Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 078 (Official Version)

The Chair is now prepared to rule on a point of order raised by the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River on November 1, 2006, concerning Bill C-257, standing in the name of the hon. member for Gatineau, and Bill C-295, standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. Both bills amend the Canada Labour Code in relation to replacement workers.

[Translation]

I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for having raised this matter and the hon. member for Vancouver East for having made a submission.

[English]

In his presentation, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River argues that these bills are substantially the same, except for some minor differences relating to fines. A decision was taken by the House on October 18 to adopt Bill C-257 at second reading and refer it to committee. The hon. member argues, in light of this decision, that debate should not continue on Bill C-295 and that the bill should be removed from the order of precedence.

The hon. member for Vancouver East contends that although both bills deal with the same subject, they are different and, therefore, Bill C-295 should not be removed from the order of precedence.

[Translation]

Let me first clarify our practices with regard to items of private members’ business which are similar. Standing Order 86(4) states:

The Speaker shall be responsible for determining whether two or more items are so similar as to be substantially the same, in which case he or she shall so inform the member or members whose items were received last and the same shall be returned to the member or members without having appeared on the notice paper.

[English]

When this Standing Order was first adopted, private members' business operated very differently than it does today. The Standing Orders provided for only 20 items of private members' business to be placed by lottery on the order of precedence and provided that, of those, only three bills could come to a vote. Realistically, then, there was little chance that bills considered substantially the same would ever be drawn together and placed on the order of precedence, let alone be debated and voted upon. Given those odds, Standing Order 86(4) came to be involved only rarely: only when a bill was identical to one already introduced would it be refused. This generous interpretation is referred to in a ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser on November 2, 1989, at pages 5474-5 of Debates, where he states:

I should say that in the view of the Chair, two or more items are substantially the same if, first, they have the same purpose and, second, they obtain their purpose by the same means.

Accordingly, there could be several bills addressing the same subject, but if they took a different approach to the issue the Chair would judge them to be sufficiently different so as not to be substantially the same.

The intent...was to give members an opportunity to put before the House items of concern to them, but to prevent a multiplicity of identical bills being submitted....

[Translation]

As Mr. Speaker Fraser explained, this interpretation had the practical effect of giving a member an opportunity to bring forward a legislative proposal on any subject, regardless of what other members might be doing. This practice has served members well until the present case.

[English]

The current Standing Orders, which were first adopted provisionally in May 2003, provide for a single draw of the names of all members at the beginning of a Parliament. On the 20th sitting day following the draw, the first 30 members on the list who have introduced a bill or given notice of a motion on the notice paper, constitute the order of precedence. Following the draw, the subcommittee on private members' business needs to determine if any of the items should be designated non-votable pursuant to Standing Order 91.1. In determining whether any of the items should be deemed non-votable, the subcommittee considers whether or not any of the bills or motions are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session.

In the case at hand, a careful examination of both bills reveals that they have exactly the same objective, that is, to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out. The following minor differences distinguish them: First, Bill C-257 provides for a fine not exceeding $1,000 for each day that an offence occurs, whereas Bill C-295 provides for a fine not exceeding $10,000; second, Bill C-257 contains subparagraph (2.1)(f) in clause 2 concerning prohibitions relating to the use of replacement workers, text that is not found in Bill C-295; and third, subclause (2.2) in Bill C-257 appears as subclause (2.9) in Bill C-295.

Other than these three differences, both bills are identical in terms of their legislative and procedural impact. The only concrete difference between them relates to the sum of the fines. While this is an important matter, it does not make the bills into distinctly different legislative initiatives. The Chair must therefore conclude that both bills are substantially the same and achieve their objectives through the same means.

The question then becomes, should the second bill, Bill C-295, be allowed to proceed?

It seems to the Chair that there is considerable risk involved in allowing bills that are substantially the same to be debated. It puts at risk a key principle of parliamentary procedure, namely, that a decision once made cannot be questioned again, but must stand as the judgment of the House.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 495, explains that the principle exists for very good reason.

This is to prevent the time of the House from being used in the discussion of motions of the same nature with the possibility of contradictory decisions being arrived at in the course of the same session.

In the present case, we have an unusual convergence of circumstances. Not only were the bills sponsored by the hon. members for Gatineau and Vancouver Island North both placed on the notice paper, their names were also among the first 30 drawn for the order of precedence. Moreover, the subcommittee on private members' business faced with the fact that debate had yet to begin on items of private members' business could not deem one of the bills to be non-votable since the House had not yet taken any decisions on such business.

Today, the Chair has found itself in an unprecedented situation. I have concluded that Bill C-295 is substantially the same as Bill C-257. Ordinarily, I would order Bill C-295 to be dropped from the order paper in conformity with this standing order. However, given that this situation has never arisen before, I am reluctant to make a final ruling since this may be the only opportunity in this Parliament that the hon. member for Vancouver Island North gets to have an item on the order of precedence. At the same time, the Chair cannot allow the bill to go forward for its last hour of debate and the vote that would follow.

So, instead, in accordance with Standing Order 94(1), which provides the Speaker with the authority to make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of private members' business, I am ordering that Bill C-295 be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence.

This delay in the consideration of Bill C-295 is designed to provide the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with sufficient time to examine this matter and suggest some resolution to the situation for the sponsor of the bill. The committee should also consider whether our practices in relation to the application of Standing Order 86(4) continue to serve the House in an effective manner given that our rules respecting private members' business have changed since this Standing Order was first adopted.

In the absence of a solution to the predicament of the sponsor of Bill C-295, the Chair will have no option when the bill next reaches the top of the order of precedence, I will order that debate not proceed, that the order for the bill's consideration be discharged and that the bill be dropped from the order paper.

(1005)

Once Again, I thank the hon. members for Scarborough—Rouge River and for Vancouver East for having brought this situation to the attention of the Chair and of the House. It is an important contribution to the evolution of private members' business.

I believe the effect of the ruling will be that there will be no private members' business taken up this evening.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Routine Proceedings]

* * *

(1010)

[English]

Government Response to Petitions

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to four petitions.

* * *

Committees of the House

Status of Women

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure this morning to ask my hon. colleagues in this House to concur in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women which essentially is comprised of the motion adopted on May 19 by a majority of committee members, which reads:

That the Departments of Justice and Human Resources and Skills Development draft and table legislation based on the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force by 31 October 2005 and that the legislation be referred to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

The report calls upon the government to move forward on the pay equity task force recommendations from May 2004. The task force had over 113 recommendations and the report from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women highlights four of those recommendations.

First, replace the current complaint based model of pay equity with new, stand-alone, proactive legislation that would frame pay equity as a fundamental human right.

Second, expand the coverage of pay equity legislation to cover all federally regulated employers, including Parliament and federal contractors.

Third, extend pay equity protection to members of visible minorities, persons with disabilities and aboriginal people.

Fourth, require all employers to develop and implement a pay equity plan.

The committee specifically asked the government for a comprehensive response to this report and the committee received from the government a response to the 570 page pay equity report in the form of a one and a half page letter. The government's comprehensive response was less than two pages. This is not good enough, nor is it comprehensive.

The government made it clear that it would not address the need for new pay equity legislation and that it was satisfied with the current complaints based model. The government also indicated that it would meet with its key stakeholders on the issue. The government further argued that there was no consensus for the implementation of many of the recommendations.

The task force report clearly outlines that there is an issue with pay equity in this country and that the current complaints based system is not working. The proof is in the numbers. Today, a woman earns 72.5¢ for every $1 that a man earns. For aboriginal women, women of colour--

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for London--Fanshawe, but apparently the Chair was not notified that an hon. member wished to introduce a private member's bill today.

[Translation]

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques wishes to introduce a bill. I therefore seek unanimous consent of the House to revert to introduction of private members' bills, to allow the hon. member to introduce her bill at this time. I apologize to the hon. member for London—Fanshawe for interrupting her speech.

Is there unanimous consent of the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

* * *

Bank of Canada Act

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

asked for leave to introduce Bill C-380, An Act to amend various legislative provisions relating to head offices.

She said: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to my hon. colleague and thank her for giving unanimous consent. I would like to point out that my seconder is the hon. member for Gatineau.

I have the privilege of introducing a bill to amend various legislative provisions to remove the requirement that certain agencies, corporations and courts have their head offices in Ottawa. Federal legislation requiring of a number of federal entities that they have their head offices specifically in the national capital is out of step with the times.

This legislation unduly benefits Ottawa in terms of government procurement, property leasing as well as jobs, at the expense of other regions of Quebec and Canada, and the Outaouais region in particular. I hope that all my hon. colleagues in this House will support this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1015)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I call on the hon. member for London—Fanshawe to continue her speech. I apologize for the interruption. I hope it has not distracted the hon. member from the serious remarks she was making.

* * *

Committees of the House

Status of Women

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, as I was indicating to the House, the 570 page report of the task force on pay equity received a less than adequate response from the government. The response was two pages in length and certainly not comprehensive.

It is our hope that the situation will be addressed, because the task force report clearly outlines that there is an issue with pay equity in this country and that the current complaints based system is not working. The proof, as I said, is in the numbers. Today a woman earns 72.5¢ for every $1 that a man earns. For aboriginal women, women of colour and racialized or new immigrant women, the wage gap between their earnings and the earnings of white men is even greater than the wage gap between white men and white women.

For pay equity to be truly realized, which is equal pay for work of equal value, comparisons between different types of female predominant and male predominant jobs need to be made in order to locate and remove wage discrimination.

The impact on women of sex-based wage disparities is reflected in the rate of female and child poverty, with its adverse consequences on the health, well-being and future of Canadian women and their children. Since pay inequity contributes to poverty, it can have devastating health and social consequences for children, such as poor nutrition, inadequate housing, and poor concentration and performance at school, as well as social isolation.

Pay inequity is also related to economic dependence, which affects a woman's ability to leave an abusive relationship. Many women are compelled to face beatings, threats and even the possibility of death at the hands of their abusers because they are unwilling to condemn their children to poverty if they leave the relationship.

It is also true that women bringing home lower paycheques also receive lower retirement incomes. Too often, senior women live hand to mouth until the end of their lives.

Interestingly enough, achieving pay equity can have a number of benefits for employers. In addition to the reduction of wage discrimination, it facilitates the rationalization of compensation systems, which frequently become convoluted and cumbersome over time. It also demonstrates to employees in female predominant occupations that the organization is committed to the fair treatment of all employees performing different types of work. In these ways, pay equity can contribute to more efficient management and improved morale among employees.

I would like to point out why our current pay equity legislation does not work. According to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, complaints are not particularly well suited to addressing forms of discrimination that are subtle, largely unintentional and integrated into complex systems--in other words, systemic discrimination.

In February 2001, Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay, the chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, stated: “Major pay equity cases are at a virtual impasse because of the current system. We believe it is time the government made the necessary changes to ensure that pay equity becomes a reality”.

