, 56% of the economist group, and 47% of the commercial officer group. There is a lot more we can do to ensure that senior levels of government and appointments, including to federal boards, reflect today's diversity. I can assure all members of the House that the Government of Canada is firmly committed to a public service that reflects the diversity of society, which includes gender parity.
That is why we are putting in place a new government-wide appointment process that is open and more merit-based. We believe that this is an important action and that it will result in more women being appointed to senior positions. In fact, the mandate letter of the Minister of Status of Women, who will be speaking to this motion later this morning, states very clearly that she is to support the Privy Council Office as it develops monitoring and reporting processes to ensure that government senior appointments are merit-based and demonstrate gender parity.
It is important that we take a results-oriented approach, where we actually measure results and progress in this area. We cannot manage what we do not measure. This is one area that is a priority for our government, and we intend to measure and transparently report progress.
I am pleased to say that the senior executive committee of my own department, the Treasury Board Secretariat, is made up of 55% women, including the public-sector head of the department, the secretary of the Treasury Board, and our deputy minister. Overall, women form 62% of TBS employees. There is still progress that needs to be made. We are not content with the status quo.
Our government intends to make meaningful progress to reduce the wage gap between women and men in government and across the country. We need to be clear here that the wage gap still exists in the federal public service, where women make, on average, only about 91% of men's wages. That gap has closed over time, but any gap is unacceptable when based on gender. We need to deal with this gap in a balanced and responsible way that ensures women's right to equal pay for work of equal value.
We have heard significant concerns about the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act as it now stands. As members know, the act was intended to set out a new process for pay equity in the federal public service. It was drafted to eliminate the complaint-based process conducted through the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the intent was to replace it with an approach to settling equitable compensation that integrated pay equity with collective bargaining. It moved the responsibility for overseeing pay equity from the Canadian Human Rights Commission to the Public Service Labour Relations Board.
However, within the Public Service Labour Relations Board, there is insufficient experience with pay equity and no mandate to actually protect human rights, so there is a misalignment there in terms of authority.
The government, at that time, claimed that these changes reflected the 2004 pay equity task force report. In reality, those changes did not conform completely with the recommendations of the report. Instead, the recommendations had included a new pay equity commission for the federal public service crown corporations and all federally regulated corporations.
The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act was also drafted to place an emphasis on market forces, which has not been an effective approach to addressing such discrimination.
The Public Sector Alliance of Canada, PSAC, and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada launched a charter challenge against the act on the grounds that it violated equality rights, freedom of expression, and freedom of association.
That said, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act was never brought into force. The regulations necessary for the implementation of the legislation were actually never finalized. The act did not strike the right balance, and this government will not be bringing it into force. It would be unfair to those affected. We need to hear from them and consult with them and take their views into account.
We are committed to dealing with pay equity in a balanced and responsible way, which is why the government is developing a new direction and will be consulting on these matters with unions and stakeholders.
We are serious about establishing and re-establishing a culture of respect for and within the public service. This is one of the areas where we believe there is a lot of common ground between the government and the public sector and the unions representing the public service.
The reason we are doing all this is that fairness is a key principle of our mandate as a government. If members look at our mandates broadly, we have fairness for middle-class Canadians. Our first act in government, from my colleague, the Minister of Finance, provides a significant tax cut to middle-class Canadians, rendering our tax system more progressive.
We did not feel that income splitting, as designed by the previous government, was fair. We felt that it provided, disproportionately, more benefits to those Canadian families who did not need the help the most and did not do enough for Canadian families who actually needed the help.
In the budget, and as we move forward with the Canada child benefit, we will be helping the Canadian families with children who need the help the most. I will give members an example. For Canadian families making $45,000 per year, they will be $4,000 better off after tax than they were previously. For Canadian families making $90,000 a year, with two children, they will be $2,500 better off. In fact, all Canadian families making less than $150,000 a year will be better off.
We have the potential with this policy, the new Canada child benefit, to raise 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty.
I am speaking to that, because it is an issue of fairness, and gender parity and equal pay for work of equal value is an issue of fairness. I think that regardless of party in this House, we should all be guided by principles of fairness and equality.
We will also reinstate a modernized and inclusive fair wages policy for federal procurement. We are going to restore integrity to our electoral process and improve the fairness of elections to help renew Canadians' faith in government and in participation.
We will also make the Canada Revenue Agency fairer, more helpful, and more user-friendly and something that has more of a customer focus to help Canadian individuals, Canadian taxpayers, Canadian businesses, and small businesses find it easier to work with CRA.
We will also make public the measurements in a lot of these areas. We will have a transparent process. For instance, when we set objectives on issues of gender parity, we will measure them and report them as part of a broader, more open, and transparent government focus.
In every decision we make, we will be considering and implementing gender-based analysis. When we do not measure something, we cannot really manage it, so measuring and having a results-oriented focus is the first step to progress.
We will restore fair and balanced labour laws that acknowledge the importance of organized labour in Canada. One of the first things I did as President of the Treasury Board was reach out to some of the public sector labour unions. I talked with Robyn Benson, president of PSAC, Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and Ron Cochrane, co-chair of the joint union and management National Joint Council, to discuss some of the issues that are important to them, and we agreed that there is a lot of common ground.
We are entering a period of negotiations now with the public service unions, and we are doing so at a time when the fiscal situation is tight. We inherited a deficit, but beyond that, we also inherited a slow-growth economy. Falling oil prices have made economic growth in Canada slower and our fiscal situation tighter. Despite that, we will negotiate in good faith. We will respect the negotiation process, and we will do so with the guiding principle of restoring a culture of respect for and within our public service.
We were elected with a very progressive mandate, a mandate to create jobs and growth and to invest in Canadians and Canadian communities. To fulfill that mandate, we need a motivated and engaged public service. We also need to negotiate realistically if we are to implement that mandate within the fiscal constraints we have as a government.
One of the first organizations I met with was the National Joint Council. We had an opportunity to discuss the importance of the collective bargaining process and to reaffirm that we will bargain in good faith. We also had an opportunity to talk about a recent report by the National Joint Council on the issue of mental health. The reason I mention that is that mental health in the workplace is one of the areas of common ground between the unions that represent the Canadian public service and the Government of Canada, and so are equality for women and diversity in the workplace.
The degree to which we work constructively and progressively with the public service in areas where there is common ground will actually help improve the environment within which we negotiate as we move forward. There are 27 collective bargaining agreements and 15 bargaining units, and we look forward to these negotiations as we move forward.
We will work as a government collaboratively with Canadians. That is a cornerstone of our platform. It is part of our mandate as a government. Part of that is working collaboratively with members of Parliament in this House and ensuring a culture of civility and a constructive approach to these issues in this House.
Part of it is working with indigenous peoples by engaging indigenous peoples as partners in building a better Canada, with business leaders, and with provincial and municipal governments. Again, as we move forward, priorities like pay equity, equality, and diversity ought to be policies we can move forward together, not as one government or one political party in this House but as a Parliament. We can move forward and feel proud of what we are doing, working together to build a fairer and better Canada.
