Scott Duvall

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, Hamilton is a steel city town. It is the hammer town. We are very well unionized there. We treat people in Hamilton the same as everyone else. When people have jobs, if they are doing the same type of work, they get the same pay.

We have to remember, back in the old days, I guess in my father's time, or even prior to that, people were paid differently, because families felt that the man was the breadwinner.

Times have changed, and the man is not the breadwinner anymore. There are a lot of women out there who are the breadwinners. Some are not married. Does that mean that they have to have less pay? Maybe something drastic has happened. They lose a spouse and there is nothing for them. They have to go out and get a job. Does that mean they have to have less support? They go to work to make a living, just like I do. They pay the same amount of money for bread and butter, and they want to do it.

It has been great in Hamilton. The people in Hamilton are treated fairly.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I found it unbelievable when I read about imposing a $50,000 fine for any union that supported members in filing a pay equity complaint. People who are unionized are there to represent employees. If they fail to do that, they can be charged under the act, and that is called “misrepresentation”. We have a job to do. However, to do what the last government did, I imagine it would have to go court. It is unbelievable.

I know from my own experience that if a person came to me with a grievance, I would look at it and ensure I had all of the facts. I just could not say that I could not do it because the company did not want me to. I had to go forward with it. If I did not, I could be charged under the Ontario government's labour laws.

I am not sure if that has any relevance to the member's question, but it is an insult to any union or people who pay union dues to have a union represent them, and then have legislation say that it cannot. It is wrong.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, this is my first speech in the House and I want to thank Hamilton Mountain residents for their support, as it is a privilege and honour to be here.

I would like to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for taking leadership on this important motion. I am disappointed that I am standing here, in my first speech, talking about this issue. We are in the year 2016 and we are still talking about equality for women. It is really very disappointing, because it is something that should have been done years ago.

I am a former member of the United Steelworkers, president of Local 5328. Having participated in collective bargaining throughout my life, I know that there used to be what was called a CWS, a co-operative wage study, to ensure that all wages were the same for equal work. It did not matter whether the worker were a man or a woman, the person was going to get paid a specified rate for that type of work. That was implemented back in 1956 and here we are in the year 2016 having trouble with the federal government trying to implement the same change.

We all heard many other speakers today go through the statistics of what was done. I heard some Conservative MPs state that they are hurt because of what was done in 2009 and they feel it is an embarrassment, but it is the truth.

Canada ratified the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1976, which ensures “Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with: (i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind...”. In 1981, Canada also ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which recognizes “The 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...”.

Then I found out that in 2009 a new act was implemented. The Conservatives passed the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. Women were forced to file individual complaints rather than allowing a union to support them. I do not see that being applied anywhere in the 1981 or 1976 ratifications. The unions were making pay equity an issue for collective bargaining. I have a hard time understanding that when there is nothing in 1976 and the 1981 ratifications that they agreed to. What happens if there is no union?

Madam Speaker, I neglected to let you know that I will be splitting my time with the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski. I should have said that earlier.

What happens if the public sector does not have a union? Do we just throw it out and say it is the workers' right and they should file a complaint. Why should they have to file a complaint? It should be the law. It is a right, not a gift. It is shameful that we have to go through this.

There is a positive side to it. I have heard that the Liberals would like to support this motion. I also heard that the Conservatives would like to support it if some language is taken out, but I am not sure why. If they are going to support it, they should support it for good reasons and not say it is because their nose was hurt.

In 2000, the task force was set up and everything was implemented, and then in 2004 there were 113 recommendations made. The former Liberal government at that time did not implement all of them. It is nice for Liberals to say that they will support this motion, and I am glad they will, but it is also important that they implement the task force recommendations.

I have three daughters who have all gone through university. Therefore, it would be an injustice to them if they went to get jobs in the federal government and found out that because they were girls they may not be paid the same amount in wages as the men doing the same jobs.

I also have a granddaughter and grandson, and my message to the House is this. What kind of message are we sending to our children if we teach them to be fair to everybody in our country and then they find out that while fairness has gone a long way, but if they are woman, they may be treated differently from men when it comes being paid for the same type of work? That is not the Canada I want and I do not want to raise my children that way.

Also, this is discriminatory under the Canadian Human Rights Act, so why are we arguing it? Section 11 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.

Under the Human Rights Act, we cannot pay women a different wage for the same type of work. Imagine if we paid female MPs less than male MPs. There would be an outcry.

Women should not have to file complaints, because the law should be the law. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec have this, and I believe most of the other provinces will come along if we adopt this motion.

It is 2016, so why has this not been done? It looks like the majority members will support the motion, but that is just for the task force or to get this started. However, we have to implement it. We have to stop this injustice.

Therefore, I ask the House and all of its parties to unanimously endorse this motion without any hesitation. We must move on. We have other things to do.

It is not that this is happens all across Canada. Some companies are very good and already pay equitably, but some do not. Why? This is the question we have to ask ourselves. I hope the motion passes unanimously.

[Steel Industry, January 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Court of Appeal just ruled that the secret sell-out deal signed by the Conservatives and U.S. Steel Canada Inc. can be released.

Steelworkers in the city of Hamilton have been fighting for years to unseal this deal, and with bankruptcy proceedings ongoing and the retirement security of 20,000 workers and pensioners at stake, it is more critical than ever.

Now that they cannot hide behind the courts, will the Prime Minister live up to the Liberal commitment to release the deal and finally stand up for workers and pensioners?

[Steel Industry, December 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this week I asked the government when it would release details of the secret deal made between the previous government and U.S. Steel, which put the pensions and health benefits of 20,000 workers and pensioners at risk. After rubber stamping the takeover of Stelco, the Conservatives failed to stand up for Hamiltonians' jobs, signing an agreement that left thousands of workers with no jobs, pensions under threat, and medical benefits that are now cancelled.

During the election, Hamilton Liberal candidates slammed the former government for keeping the agreement's details secret. In answer to my question, the minister made it clear that the government has no intention of releasing the details of the deal requested by the workers, pensioners, United Steelworkers, and all the sitting NDP, federal, and provincial members representing Hamilton ridings.

Action must be taken now and details of the secret deal must be released. U.S. Steel must be held responsible for every obligation made under the secret deal and ensure that 20,000 vulnerable workers and pensioners are protected. Anything less is unacceptable.

[Steel Industry, December 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, with U. S. Steel Canada filing for bankruptcy protection, the pensions and health benefits of 20,000 workers and pensioners are in jeopardy.

The previous government rubber-stamped the takeover, then signed a secret deal to let the company off the hook for broken promises.

During the election campaign, the new government promised it would release the details and hold the company accountable for all the promises to workers and pensioners.

When will the government live up to its rhetoric, open up the secret deal, and stand up for workers' pensions?