Allegations of human rights violations tend, by their nature, to generate a defensive reaction and lead to litigation and delays. A complaints based approach produces uneven implementation since employers not targeted by complaints often choose to keep a low profile and refrain from taking any initiatives on pay equity. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that it takes significant knowledge and resources to mount major pay equity complaints, which generally means that they are filed only by unions. The end result is that people performing female predominant work in non-unionized, federally regulated settings have benefited little from the federal pay equity provisions.

There are also potential competitive disadvantages. If an employer voluntarily launches a pay equity study or is the only organization in a specific sector to be the focus of a complaint, perhaps because it is unionized while competitors are not, the result may be that it is the only player in the industry to pay the price of correcting wage discrimination.

(1020)

While competitive pressures are no excuse for maintaining discrimination, it does not seem sensible that a business should in effect be penalized for implementing pay equity. Also, according to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, there is ambiguity with respect to standards and concepts. More complete guidance on the meaning of terms and criteria for assessing compliance can usually be provided in the context of a proactive legal regime that is applicable to all employers.

The Canadian Labour Congress is also critical of the current legislation. It maintains that there is a lack of clarity about the nature of employers' obligations and consequences of non-compliance with pay equity obligations. Current legislation does not provide enough guidance on acceptable standards and methods for achieving pay equity.

Ken Georgetti, the president of the CLC, outlined the critical need for pay equity. He stated:

The arithmetic does not work for ordinary working Canadians.

The government squanders huge surpluses while workers can't find child care for their kids, can't get training to do their jobs better, can't protect their pensions when companies go bankrupt or can't get the money promised for pay equity.

Furthermore, the CLC contends that the current legislation is, instead, vague legislation that encourages and prolongs costly litigation, which women, especially non-unionized women, women of colour and poor women simply cannot afford. Consequently, the model fails to ensure that the average woman worker will see her pay equity complaint resolved and actually be paid equal pay for work of equal value.

Pay equity is a human right protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act. The current law prohibits differences in wages between female and male employees who work in the same establishment and perform work of equal value. We need to live up to our obligations outlined by the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Canada also needs to live up to its international obligations on pay equity. Convention No. 100 concerning equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value, the equal remuneration convention adopted by the International Labour Organization, ILO, in 1951 and ratified by Canada in 1972, requires that governments take active measures to achieve equal pay for work of equal value.

The international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1966 and ratified by Canada in 1976, lists equal pay for work of equal value as a fundamental right and stresses its importance to the achievement of fairness in conditions of work. The convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, adopted by the UN in 1979 and ratified by Canada in 1981, commits signatories to removing employment discrimination against women, in part by ensuring equal pay for work of equal value.

It is quite clear what needs to happen. Canada needs to adopt a new pay equity law. The federal government should develop a new, proactive, stand-alone pay equity law. The law should meet all domestic and international obligations and should frame pay equity as a fundamental human right.

The proactive components of the legislation should include an employer's obligation to review pay practices and identify gender based wage discrimination gaps. Employers would also have a duty to develop a pay equity plan to eliminate pay inequities within a specific timeframe.

Canada also needs to expand coverage of pay equity to aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and visible minorities. Pay equity legislation should apply to aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and visible minorities as well as women. New pay equity legislation must create mechanisms to measure and eliminate documented systemic wage discrimination against these disadvantaged groups.

This legislation should protect all employees.

All employees in the federal jurisdiction should be covered by a new pay equity legislation act, including non-unionized employees, part time, casual, seasonal and temporary workers, employees of Parliament, and federal contractors covered by the federal contractors program.

Any new law should involve employees in pay equity plans.

All employers should have the obligation to work with unions and employee representatives through a pay equity committee. The committee would be responsible for developing a pay equity plan and monitoring any progress made to eliminate the wage gap. At least half of the representatives on the pay equity committee should be women workers from predominately female job classes.

(1025)

This legislation would also need to have non-sexist evaluation methods. Evaluation methods used to review predominately female and male job classes should be equal and free of gender bias.

The legislation should ensure that pay equity is not negotiable. Pay equity is a non-negotiable human right. It should not be included in the collective bargaining process. Pay equity needs to be addressed separately to identify and remedy past pay discrimination against women and other equity groups.

Canada's legislation should have sustainability. An employer should have an obligation to maintain pay equity once a plan has been implemented. Where there is a union, the union would share the responsibility to ensure that pay equity is being respected in the workplace.

There also needs to be a pay equity commission. A new Canadian pay equity commission should be created to administer the pay equity law. This commission would provide education and assistance to employers, unions and employees, review complaints, conduct investigations and conduct random workplace audits. It would offer advocacy services for unrepresented workers, conduct research, and issue orders to ensure the law is enforced.

The government should provide enough human and financial resources to allow the commission to effectively administer the pay equity legislation.

Finally, we need to create a pay equity tribunal. A new Canadian pay equity hearing tribunal would need to be set up to adjudicate disputes on any issues which arise in the implementation or maintenance of pay equity. It should be an expert tribunal, knowledgeable about pay equity and equality rights.

The Conservatives have clearly ignored the 500 page pay equity task force report saying that there is no consensus when there has been consensus to this report, a very clear consensus. The government has no intention of addressing inequality between the sexes in this country. This has been proven by its reaction to this report, its cuts to Status of Women Canada, its changes to the mandate of that department, and the elimination of the court challenges program.

Conservatives want to take Canadians back 25 years instead of moving Canada ahead. They are also eager to waste taxpayers' money by holding more consultations with stakeholders when the 2004 report was not only very thorough but is available for action now.

The Liberal Party's record is not much better. It had the chance to act on the 2004 task force report and failed draft legislation. It did not take the initiative to implement proactive pay equity legislation even after very high profile court cases.

It is not very clear to me why the Conservative government refuses to draft new legislation. In 1998 the now Prime Minister described our current pay equity law as follows:

For taxpayers, however, it's a rip-off. And it has nothing to do with gender. Both men and women taxpayers will pay additional money to both men and women in the civil service. That's why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law.

He also pointed to specific flaws in the current legislation:

Now “pay equity” has everything to do with pay and nothing to do with equity. It's based on the vague notion of “equal pay for work of equal value”, which is not the same as equal pay for the same job.

Just to be clear, in 1998 the member who is now our Prime Minister did not support the complaints based pay equity legislation now in place. Now that he is in government his party refuses to draft new legislation to remove the complaints based model. I am wondering if the Prime Minister has reversed his position or does he not believe in pay equity at all. It is my great fear that it is the latter.

Considering the Conservative government's recent attack on women's rights, it has become clear that Canadian women are going to have to fight. Women, sadly, have not achieved equality in this country. I promise to fight for equality and fight for proactive pay equity in this country. We need it now.

(1030)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments with respect to establishing a pay equity tribunal and a pay equity commission. My immediate observation is we have an awful lot of commissions in Ottawa. We have an Ethics Commission. We have an Information Commission. We have all kinds of commissions and they all cost us a substantial amount of money. They all do good things.

At this point I am not denying anything that the member is saying. I know she sits on the committee that studied these issues. However, has she or the committee any idea what the pay equity tribunal would cost the taxpayers of this country and what the pay equity commission would cost the taxpayers of this country?

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Irene Mathyssen:

Mr. Speaker, certainly, the member has made a point that the things that we value, that are important to us, need to have oversight through commissions and tribunals. I would suggest that is the same for equal pay for work of equal value.

I am not sure what a commission or a tribunal would cost, but I do know what not having one has cost. I know it has cost women their ability to earn enough to look after their families, particularly in the case of single-parent female-led families. I know it has cost the children in this country to live in poverty. Some 20% of the children in this country live in poverty. I know that women have been left to live in violent situations because they cannot afford to get out. I know that senior women receive less in terms of pensions.

This is a cost that none of us should ever be willing to accept. What is the cost? It is a cost in human dignity and human life, and I am not prepared to accept it.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, in discussions with the hon. member, as we are both on the status of women standing committee and deal with these issues, we all recognize the need for pay equity legislation in order to ensure that everybody is treated equally.

When we talk about the issue of equality, what does that really mean? That should mean that women can earn the same dollar that a man earns, rather than a woman continuing to earn only 71¢ at that point.

However, there are many people, possibly people watching and some of the members that are here with us today, who do not really understand what pay equity legislation is all about and why it is that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and the previous Liberal government were very much committed to bringing in legislation.

Would the hon. member address the reason that she feels it is important and, more importantly, perhaps give a brief explanation for the some of the members in the House who do not understand the value and the reason for it?

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Irene Mathyssen:

Mr. Speaker, very clearly, pay equity is important to all Canadians. It exists now in two provinces, one of them being the province of Ontario. I had the privilege to serve in the Ontario Legislature when we brought forward and ensured pay equity.

Very clearly, the problem is that many women are locked into what we call job ghettos. They are in professions or in jobs that are traditionally regarded as female. As such, they have not been able to make the kind of wage advances that their male counterparts in similar jobs have been able to make. That simply is not fair, particularly, given the fact that the reality of modern life is that many women are the heads of families and they need to be able to provide for their children in an equitable way.

(1035)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague from London—Fanshawe on her excellent presentation today with all of the facts and figures, and rationale for why we need pay equity legislation in this country.

I was here some 13 years ago working on this very file at that time. Women then were earning about 70% of what men earned for full time work in this country. In all those 13 years, what have we seen? A little, teensy-weensy improvement to 72.5¢ for every dollar that men earn and it is just not good enough for Canadian women. It is an issue of fairness, equity and human rights for women in this country.

After 13 years of a majority Liberal government, we are really no further ahead on this issue. Now we have a Conservative government that made some commitments in opposition to address this issue and refuses to be proactive on it. It is very discouraging for women in this country. I agree with my colleague that women have to continue to fight just as we have to continue to fight in this place.

I want to ask my friend from London—Fanshawe what she believes the actual impact would be if we did have appropriate pay equity legislation with targets, with timelines, and with a mechanism for enforcement? Just what would that achieve and how quickly for Canadian women?

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Irene Mathyssen:

Mr. Speaker, the proof is in the jurisdictions where pay equity is the law. In the province of Ontario we saw a real benefit to women and their families in terms of respect for the work that they do, their ability to provide for their families, and the ability to provide for themselves in later years when they are receiving pensions.

My hon. colleague has made a very significant point that after 30 years our progress is marginal at best. Women across this country still face violence, poverty and systemic inequality. What is good for the women of Ontario is good for the women of this nation. Their economic contribution to the country and their contribution to the social fabric of this community has to be recognized and addressed by giving them the opportunity to earn at an equal rate to men.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on the important topic of pay equity.

I would like to take a moment and thank the hon. member for York West for raising this important issue. It is a great honour to participate on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which the hon. member chairs. As she full well knows, we have many important topics for Canadians and, in particular, for Canadian women.

This topic has been a matter of debate in the House and undoubtedly within provincial legislatures across our country, as it relates to the provincial end of this important issue as well.

We all agree that the just and equitable treatment of women in our society is of paramount importance. In this day and age we know it cannot be denied that women have a fundamental and absolute right to be treated equally. In particular, working women deserve to be paid the same as men performing work of equal value. That is the baseline tenet of this legislation, of this initiative that began decades ago in our country.

It speaks to a fundamental human fairness, and we need to recognize that it is also the law. Yet we know there are still situations where we see women today underpaid and marginalized, trapped in job categories that are undervalued by their employer and diminished by their male colleagues.

Even though the work performed by women is as useful to the organization as work performed by men, there remain instances where women are paid less. This is wrong. It is a situation that has dragged on for too long. That is why our government is moving forward to correct discrimination where it exists. We are taking action to ensure that all employers under federal jurisdiction must fully comply with pay equity legislation that, after all, has been in place since 1977.

For nearly 30 years, section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act has banned wage disparities for men and women who perform work of equal value within the same establishment. Equal wage guidelines were passed in 1986 to prescribe the manner in which section 11 was to be applied and to outline factors that could justify exceptions.

At the core of this pay equity legislation was the elimination of wage gaps that were due to gender based discrimination that could not be explained by differences in factors such as education, labour market experience and seniority.

The pay equity law applies to the federal public service and also to some 12,000 private companies that fall within federal jurisdiction. With 875,000 employees, these private sector firms are engaged in industries such as air, rail, marine and road transportation, longshoring, banking, broadcasting and telecommunications.

Since the human rights law was passed, we have seen lots of progress. In terms of pay levels, women today are certainly much better off now than they were 30 years ago, but we recognize there is still much to do.

Even now some corporations are uncertain about how best to implement pay equity laws. Confusion and uncertainty has led to litigation and irritation. A pay equity task force was established to examine this situation, and in 2004 it recommended legislative reform. On behalf of the new government, we appreciate the hard work and the insights of the task force, but in all honesty we do not feel that a new legislative regime is the right solution at this time.

For one thing, women should not have to wait until a whole new law winds its way through Parliament. They deserve and need action now. My government has opted for a proactive package of changes that will strengthen compliance with existing legislation, not at some distant point in the future but now. Women should not have to wait any longer for fairer working conditions. They are entitled to them now, as a moral imperative and under the law.

(1040)

The new action plan that we are putting forward will help enterprises under federal jurisdiction comply fully with their obligations under the existing pay equity law.

First, the labour program will produce educational materials that outline the roles and responsibilities of employers, employees and their representatives. This will help to address one of the key obstacles experienced by many companies, which is the full challenge of understanding their obligations and how to meet them. Labour officers will receive specialized training that will enable them to more effectively support employers and unions in rectifying gender based wage gaps during the negotiation of collective agreements. These labour officers will provide timely assistance through information, feedback and guidance toward cooperative solutions.

The second element of our action plan relates to mediation assistance. New specialized mediation services will be introduced to make the mediating efforts more efficient and effective on pay equity.

The third change we will see under our action plan relates to compliance monitoring and employer audits, which will help identify and correct problems in an effective and proactive manner.

The labour program that the government is proceeding with will conduct regular site visits to ensure that employers understand how to comply with equal pay requirements.

These are all important measures and I am confident they will prove to be effective. They will foster an environment where pay equity is achievable, measured and sustained. However, in the event that an employer fails to comply, additional recourse is available to enforce the pay equity obligations. Individuals who believe they are being treated unfairly can continue, as now, to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and any Labour Canada inspector has the ability to refer cases to the commission for further investigation and resolution.

I have one last point. From our perspective, this is not a one-off solution. We realize that the effect of these changes needs to be monitored. We need to ensure they are achieving the results we expect right away and for the long term. That is why my government intends to consult stakeholders further and assess the impact and the effectiveness of these measures as we move along.

I want to underscore that pay equity is a complicated policy. It requires change in culture and in attitudes. It requires a sustained good faith relationship between employers and employees, indeed, between men and women in the workforce.

I am sure we would all agree that changes like this just do not occur by themselves and they surely do not happen overnight. They need to be advanced through a thoughtful legislative regime, which we have, supported by effective education, monitoring and compliance.

I believe the action plan that we are putting in place will achieve those ends. It will help address the wage disparities between men and women. It will correct situations in which women are paid less than men in the same organization, even though they perform work of equal value.

The changes we are bringing forward will ensure progress toward ending an injustice suffered by too many women for too long. The best of all these changes is that they need to take effect now, not at some distant, unknown point in the future. Therefore, I call on all my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House to support these measures.

(1045)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the government side for his sensitive comments about the status of women in Canada today and the issue of pay equity. I am glad he agrees that women's equality is of paramount importance to him and to his government.

He also says that the government is bringing in measures to strengthen compliance in terms of pay equity in Canada. As we said earlier, at this point Canadian women earn 72.5¢ for every dollar that men earn in full time work. This is a very damning statistic and one that has not improved measurably over the last 15 years, of which I am aware, and a very small amount over the last 30 years.

Could he inform the House and Canadian women exactly how the government will improve pay equity for women in our country? Will there be targets? Will there be a timeline? Will there be an enforcement mechanism? Without those tools in place, we know we will not make progress and women will not make economic progress without that kind of mechanism.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bruce Stanton:

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. There is no doubt that the issue of pay equity is an important and complex question. It is an issue that the workforce has been dealing with for many years, both at the federal level, within federal jurisdiction, and also at the provincial levels, as workplaces begin to deal with how to redress these gender wage gaps that seem to prevail in the workplace.

Our approach to this is to put an emphasis on interventions in the workplace that will help employers understand and work within the existing legislation, which in itself is designed to redress this problem. As well, we recognize it needs to become a matter of culture and attitude within the workplace. This takes time, it takes intervention, it takes pressure and it takes training.

The kinds of measures we are talking about now, we are advancing right now, not at some point a year from now. To consider the opposition's idea of trying to get into yet a new round of legislation that is not needed could well take years or more. We recognize there is a certain importance in moving this along quickly. Therefore, we are talking about our program with labour inspectors, our labour officers, who will work with employers and their representatives in education and training, in mediation assistance, compliance monitoring and employer audits. These kinds of interventions will be positive and effect the kind of changes needed and effect them right away.

(1050)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member who just described how the government views pay equity to clarify for us how the interest of employers will be sparked, how employers will be made to see that this is really their responsibility and that something has to be done. Are we talking only about incentives, as he seemed to be suggesting? Past experience has shown that, with incentives alone, employers tend to put considerations such as the profits they are expected to make to keep their financial backers happy first.

There is a contradiction between what my colleague on the government side hopes for and market reality. I would like him to explain how this leap can be taken. For now, I get the feeling that we are dealing with dreams and pious hopes, and that nothing will ever come of it.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bruce Stanton:

Mr. Speaker, how employers should be dealt with on this question is certainly an important one. I am inclined to believe, as the hon. member has suggested, that compliance is of the utmost importance if we are to make substantive progress on this important issue. However, I do not believe that employers, when shown the full breadth of this issue and the full knowledge and understanding of what needs to be done, need incentives to do what is right.

These are important attitudinal and cultural changes. We will work with employers and have our labour officers show them the right way to work with their employers in their workplace, men and women. We realize that all members of the workforce need to be part of the solution. We need to work with them on the educational and training side. We recognize that there will be some employers who ultimately will not to comply with this. For that, there is recourse. Individuals and labour officers, on their behalf, can file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for those employers, or shall I say the bad actors, who do not comply. Unfortunately, we do encounter those who ultimately need that type of recourse, but hopefully it would be a last resort.

The importance of the goodwill in the workplace is necessary to make any advances on this issue, and that is where we need to work. We need to take a cooperative approach to this. That view is shared by the government. What is also shared is the urgency with which we need to move on this important issue.

(1055)

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member that the goodwill has run out. We have been waiting for a very long time. His acknowledgement that there are bad actors is certainly true and it is time to address that.

There is a comprehensive task force report which was delivered in 2004. It is 570 pages and has recommendations and guidelines. Why on earth would we not utilize that incredible report and make things happen now? Why should it take years? I find that very hard to understand and very hard to believe.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bruce Stanton:

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we wish to do. We need to move on this now.

The important information in the task force report was forwarded for the consideration of the previous government and this one. I am sure it can be the basis by which a prudent and proper approach to this issue can now be in front of us. What was imperative in that task force report, as the member has acknowledged, is that we get going now.

The fear is that we leave this to a process that could get embroiled in legislative depth and discussion and debate when frankly the facts are known about this. Interventions are needed now.

Continued work in the workplace with qualified labour officers and the Government of Canada working in these areas of federal jurisdiction can and will advance this issue and will begin to redress pay equity issues as they arise within those jurisdictions that are within the federal realm. We will make some progress, as there has been progress in the last 30 years. This is not going to happen overnight. We need continued vigilance to keep moving forward. We do not agree with an approach that would see any stop in the progress that has already been made by holding up some fictitious speculative legislation that may or may not come in the future.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, progress with respect to pay equity in this country has been extremely slow and remains slow even today, in 2006. For 25 years, this country has had legislation that promotes the pay equity principle and that even makes it discriminatory to violate that principle. Twenty-five years later, we still have flagrant proof of pay inequity in many workplaces. At present, as we all know, the pay equity principle is enshrined in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

For 25 years, we have had legislation in place stipulating that it is discriminatory not to enforce pay equity. As we all know, the pay equity principle ensures that men and women receive equal pay for work of equal value, even if the work itself is different. What has this legislation done for us in the past 25 years? We see complaints filed before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which end up before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. This simply means that it still takes years to resolve the problem of women experiencing a wage gap in the workplace.

Let us remember what happened with our employees in the public service. When I had the privilege to be named President of the Treasury Board, I remember very well the dispute that had been going on for years. The dispute before the courts was an argument between lawyers over the interpretation of pay equity. Millions of dollars had been spent on legal fees, while the principle itself had not been recognized. Do you know how we settled that matter? We asked the lawyers to leave the room. We sat down with the representatives of the employees and the unions, and we reached a compromise. We made the payments that were due to all of the women and even to some men who were working in certain categories in the public service.

Our current procedures are strictly based on the filing of a complaint that takes an eternity to settle in the courts.

In this country, the provinces are well ahead of the federal government. Why are we unable to recognize the work of the provinces? At this time, the experience of our provinces confirms the need for a law on pay equity. We have no choice: we must have a law to compel employers and employees to sit down at the same table and discuss a pay equity plan.

A few years ago, in 2004, we set up a working group. I recall very well, it was in the parliamentary committee chaired by my colleague from Winnipeg-South-Centre. All the groups came to tell us that we had to put an end to the complaints-based system and that we needed to have a bill on pay equity. Employers themselves recognized that a complaints-based system is not satisfactory for reaching a decision on pay equity.

Why does the Conservative government tell us today, 25 years later, that it is going to work in cooperation with workers and employers; that this is a change of attitude and of culture? It has been 25 years, and the change of culture still has not happened. We realize very clearly that, in this area, we must have a bill that compels the parties to sit down at a table and discuss a pay equity plan.

Even today, the statistics prove to us that there is still a pay gap in Canada. Current statistics show that, on average, women who work full time receive 71% of the equivalent salary for men. That is going on in Canada in 2006. It is unbelievable.

(1100)

Why this resistance by the Conservative government to the introduction of pay equity legislation? All members of Parliament from the various parties could work on creating good legislation that would meet with the satisfaction of both employers and employees.

We do not deny the fact that this is a complex issue and that employers may be somewhat reticent. Agreed, evaluating different jobs and deciding whether they are equal in value is a difficult thing to do. It is true that pay equity methodology is very complex. Why though, when some provinces have managed it, is the federal government not capable of doing so within its bodies governed by the Canada Labour Code?

For the past 25 years, we have tried to encourage the people of this country, our employers, to implement pay equity. Twenty-five years later, it still has not happened.

The former government, which I belonged to, launched a major initiative, working with a task force that met with numerous parties. An exhaustive report was submitted to the parliamentary committee. Why would the current Conservative government, which is still calling itself a new government nine months later, not take a very close look at the recommendations and propose some legislation to us that we could all study together? What is going on? Why this resistance from the Conservative government?

I cannot help but make the link with other files of special concern to women. When you have a hard time acknowledging the very principle of equality of women in an agency called Status of Women Canada, I understand that you may have a certain resistance to pay equity. Pay equity concerns mostly women, but it can also affect some men.

I very clearly recall at the time debates here in this House where the opposition critic—now in power—absolutely did not want to recognize the principle of pay equity.

Is that what is behind the resistance of our current Conservative government, which is not tabling specific legislation?

Everyone agrees that we need specific pay equity legislation. Everyone agrees that legislation will force employers and employees to sit down at the same table to discuss the company’s pay equity plan. At present I do not see any valid reason for delaying the introduction of such a bill.

My party fully supports the motion put forward by the member for London—Fanshawe for pay equity legislation in Canada.

(1105)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear my Liberal colleague, who was in power for 10 years, refer to the 25 years of effort that has gone into settling the pay equity issue. Her party, which was in power for 12 years, was unable to resolve the issue.

Today, I am very glad to see that the Liberals have solutions to propose and that they would like the Conservatives to follow their lead and act much more proactively, in some ways at least, and make recommendations to improve things or at least try to resolve the issue.

Now that it is in opposition, the Liberal Party seems far more open to some issues on which the Bloc Québécois introduced legislation and amendments to certain Liberal policies, only to come up against a brick wall. When a party is in power and in government, the members are like horses with blinders, closing their eyes to certain realities of people's day-to-day lives.

I would like to ask the member why her government was not proactive when it was in power.

I remember the answers the government gave us in this House on pay equity. I know that my Liberal colleague was Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. She had full authority to act. Now I am happy: she is in opposition with us, and we hope the issue will really be resolved.

The Bloc Québécois and the NDP have been very active on this issue and on the issue of replacement workers. A bill has been passed in this House, and the vast majority of Liberals voted in favour of it. But when they were in power, they did not want to agree in principle to a bill introduced by the Bloc Québécois.

I would now like to hear what the member and Liberal House leader has to say about this.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lucienne Robillard:

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to remind my colleague from the Bloc Québécois that we resolved the pay equity file for all women employed in the federal public service. This was a file that had dragged on for years and which was based on a system of complaints. A complaints-based system keeps us before the courts for years and results in wars between lawyers; in the meantime the problem does not get resolved.

I would also like to remind my colleague that the parliamentary committee that was set up was chaired by my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre, and that this committee had done an extensive study complete with recommendations to the government.

I will not deny that there are varying points of view when such a decision is discussed within the government nor will I deny that this is a complex decision. I will nonetheless remind my colleague that we were ready to introduce a bill on pay equity after many discussions. That is why I encourage the Conservative government.

I do not want to deny the fact that this is a very complex challenge for employers, but I am among those who believe we need legislation to absolutely require employees and employers to sit down at the same table to come up with a pay equity plan. Some provinces have succeeded in doing so. Why can the federal government not manage to do so despite any waves of resistance there might be?

That is why we, the men and women of the Liberal Party, are happy to support the motion by the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

(1110)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Liberal Party obviously has a very good understanding of pay equity legislation, of some of the barriers to women effectively receiving equal pay for work of equal value, and of how difficult that struggle has been for Canadian women over the last 30 years.

The fact that Canadian women have seen very little progress on this file overall is frustrating to all of us in Canada. We have to pay tribute to the women's movement across this country, which continues to push this file forward. Without the grassroots involvement of women's organizations, I am confident in saying this would have fallen totally off the table of any parliamentary agenda.

I have some information from the report that was tabled. One of the statements, on page 108, says that in all of this consultation process among workers, trade unions, employers and tribunal members, the “virtually universal agreement among them was that the current system does not constitute an effective means of advancing towards equitable wages”. Another statement in the report says that the data results from Ontario, which has pay equity legislation, “conclude with certainty that, where pay equity was implemented, total costs to organizations are clearly lower than the cost of the complaints-based” system we have now and that “the financial burden borne...by society in general is also lower”.

I want to ask the member opposite, who has had experience with the past government as a cabinet member, why on earth did the Liberals not move proactively on this file in all the years they were in government, in all the years that Canadian women have struggled for pay equity legislation? Why did the Liberals not do more after this report was tabled than talk about it? Why did they not bring in effective legislation to address this issue?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lucienne Robillard:

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the principle of an important piece of parliamentary legislation, the Canadian Human Rights Act, had already been recognized. From then on, we were able to take it for granted that the principle would be applied nationally because it was important human rights legislation from Canada's Parliament.

People will often support something in principle, but when it comes to the methodology—how to implement those principles in practice—that is when arguments and problems arise. That is why we did not get tangible results and why the issue was drawn out over several years.

I agree with the member: our experience proves that a complaints-based system does not work. It wastes a lot of time, and the courts and lawyers prolong the litigation process. In the meantime, women and some men are being penalized in the workplace.

After our Liberal government received the working group's report, it developed a pay equity bill that was to be introduced in Parliament. This is why we must demand that the Conservative government follow up on this request.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I too am puzzled by the member's comments. She laments the fact that there has been so little progress on pay equity for the last 25 years in Canada, and yet for the last 13 years she and her government were in power.

She knows that our government is actually moving forward on pay equity. We are implementing a number of initiatives that are going to beef up enforcement and improve education in this area. I do not believe she is suggesting that we should send the pay equity police out to every business in this country. What we want to do is work collaboratively.

I am glad to see that she has had a conversion on the road to Damascus and is now supportive of moving forward on this file, but I would ask her, what actions that she and her government were unwilling and unable to undertake during the 13 years the Liberals were in power is she now expecting our Conservative government to undertake?

(1115)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lucienne Robillard:

Mr. Speaker, the former Liberal government always supported the principle of pay equity. Not only did we support it, we succeeded in fixing the pay equity problem for all women working in the public service. I would like to tell the Conservative member that he can say whatever he wants about collaborative approaches in the workplace, but for the past 25 years in this country, we tried the collaborative approach, and it never produced concrete, comprehensive results for all women who are being penalized in terms of pay equity.

I would say to the Conservative government that we got that far. My own government, which believed in this principle, concluded that we need specific pay equity legislation to force both parties—unions and employers—to sit down at the table and work out a pay equity plan. My own government came to that conclusion when it was in power.

I would strongly encourage the Conservative government to adjust its attitude if it thinks a collaborative approach will solve the problem. It will not. We have already tried and it did not work. We got as far a developing a pay equity bill.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, there are women and men in Quebec and Canada who for decades have been receiving less pay than other people for work of equal value. Why? Simply because they have jobs traditionally filled by women.

Having a traditionally female job means that the pay will be less, both in this country and in many others around the world. Unless there is some coercion, unfortunately, man loves to exploit man, especially when the latter is a woman.

In view of this injustice, what has been done in Quebec and Canada? I want to take advantage of the 20 minutes I have to quickly trace a little of the history.

After Manitoba and Ontario, Quebec passed pay equity legislation. As a result, there has been concrete change in Quebec, and therefore more equality, in the public and private sectors. More and more people in traditionally female jobs have received salary adjustments. There is more justice in Quebec, but that does not seem to be the case in Canada for people who still have the misfortune of working for companies, I hasten to add, under federal jurisdiction.

I remind the House that Canada has been making national and international commitments to pay equity for more than 50 years. This did not happen yesterday. It is quite amazing that Canada could have made so many undertakings while at the same time people working under federal jurisdiction have not seen any concrete improvements in their lives.

In 1970, Canada ratified the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, which guarantees the right of everyone without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, including the right to equal pay for equal work and to just and favourable remuneration.

In 1972, Canada ratified the International Labour Organization’s equal remuneration convention, 1951, which requires governments to “ensure the application to all workers of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value”.

In 1976, Canada ratified the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, which recognizes the right to equal pay for work of equal value.

In 1977, the Canadian Human Rights Act came into effect. Section 11 prohibits wage discrimination between male and female employees performing work of equal value.

In 1979, the United Nations adopted the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, which states that women have a right to equal remuneration for work of equal value. Canada ratified that convention in 1981.

In 1985, Canada joined with other UN member countries in signing the Beijing platform for action, which states that governments must take action to apply the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.

Canada joined with other UN countries in signing the Copenhagen declaration on social development and programme of action of the world summit for social development.

That document indicates that signatory governments should safeguard and promote respect for basic workers’ rights, including equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. In 2000, the Canadian government reiterated its commitment towards those two documents.

(1120)

In 2001, the Canadian government established the pay equity task force, which was tasked with reporting on the pay equity situation in Canada.

In 2004, the pay equity task force submitted its report—which was enormous, quite a tome—and it concluded that federal pay equity legislation was ineffective. The report recommended the adoption of proactive pay equity legislation. It recommended an act. It is quite simple. The report recommended an act. It seems to be more difficult to understand this on the other side of the House.

In 2006, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women called upon the government to introduce a bill on pay equity. What did this government do? Through a letter from the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour, this government is creating confusion by claiming that pay equity legislation already exists. I do not know where to find this legislation. The government will have to tell me and tell all the women of Quebec and Canada. Only section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act addresses this issue, yet this has proven extremely ineffective to date.

Furthermore, the government is proposing measures that have proven ineffective for the past 20 years, but it is proposing them anyway.

Women who have full-time jobs earn only 71¢ for every $1 earned by their male co-workers. This results in a higher poverty rate for women and a significantly higher poverty rate for immigrant women. The government must take action to live up to its international obligations on pay equity and human rights and also to fulfill its legal obligations. All members in this House, upon acceptance of their duties, made those commitments. Justice, equality and equity are part of our values and are part of Quebec and Canadian values. It is vital that they find expression in our laws.

We are here to make laws. We spend innumerable hours, five days a week, creating laws. The laws must be just and equitable for the entire population of Quebec and Canada. The government must take steps to recognize and value the contribution of working women to the Canadian and Quebec economy. It is one way of showing that we respect the work they do.

Unfortunately, as we just heard from my Liberal colleague, for years the successive Liberal governments produced nothing tangible. What I find interesting in what my colleague just said is that with the passing of years the Liberals recognized that it was not working and that a law was needed.

In life, better late than never. I wholeheartedly hope that this government will also take the advice of my Liberal colleague who stated, “We recognize that it took some time. It takes time and we recognize that it is not working. And now, we urge you to do everything possible to put into practice what we thought should be done”.

In my opinion, when I survey what has been done since we came here—not just in this session, but also in the previous one—I realize that this Conservative government puts up roadblocks, on the grounds of ideology, for the future of women. It has cut grants to Status of Women Canada and abolished the court challenges program.

(1125)

It is eliminating literacy programs and this has major repercussions. In a society, everything is connected: literacy is connected with getting a job and a decent wage.

Everything is connected, whether it be literacy or fighting for rights. How can women fight for their rights if they do not have the money to do it? Money is essential. Unfortunately, we live in a society where everything we do is based on the financial resources we have.

Some women are volunteers and others work themselves to death defending the rights of all other women and all children. Children live in extreme poverty in Canada, and Canada is not a developing country. It is unacceptable that in Canada—I cannot say my country, because Quebec is my country—there are still a million poor children. That is not right. In fact, there will be a demonstration in Montreal in the near future, this Thursday I believe, to fight child poverty. Some of my colleagues will be going to put in an appearance at the Palais des Congrès. Making an appearance is a fine thing, but there are people living on the street and children who do not even have food. I will get back to my subject.

I am sorry to have gone off on a tangent, but it is unacceptable to me for policy to be made on the backs of children. That is my Achilles heel.

I believe that we must do everything possible to put policies in place that are fair, because when a woman is poor it means there is a child who is poor. When a woman is poor, it may mean there is a husband who is not working and who is poor. When a woman is poor, it means there is a family that is poor. We can say the same thing about men who are poor as well, because a man who is working in what is traditionally a woman’s job is also affected by this inequity. When there are poor men or poor women, there are poor families, and poor children. Poverty, delinquency, malnutrition and illiteracy; it is all connected. Everything is connected.

When will we stop compartmentalizing politics and the policies we make? When we have a labour policy, it has an effect on family policy. When we take action based on a criminal policy, or a justice or public safety policy, it has a direct effect on people’s families. Everything is connected.

Deciding to enact pay equity legislation means doing something fundamental to combat delinquency and to combat poverty.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?

(1130)

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The hon. member has six more minutes.

[Table of Contents]

Mme Maria Mourani:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Moving on, following this rhetorical aside of mine.

So, women's groups in Quebec, like FAFIA and the FFQ, are right to fight for that. They have been fighting for years, the reason for that being that everything is interrelated.

To address racial discrimination, there has to be proactive pay equity legislation in place, which applies both to the private sector and the public sector. Like it or not, it would give the assurance that these workers too are finally given fair recognition for their work and their contribution to society. It is that simple, and it is only fair.

I am sometimes taken aback, because it is only normal in my mind to have equity legislation. One does not need to have a doctorate in political science to understand that. My 12-year-old son can tell you whether a man and a women holding any job in a female-dominated industry deserve equal pay. His answer will be yes, because he is being taught equity and values in school. He is learning that he and the little girl sitting next to him are equals with equal rights to life and equal rights to work, and that they need not worry because the lawmakers understand these things and will ensure that they live in an equal society.

If six-year-olds get the idea, so can we. We are quite capable of understanding. This is not complicated. Federally regulated workers require effective pay equity legislation.

Following years of these women's groups making representations and lobbying for their rights, justice and the basic respect of individuals, Quebec acted. And so did other provinces across Canada. They acted, and that is why we are now seeing cuts being made at Status of Women Canada.

We do not know where the $5 million that the government says it is cutting from administration will come from. Status of Women Canada officials told me that they had been told to cut $5 million, but that they had not yet sat down with anyone to decide where to make cuts. Personally, I think the minister got up one day and just decided to cut $5 million somewhere. That was his logic. When you want to cut $5 million from a budget, the first thing you need to do is sit down with someone who can tell you where to cut. Then, you can say that you are going to cut $5 million from administration, or you can say that you were mistaken and that you are going to cut $2 million or $3 million from administration. That is logical, but the logic of this move is still a big question.

By deciding to change the terms and conditions of the women's program, for example, the government, as if by magic, is denying women access to a way of defending their rights. Not only does the government not have equity legislation, but it is preventing women from standing up for their rights.

I find this a highly strategic move. One the one hand, the government is saying that legislation already exists, and that women can assert their rights, yet it is preventing them from doing so. How? By abolishing the court challenges program. Go ahead, assert your rights.

I would be surprised if a woman or a women's group with financial problems could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to claim their rights without the benefit of the court challenges program. What does this mean? The government is reducing rights, is not creating pay equity legislation and is telling women to be quiet. They are not even entitled to claim their rights. All they can do is take to the streets with placards and shout that they want pay equity legislation.

(1135)

And what will we do about it? Will we stick our heads in the sand and wait until it goes away? Is that what we do in this country? Is that the image we want to project to the international community? Is that the image we want our children to see? We teach them about equality, and when they grow up, what do they see? They see injustice every day. They see poverty, iniquity, lack of solidarity. We tell our children how they should behave, yet we cannot even be bothered to do as we say.

In closing, I would like to say that I think it is deplorable and I am deeply saddened to see these direct attacks on the poorest people in our society—and they are under attack—people who just got a bad start in life, a difficult start. I should not say “a bad start” because there is no such thing as good and bad; everything in life is shades of grey. I should say “a difficult start”.

These are people who got a difficult start and who are living in poverty, who have to work so hard to make sure their children get an education and do not drop out or get involved in violence. It is all connected to work. When families cannot feed their children, of course they will have trouble and fight. The government has to understand that pay equity legislation is about fairness and, above all, compassion.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and ask a question on this important subject matter before the House today. Pay equity is very important for our society. It is a social justice issue. It is a fairness issue.

In my previous employment at a not for profit organization we went through the implementation of a pay equity model. At that time there were many people who argued that this would drag us down, that this would destroy the organization, and it would hurt our service delivery because we would not be able to do more for our clients. However, at the end of the day we were able to develop and implement a model that actually provided a benefit. The benefit was that the morale of the entire organization went up because there was a fairness now applied in the workforce that was not there before. Our actual work with clients and our services improved.

As my colleague noted, many people use the extra income, that was a fairness element, to pay for their mortgage, to pay for their kids to go to school, and to have a direct impact on their health and wellness in society. In addition, perhaps they or their children had been missing out on certain things because either they were raising children alone or they did not have the resources to do some of the basics. That was an important morale boost that the whole organization had from the implementation of pay equity, something that contributed to better service.

I would ask my colleague to comment about that aspect. Often it is seen from a one-dimensional cost element that is only going to create problems for an organization. I have seen and witnessed firsthand the implementation and successful service delivery that is improved because people deserve to be treated in the same manner, with fairness and equity. More importantly, there was an actual net benefit to the families in my community where people did not have the same fairness treatment.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Maria Mourani:

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's remarks. The term “costs” is one that we very much like to use in our society.

I believe, as do many people, that you do not place a value on human beings. A human being is not something to be bought. A human being does not have a monetary value. Human beings are the foundation of every society. So I do not believe that there are enormous costs associated with equity. You cannot place a value on equity.

In Quebec, we have addressed an injustice. It cost us a certain sum, but now there is equity for men and women.

We have shown women that their contribution to society is invaluable, equal to that of men. In my opinion, no human being in our society can be assigned a monetary value. It is we who make our society better.

I would prefer that my taxes help children living in poverty. I would prefer to invest my money in peace, not war. I would prefer to put my money towards equity in Canada, rather than sending billions of dollars to Afghanistan for war. I would prefer to invest my money in having more justice in Canada rather than putting money into the military and armaments, and the so-called tough on crime measures, which get $1 billion while there is only $10 million for prevention for youth in Quebec. That is not enough, by comparison to the $1 billion put towards law enforcement.

When the government wants to invest money, it does. However, we know where the money is being spent: on inspectors. The government answers that it will ask for a review by the labour program inspectors. More police. More police are being put in place. Could we stop with the police and put a bit of heart into what we are doing?

(1140)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Bloc for her excellent presentation and for the passion she is instilling in this place on a matter of great significance to women all across Canada.

Pay equity is one of those policy issues that have not been properly addressed in years. We are facing a big problem right now because of a very old pledge.

Here is my question to the hon. member. Does the government's position not concern her? Do Conservative members support the principle of pay equity? It is indeed essential to the advancement of women.

Also, it seems to me that part of reason for the problem we are now facing is that the report was presented to Canadians two years ago, and the Liberals failed to act. They chose to completely ignore the recommendations contained in the report. That is also a big problem, and I would like to know if the hon. member would care to comment on the points I have raised.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Maria Mourani:

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question, which presents two fundamental components, one of which is including the value of the equity principle.

I must admit that I do not know whether this government has the principle of equity at heart. We are all driven by our own values. I truly believe that, because I think that human beings are good and, for better or worse, they try to do their share—and do so properly—in society. I have a principle of values. I think that when people have values it comes through in their actions.

When I look at what this government is doing, I wonder about its values. Does this government have the value of equity at heart? I have my doubts when I see its actions. Maybe it has equity at heart, but it needs to prove it through its actions. We are judged by our actions. We cannot read a person's mind to see what their values are on the inside. It is not possible. We judge a person by his or her actions.

I see that the government's actions are not consistent with the principle of equity, since it refuses to pass legislation and it comes up with all sorts of impossible arguments even after the Liberals have acknowledged being wrong. The Liberals recognize the need for legislation on equity. They also acknowledge not having implemented it for years.

Earlier I provided some background on the problem of equity and the ratification of a number of international conventions on equity. In Canada, we have not taken action. The Liberal reign was characterized by inaction. Nonetheless, the Liberals have done the honourable thing by acknowledging they did nothing where they should have done something. The ball is now in the Conservatives' court.

After dealing with Liberal inaction, we are now facing the stubbornness of the Conservative government, which keeps repeating what the Liberals said when they were in power. Those who were in charge made a mistake, but have made amends. They say they were wrong and that we must do better; we must pass this legislation. What are we up against? The silence of the Conservatives. That is not right. They were told this was not working and they said they will make it work, but in the same way that has already failed. What can I say? It is not right.

(1145)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to take part in this debate on pay equity. I will share my time with the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

I find it unbelievable that we are still debating and discussing this long-standing promise on pay equity. It is a question of human rights and justice. The fact that we are still stuck on the same point should cause us all, on both sides of the House, to ask ourselves some questions. We have the right to wonder why the Liberal government failed to act when it could have.

I doubt that the current government intends to do anything, given the cuts it made to the Status of Women and the court challenges program. I will discuss this further in a moment.

I would especially like to discuss some women I met during my travels with the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which is conducting a study on employability. A number of women talked to us about the conditions they must face. I would like to talk about these women, whose situations are not only touching and moving, but also often tragic. First I want to go back to the task force, which, in its report, clearly favoured an alternative approach to the current, complaints-based system for enforcing the pay equity principle.

Contrary to what the Conservatives seem to indicate, women in Canada have not achieved equality. Statistics prove it.

[English]

I would like to talk about women at work. Clearly, women are concentrated in low wage and part time jobs and often jobs with little security. The average pre-tax income of women was $24,400, 62% less than men actually earn. This is something that should be of concern to us.

It is not only a question of salary. Many of the women who are employed in low paying jobs with little security speak of conditions that we should be ashamed of in Canada. In Montreal I met women from the Filipino community who are home care workers. They were almost indentured servants. This should concern us all, not just members on this side of the House. The Conservative government needs to pay attention to conditions of this kind in Canada.

I have also met women in Vancouver from different communities who have recently spoken out about abuse in their lives. This speaks to the government's and to preceding governments' and society's apparent indifference that this kind of abuse can be tolerated. Perhaps it is a reflection of the percentage of women in politics. Canada ranked 42nd in the world with only 20.8% of parliamentarians being women.

I would wager that if there were more women in this House the question of day care would have been resolved long ago. The question of poor housing would have been resolved a long time ago.

Women in greater numbers live in poverty. One in five Canadian women lives in poverty today, 2.8 million women. Forty-nine per cent of single, widowed and divorced women over 65 are poor. This should be a concern to us. It is even more so if we look at senior women and women's unpaid work during their lives. There are more women in this situation than men. Women's unpaid work makes their risk of poverty higher. When women retire, either because of unpaid work or because of lower incomes during their working lives, they receive smaller pensions because of the wage difference I referred to earlier. As a result, I have met many senior women in my community who are living in abject conditions of real poverty in an otherwise affluent society. This is unacceptable.

I reiterate the comments that have been made by some parliamentarians this morning that the government must take responsibility. The task force on equal pay for equal work was established in part because many observers, including the Canadian Human Rights Commission, favour an alternative to the current complaint based approach to implementing the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.

The objective of this proactive model is to provide coverage to as many women as possible who are presently victims of wage discrimination, whereas the complaint based model deals only with the cases of complaints. The Conservative government cut the court challenges program. That program provided access for women to challenge some of the unequal and unfair conditions they face. This program was cut recently by the current government, as was that part of the mandate of Status of Women Canada that would allow for advocacy when we see the conditions which, for example, Asian women in Vancouver have recently spoken about. Who will advocate for them?

(1150)

I have heard members of the government recently say that they will not pass laws that are unfair. I believe the Prime Minister made that comment. Well, there are laws that are unfair. There are conditions that are unfair.

The government has tried to muzzle Status of Women Canada by cutting its funding and making a change in its mandate, demanding that it no longer advocate for women. This is unacceptable. I believe the women of Canada will not tolerate the government's arrogant attitude as it concerns them. I hope that the government will recognize its mistake in removing advocacy from its mandate and will redress that. It really is a question of justice and equality.

I would ask that the government act now and establish a law, not just regulations, and not just look at ways of redressing a little situation here and there, but really address it in a comprehensive way. After all, this is Canada. We should be leading in this area rather than trailing and attempting to muzzle organizations that attempt to speak out for women.

I will conclude by saying that Canadians, Canadian women and Canadian men, expect no less of this government. It is time for action and for legislation on equal pay for equal work.

* * *

(1155)

Business of the House

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to my colleagues on all sides of the House for interrupting the proceedings on this debate. I would like to move a couple of motions.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That, when ways and means motion number 10 is called today, a recorded division be deemed requested and the vote deferred to 5:30 pm this day.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Does the hon. government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, again, there have been discussions among all parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders and usual practices of the House, the adjournment proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order 38 be taken up today immediately following the deferred recorded divisions followed by the debate in Committee of the Whole of all Votes under NATIONAL DEFENCE in the Main Estimates.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

* * *

Committees of the House

Status of Women

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Resuming questions and comments. The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for her clear comprehension of this issue. I would just like to mention an article published in Montreal in L'Itinéraire on November 1, 2006. I think the article said something very important about this government's attitude toward the status of women. The title of the article was “Prime Minister pulls out all stops to increase poverty in Canada”. It reads:

Once again, the current government has shown that it intends to destroy Canada's social fabric... The government has made cuts to a number of sectors, including literacy, volunteerism, social economy and status of women. These measures will only help to aggravate social problems in Canada.

Today we are talking about the status of women.

We are wondering why this government does not want to pass a law and why it prefers to let market forces sort out the pay equity issue. If that were a viable option, why has the problem not yet been solved?

I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether she thinks the current government is turning this into an ideological debate. If so, perhaps she can help clarify the current government's ideology with respect to pay equity between men and women.

(1200)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Denise Savoie:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I find it very appropriate.

We could ask ourselves what is the purpose of government if not to protect the interests of its people, given the events of recent weeks. The government has slashed literacy programs and, as mentioned, the ability of Status of Women Canada to help women and protect their interests, has abolished the court challenges program and made cuts to the social economy. The most vulnerable groups and individuals have been affected.

The conservatives have put all the savings into the debt.

For our part, we do believe that we should pay off our debt in an orderly fashion, but there is a great divide between that and forgetting the purpose of the economy and of government. That definitely shows a direction, an ideological approach, that is not in step with the reality of Canadians and Quebeckers. It is beyond comprehension.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to ask my colleague a question with regard to this issue.

It is important to note that this is a social justice issue and a fairness issue as much as it is a monetary issue. There are those who argue that we do not have the funds or that society does not have the funds to pay people fairly, which is absurd to begin with.

We have had record tax cuts by the Liberals and surpluses as well. Now the current government has put $13 billion toward the debt and it also has a surplus already of about $6 billion. We could also close tax loopholes, for example, the Barbados loophole, where billions of dollars are syphoned outside this country per year in the tax cycle which could be used to rebuilding this nation.

I would like to ask my colleague why there is such resistance to this when those fair payments to people would allow them to pay their mortgage, send their kids to school and end some of the poverty we have in our country because women are so disproportionately affected by poverty?

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Denise Savoie:

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of Tommy Douglas' analogy of an election in mouseland where mice who for white cats or black cats, but basically they are cats and they have no interest in the mice. We have had two governments that really fit that analogy.

The government certainly has many opportunities to make choices in where they apply funding. The government has chosen to put all the surplus on paying down the debt. On our side of the House, we support an orderly payback of the debt, but the government seems to have completely forgotten ordinary Canadians.

I just want to give a quick example of the data on the results of Ontario's proactive legislation where pay equity was implemented. Total cost to organizations are clearly lower than the cost of the complaint based process--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

I apologize to the member for Victoria, but we are out of time.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be pretty clear to anyone in the House today, who has listened to many of the women speak to this issue, the frustration that women in the House of Commons feel about the lack of progress on the issue of pay equity for women. It is incredible to me that in all the years that the Liberals have been in power they did not do anything in a proactive way to address this issue through legislation.

The frustration of women at the grassroots level across the country, women who have worked in organizations for the past 30 years to advance women's equality, is very high and it is past time that the Canadian government took that seriously and made advances in legislation on pay equity to address the issue effectively.

Analysis of the gender wage gaps for university grads in science and technology confirmed that for even the most recent university graduates of the same age and education, the wage gap increases when they enter the labour market. I do not think a lot of Canadians who have not studied this issue or even a lot of young men and women graduating from universities today really understand that, that with the same level of education, doing the same kind of work, the wage gap is there for women in science and technologies too.

When we talk about the level of the wage gap for university graduates, we should also be very cognizant of the fact that for visible minority women and immigrant women, the wage gap is even much larger and much more difficult for those women. They are, in actual fact, in double jeopardy in terms of the wage economy in Canada.

The other thing for all of us in this House to remember is that Canada has signed many international accords which recognize the principles of equal pay for work of equal value. Signing these accords by our government is supposed to mean a commitment to implementation measures. The failure to act by the previous Liberal government and by the present government are tantamount to ignoring the international covenants that Canada has signed.

In the meantime, we have a new government, which has only been in place for nine months, that has cut the very instruments that women and disadvantaged groups in our society have been able to access to push forward an agenda of equality and fairness.

The government has totally cut the court challenges program, a program that cost a pittance in terms of government spending but was very important to disadvantaged groups in our society in pushing forward an agenda of equality, fairness and justice. It cut Status of Women Canada. It cut literacy programs. All of the cuts that the government has made recently most adversely affect the welfare of women. That is a condemnation on the actions of the government that has a huge surplus right now and yet cuts the very programs that may bring the bottom levels of our society up to a more acceptable standard of economic justice.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission, which now deals with the complaints based system, has asked for legislative changes to get away from the complaints based system which clearly does not work and which the Canadian Human Rights Commission has said does not work. We need legislation. Our only legislation now relies on a voluntary compliance and a complaint mechanism that is totally inadequate.

We can see the results of the current system in how little progress women have actually made for economic equality and closing the wage gap. When I was in this House in the early nineties, we were pushing this agenda forward and, in reality, women may have closed the wage gap by less than 1%. At that time women were earning, on average, 70% of what men earned for full time work. Women are now earning 72%. At this rate, it will take another 100 years or more until women actually have economic equality in the workplace.

The consultation of this report was very thorough. There was consultation with workers, with trade unions, with employers and with tribunal members. Virtually everyone who was consulted, along with the tribunal members, agreed. There was a universal agreement that the current system does not work.

(1205)

The system that we have in place now does not constitute an effective means of advancing justice for women in pay equity. The current system breeds frustration, anger, uncertainty, lengthy delays and an acrimonious atmosphere, but, even more than that, a staggering cost. The government claims to be the astute guardian of the public purse and yet it is happy to continue with this antiquated process that does not help women and actually costs more than effective pay equity legislation would cost. A proactive model favours cooperation over confrontation and we know that where pay equity has been implemented, the cost to organizations themselves are lower than the complaint based process.

The cost to society in general is even higher when we factor in the reality of women's lives, such as lone parent families where women are trying to provide for their children in a country where there is no national child care system. The lack of support for the Canadian family by the government and the previous Liberal government is actually staggering.

If the government will not act in the name of justice, equality and fairness for women, it should look at the financial burden to society and address the issue from an economic basis. We had the failure of the previous Liberal government over 13 years to bring in any effective measures to counter women's economic inequality in our society and now we have a government in place that appears to ignore all the hard work that has been done and based on facts in the report to implement a system that will finally address women's inequality in our society.

The evidence to support pay equity is before us. We have it in this report. It is clear what we need to do. What we need now is the political will to implement legislation that does have targets, timetables and effective enforcement mechanisms.

We leave far too many women behind with this antiquated complaint based system. Far too many women are left without a process to advance their own human rights in terms of pay equity. It is really past the time for the government to take this issue seriously and implement legislation that will work to close the wage gap for Canadian women.

(1210)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, my colleague touched on a number of issues but the one that I think is important to discuss is conflict versus consensus in this file.

The current system, as she noted, is creating conflict and people need to literally fight through a process which is very insensitive in the sense that it leaves relationships that need to be rebuilt. This is an issue where if it is properly mandated and delivered by the federal position, it will create a better environment so organizations will no longer be in those elements of conflict and fighting each other internally as opposed to seeking solutions and moving forward with pay equity.

As I noted in my earlier comments, coming from an organization that implemented pay equity, we saw a significant morale boost post-implementation because those workers, who were not being treated fairly and who did not get the same remuneration that they should have had at that time, were then lifted up throughout the organization. I can say that other people in the organization did not see it as they were stuck. These people were actually getting a benefit that they would otherwise share. What they saw is that there was a general leveling of the environment that was healthy.

Past those employees are the new people coming into the organization who no longer inherited this conflict and this situation and so we kept our operations and our focus on providing services to people.

I would ask my colleague to expand upon the conflict that could be avoided in this situation as we could look at models that would actually resolve the situation and let organizations move forward together and not have to spend their energy, time and resources fighting something that could leave long term negative repercussions.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black:

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the perspective of my colleague, the hon. member for Windsor West, who comes from an organization that has gone through this process to address the issue of pay equity. It was interesting to hear his comment that it actually strengthened the organization and brought about cohesion.

We know that a proactive model favours cooperation over confrontation. There is a lot of documented evidence to support that. I urge the government to look at it.

In terms of what has happened in Ontario, where there has been proactive legislation for some time now, it has been shown that, where pay equity has been implemented, the costs to organizations are lower than the costs for organizations under a complaints based system. It has also been shown that this kind of system builds a more active workplace, with people showing cooperation on the issue and understanding that pay equity is actually an issue of human rights, women's rights and a matter of justice and equality.

(1215)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to ask my esteemed colleague a question on this important issue of pay equity.

The member for New Westminster—Coquitlam has had a long, rich experience in the House and has made an enormous contribution to the pursuit of women's equality. I can only imagine, given her time in the House, that she shares our disappointment about the lack of action on something as fundamental as equal pay for work of equal value.

I am wondering if the member could explain for the House what was undertaken over a decade ago in this area and how she accounts for this inaction.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has a long record of fighting for women's equality, both here in the House of Commons and in the legislature of Manitoba.

I spoke earlier about the frustration of Canadian women with the lack of progress on the issue of pay equity. I know she shares that frustration and, quite frankly, that anger of Canadian women, who feel that their government does not address the issue that would in fact advance their economic equality.

What has happened in the past is a lack of political will on both sides of the House of Commons. What we need is political will to enact legislation that is meaningful.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate today in this debate on the report produced by the status of women committee. This is a very significant day. This is one of the rare opportunities we actually have in this place to debate, discuss and have a dialogue on an issue that is fundamental to over half of our population.

The question of pay equity goes back decades. The question of treating women as equal participants in our society has long been a matter of debate and discussion in this place. In fact, like my colleague from New Westminster--Coquitlam, I go back probably 30 years in this struggle. In fact, one of my very first obligations in public life was to work within my own party, the NDP, to ensure that members of the NDP caucus were vigilant about pursuing pay equity.

I can remember back 30 years to a time when we put out publications, buttons and slogans, anything we could, to raise awareness about this issue. In fact, we came to the House of Commons with a T-shirt that read “A Woman's Place is in the House of Commons”. Colleagues of mine back then, such as Stanley Knowles, Ed Broadbent and others, took up this campaign with real energy and determination. Going back all those years, I think the NDP has always led the path in Parliament for the achievement of some very fundamental equality goals.

Today, here we are in November 2006 debating something that we thought was done with. We thought the debate was over, that the discussion had been finished, and that the dialogue had ended. We thought that we all had understood by now the importance of equal pay for work of equal value.

Twenty years ago when I was in the Manitoba legislature, as part of the NDP government, we developed at that point a sophisticated but sensible and pragmatic approach to this issue, and that was legislation entrenching equal pay for work of equal value, with a scheme, a system, for actually evaluating on the basis of skill, education and responsibility. It is a set of criteria that has been well recognized across this country by every think tank, every academic institution and every government organization as one that is workable and certainly reflective of a fundamental principle.

So why are we debating pay equity in 2006? Why are we talking about a report that has been gathering dust over a number of years? What do we need to do to finally achieve equality for women?

I suppose we could start today by all voting in favour of the recommendation in this report, which is basically to finally get some government action on a study that has been going on for years about the need to advance the issue of pay equity, to entrench the notion of equal pay for work of equal value in all aspects of our daily living, and to ensure that a mechanism is in place for women to seek justice if they are not able to enjoy the benefits of equal pay for work of equal value.

If we do not do this today, if we do not convince the Conservative government today to take up this banner when the Liberals failed Canadian women, then we are only delaying the day when women can be equal participants in our economy, contributing to the fullest their abilities, paying taxes, growing our economy and making a difference.

(1220)

What a shame this is in this day and age, when we are talking about the need to be competitive in the world economy, about the need to ensure productive workforces and about the need to ensure that our economy is growing and prosperity is on the horizon. What a shame that we do not recognize one of the fundamental aspects of that dream of being a prosperous, wealthy nation. That fundamental, of course, is equality for all people: paying people the same based on their contribution to the workforce.

I know the Conservatives have some trouble with this concept, or at least they did at least in opposition. We have had debates before about what equal pay for work of equal value means. I hope, now that they have had some time to think about it and are actually in government and know the value of tapping an individual's fullest potential, that they will see the importance of actually acting on this report and entrenching the notion of equal pay for work of equal value right across the board.

If we do not, we will lose an important resource. We will set aside a major contributing factor to our future prosperity.

Let us look at some of the statistics. We have heard them before. When we think about poverty in this country, I do not think we can ignore the fact that one in seven Canadian women lives in poverty. That means 2.4 million women. Forty-nine per cent of single parent families headed by women are poor and 41.5% of unattached women over 65 are poor.

In general, women in this country are poor and less wealthy than men because of the fact that they are not treated as equal participants in our society today. The very notion that we can get away with paying women less than men for doing comparable work is antiquated, out of date and hurtful to a modern day civil society. What other reason would account for that kind of disparity than this notion that women are, in this day and age, still a source of cheap available labour to be brought into the labour force as needed and to be pushed out when it is perceived that women are taking jobs away from men?

Gosh, we have been through this so many times. I think back to probably about 30 years ago when the Liberals were in government and the minister of labour at that time said that full employment was an actual fact because the majority of able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 55 were working, implying that as long as women were working for pin money, then we did not include them in the figures. I remember at that time a Conservative actually suggesting that working women were a social phenomenon.

We have been through so many ups and downs on this issue that it is high time we actually come to grips with the fact that women are equal participants in our society today and ought to be paid on the same basis. That brings us to this report.

It was agreed long ago that there would be a study and a task force on the whole question of the application of equal pay for work of equal value across the board. The Liberal government took it upon itself to ensure that this study was undertaken, and that, as we know from the committee's report that we are discussing today, was in 2001. The minister of justice and the minister of labour at the time announced the establishment of a pay equity task force to develop some options and recommendations to improve the legislative framework for dealing with the issue of pay equity.

(1225)

Finally, after long deliberations and some difficulties on the part of the task force in getting access to all the information it needed, a report was handed to the government in 2004. Here we are two years after this report was handed down and we are debating whether or not to implement it. What happened in those two years? Why did the Liberals leave this issue to languish? Why was it put on the shelf to gather dust? Why was there no action?

I go back to some of the questions I asked in the House then. From my Hansard, dated May 5, 2004, I asked in the House:

The task force report came down today and it has the support of women across Canada. I want to ask the Prime Minister about this and only the Prime Minister.

After a decade of stagnation under the Liberals there is still a large gender gap in the workplace. The Prime Minister knows about gender gaps and credibility gaps too. He need only look at the list of Liberal candidates in this election.

If the Prime Minister will not run more women, will he at least commit to the recommendations released today? Will he commit to implementing those pay equity recommendations immediately and provide Parliament with a plan of action?

Needless to say, I did not get an answer from the Prime Minister. As one would expect, I received an answer from the President of the Treasury Board and guess what the answer was?

Once we have had a chance to study it and understand the implications, we will report back to the House.

That was from my good friend Reg Alcock who is no longer with us. I wonder why. That kind of inaction was unacceptable then and it is unacceptable today.

The report that was handed down was a very fine blueprint for future action. Many groups commented on it. Many in fact described it as a useful, pragmatic document that should provide good direction for government and should lead to expeditious implementation.

I want to refer to a document prepared by Margot Young for Status of Women Canada dated September 2002 where she said:

There are clear and strong arguments to be made that pay equity legislation, removed from a human rights legislation context, should nonetheless be granted similar interpretative treatment - at least to the extent of being given a liberal, purposive and organic interpretation. Pay equity legislation should contain textual recognition that pay equity is a fundamental human right,--

When the report came out other groups commented and one of the most significant responses was from the Canadian Labour Congress which had been working on this issue for a long time and representing women in the workforce for eons. It knew full well the importance for its members of equality between men and women. The Canadian Labour Congress at that time said in a press release on May 5, 2004:

Canadian working women have been waiting for this report for a long time. The federal government should move quickly to implement its very positive recommendations. There is no reason to delay and every reason to proceed with new pay equity legislation based on the report.

It went on to talk about how the report had been based on years of study, research and consultations that happened with unions, employers, women's organizations; how it based its recommendations on a solid understanding of human rights commitment here at home and internationally; and how it was certainly consistent with the history of this country in pursuing equality and justice.

It was a resounding vote of “yes” given to this report by people deeply involved in this field. It should have provided the basis for action and it did not. Why the Liberals continued to drag their feet I do not know. They had time enough. They had resources enough. They had rhetoric enough, but the rhetoric never went beyond this supposed commitment to women's equality. That was true on a number of fronts.

(1230)

I am reminded daily of this as we fight the Conservative plan to dismantle the Status of Women program and to eliminate funding for women's resource centres because they help to empower women to help themselves. I am reminded as we deal with this daily onslaught of cutbacks from the Conservatives how in fact the Liberals started this whole path we are on. In fact, the Liberals gave the directions to the Conservative government on how to do it. The Liberals gave them the road map by in fact eliminating core funding for women's groups.

Let us not forget that it was under the Liberals that the National Action Committee on the Status of Women was gutted. It was under the Liberals that organizations representative of women across this country, whether it was NAC, NAWL, FAFIA or whether it was advisory councils right across this country, all of them depended upon recognition that the work they did was important and that government financial support was there to ensure that their work continued.

What the Liberals did was decide that no longer would such organizations receive core funding, receive money they could count on year in and year out. From that day henceforth, after the Liberals made this big meanspirited decision, women's groups were forced to start appealing for funds on a project by project basis, thereby diverting most of their energies into administrative paperwork just to meet the new and evolving criteria that the Liberals had put before them.

We are reaping today the results of that kind of negligence, that kind of meanspirited agenda, and that kind of a Liberal approach which always puts rhetoric over action, never keeps its promises, and pretends that it is doing the best for vulnerable groups in our society today.

Frankly, I am getting a little tired of hearing from Liberals about their self-righteous indignation about how the NDP caused them to lose their culture of entitlement, and to lose their belief that they are somehow the natural governors of this nation. I am not any happier with the Conservative Party's approach, but it sure is galling to hear Liberals stand up these days and talk about their belief in pay equity and their belief in child care, when they spent years dilly-dallying and fiddling away without action.

The Liberals promised for 13 years to implement a national child care program. They came forward with a program when they knew they were in trouble in the dying days of a minority government. They used this as if it was intended all along and we should have automatically kept believing them and kept putting our faith in the them because they said they were going to deliver.

How can we keep doing that? It is impossible. There has been no action on child care and no action on pay equity. Here we are debating a fundamental issue for women's equality at a time when the Liberals dropped the ball and where the Conservatives have always said they really do not understand or accept the concept of equal pay for work of equal value.

We are in a real difficult spot. If the Liberals had acted when they had opportunity to do so, we would have been well on our way to trying out a legislative approach and seeing in fact if moving away from a complaints based regime and toward a more proactive legislative scheme would make a difference. I am sure by now we would have been assessing the legislation, making judgments, and determining whether or not to fine tune it and improve it.

Instead, here we are debating the concept. We are debating the very notion about whether or not it makes sense in this day and age, even though women still only make 60¢ on the dollar that every man makes for doing roughly the same work. We are not talking about different jobs. We are talking about work of equal value and suggesting in fact that it is not conducive to a productive economy nor is it conducive to a healthy population to discriminate.

We, as a society, have a job to do to address systemic discrimination. That is what we are dealing with, something that is deep rooted in our system because it has served this country well to keep women as a cheap resource of labour. It is high time we dealt with that, put it to bed, and started working on the basis of the fundamentals of civil society.

(1235)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is good to rise to take part in the debate today and I thank the member opposite for her comments on the motion.

I would like to bring a couple of things to the debate and maybe get closer to the surroundings we are in today. I want to talk about the fact that in our cabinet we have a number of women, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. In my personal opinion, they are doing a tremendous job. The issue of their gender never comes into the discussion at any time because of the tremendous work they are doing.

I would like to draw to the attention of the member the comments that came from the Climate Action Network. Maybe we could get her comments on it as we talk about the status of women. This was brought to our attention yesterday regarding the Minister of the Environment for the Government of Canada, who is a lady.

These comments, to me, were completely inappropriate. That organization posted comments on its website about the minister's hair. This is a minister who has worked extremely hard, probably as hard as any member in the House or any minister, to bring forward a clean air act, which took a tremendous amount of effort. Whether the hon. member agrees with that or not, the effort that was put into the clean air act to make it happen was huge. She has the support of the government and many good people in Canada on this issue. One of the comments was, “Since assuming the presidency, Rona found time away from her hairdresser--”

This, to me, is completely inappropriate. I would like the member who just spoke to let Canadians know how she feels about this type of comment coming from this type of organization.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:

Mr. Speaker, I, for one, do not believe there is any place in public and political life for descriptions based on gender or for cultural stereotyping to occur anywhere in our midst. For someone to describe a cabinet minister in terms of her hair is certainly inappropriate, just like it was inappropriate way back when I started politics. I was appointed to the cabinet in Manitoba and the first profile piece done on me had nothing to say about my policies or my views, but described everything I was wearing, from the dress to the stockings to the jewellery. I found that offensive.

When I had a playpen in my office to have a place for my two-year-old son to play when he came to visit, I was also offended when a Conservative member stood up in the Manitoba legislature and accused me of being a high priced babysitter.

We have dealt with this kind of stereotyping in many different ways. If we are commenting on that organization's views about a certain cabinet minister's hair, we should also reflect on the fact that, on the Conservative benches, there is no shortage of derogatory or demeaning language. We had the most recent example, of course, being the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with the apparent reference to a certain other member being considered a dog. It does not help for any of us to go down that path. I agree it should not be part of our jargon or our approach today.

When he talks about women in his cabinet, I am glad they are all treated equally. I would hope so. That is just a given. What I am concerned about is that there are so few women in the cabinet and in the Conservative government generally. The percentage of women is deplorably low, the lowest of any party in recent times, and it has dragged the percentage down in the House generally to the point where the female representation in the House has been stagnant at about 20%.

I hope the government is doing more to encourage women to run and to get involved in politics. I am not so concerned about how the women are treated in the Conservative cabinet because I assume they are treated equally. What I am concerned about is the failure of both men and women in the Conservative government to actually talk about the issues that matter most to Canadians.

Here we have a good example today. When was the last time we heard a Conservative stand up in the House or in public generally and talk about the fact that the gap between the earnings of women and men has not changed substantially in the past decade?

When was the last time a Conservative stood up in the House or anywhere and talked about the fact that 43% of all children in low income families live with a single parent family? When was the last time the government stood up and said it had to deal with this inequity and that it had to move on equal pay for work of equal value?

That is the issue at hand. That is the true testament and the true measure of a government's commitment to equality and justice.

(1240)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to talk about the report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. My colleague was very eloquent in her speech in outlining the effects and connection to poverty in this situation.

It is very important to note that this is an issue of social justice, fairness and remuneration. It affects some of the most vulnerable in Canadian society. Having gone through the pay equity process in an employment situation, it grounded my belief that it can be done in a way that is very progressive and it can improve organizations.

The committee's report would be positive move for our country. We know jurisdictions in Ontario and Quebec have introduced these measures and there have been many successful stories. It addresses a long outstanding problem of women in Canadian society who have had to fight and claw their way up to the level of respect and support that should have been automatically present. It has been done in many different ways in the past, whether it be through my colleague's experience in politics, or the fight for the right to vote, or the current fight for pay equity.

We are not only talking about women getting to where they should already be. Some studies indicate that women have fallen further behind in this situation. Some reports note that women earn 71¢ for every $1 a man would earn, in the same profession and position. They are doing the same relative jobs, but they are not being remunerated at the same level.

A general analysis of what has happened shows that women have moved from 75¢ down to 71¢. That is not fair to the individuals who are affected by this. As collective of Canadian society, women are seen to be an available labour resource of less value in terms of remuneration, and this has been noted outside our boundaries.

Canada has received a number of notifications from different world organizations about the way we treat our vulnerable populations. This one is damaging not only internally, but it shames our country and it affects our credibility. We speak internationally about respect for women across the globe. We speak of them as being real contributors, as being equal in civil society.

We can improve upon this as a country. This would improve our international credibility, which is vacant right now. It would also provide domestic social justice to citizens who are so important to our society.

I will read the preamble of the report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It is important for the recommendations to come out in today's debate, as well as the preface to why we are having this discussion. It states:

Despite the fact that pay equity has been the law in federal jurisdiction for over 25 years, women continue to earn less than men. Statistics show that, on average, women who have full-time jobs earn 71¢ for each dollar earned by a man, and that this discrimination is even more acute for women of colour, aboriginal women and women with disabilities. The objective of pay equity is to ensure that women and men who are performing jobs of equal value receive equal wages, even if their jobs are different.

My background consists of working for Community Living in Mississauga, as well as the Association for Persons with Physical Disabilities. Currently, there is disproportionate unemployment as well as lower hours in wage earnings by persons with disabilities. I worked as a job developer in both of those great organizations for a number of years. We sought to provide a skilled workforce and assist in the training and development of individuals. However, we found there was a double whammy in the respect of women or persons with disabilities. They had even more difficulty entering the workforce because of some systemic discrimination. Sometimes it is not overt.

(1245)

I have learned that sometimes people do not even realize the actions they take discriminate against others. What we did was work toward an implementation model to overcome those different types of analyses out there such as a person with a disability or a woman could not do the job as well as somebody who was able-bodied or a man.

It is important to note this because the problem is so significant with other groups and organizations. There are some great organizations in my community such as the new Canadian Centre of Excellence, the Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County, the WWWIW and a series of others. They provide employment services for new Canadians and women who are often of different colour. They may have difficulty entering the workplace at a fair rate of pay, which we would expect in a general population. Compounding that is the fact that once they do find employment, they earn 71¢ to every $1 paid to men. There are a bunch of different barriers that are very difficult for these individuals to go through.

I spoke a bit about the fact that one of the organizations I had worked with had gone through this process. We saw it as a net benefit at the end of the day. Often this is viewed as big government coming in and raising a series of problems and measures, which organizations are unable to address sufficiently, like remuneration. There is no recourse for the organization to see itself through this path.

The process we went through required some skilful management on behalf of the employers and the labour organization. As well, it took some work with the different partners in government to bring forth a process that would work for everybody. Coming from that process, a number of different conflict situations were resolved. Once the organization had been given a mandate to fix what was wrong and once it understood those pretexts, it came up with a plan that everybody could work toward. Then we had to deliver. It was a good expectation though. It was stressful and there was pressure. At the same time, it was what was necessary to trigger the effective change that everybody desired at the end of the day.

The obstructionists in that process said that it would cost too much money and there would be too many problems. However, we found that the process lent us an opportunity to create committees and working discussion groups to look at the fiscal management of the organization, not only the short term but the medium and long terms. We also discussed how we could bring in an implementation model that would be successful as we delivered regular client services. The organization also had a mission statement to meet the mandate developed by the board of directors.

That context opened up all kinds of different opportunities. People developed relationships that continued. Later on these relationships were very important in dealing with other issues like health and safety, how a workplace could organize and be effective, working together. It also became a better place to work. People, who had not been paid the remuneration they justly deserved, were paid fairly. Also, as co-workers, we understood there was now a sense of balance in the organization. That was a healthy environment to work in.

Once we took off the film that covered the lens of a good organization, like the lifting of a fog, we knew we could move forward with better service delivery. Coming from a not for profit organization, for those who received pay equity, it was important not only just in the sense of social justice. Co-workers could pay their mortgages down. They could send their kids to school and have the proper clothing and different types of supports for their children that they previously did not have.

(1250)

All that went back into our local economy. These people cannot take advantage of the loophole, of which the previous minister of finance continues to take advantage, where billions of dollars get funnelled outside the country to Barbados to avoid paying taxes. These people contributed that money back into our local economy. It was important for everything, including the construction trade because people were renovating their homes. People felt they could do things that were important. They were not investing in different accounts offshore so they could weasel out of paying taxes.

This is important to note. We are talking about bringing wages of people up to a proper level. There were extensive consultations in this process. My colleague, who spoke prior to me, talked about the years with the Liberals. They promised one thing and for 13 years they did not deliver. I know once in a while some members whine and cry about the NDP bringing them down. If we went back to that time and place, we did not even have the votes to prop them up, even if we wanted to that. They do not have their math right again, and we knew that from before. It is pretty pathetic to hear that about something that could have been delivered. I was here when this went through our parliamentary system.

I am ashamed to hear some of the language from the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and other regions in Canada and from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, such as:

In order to ensure the effectiveness of these measures, it is our intention to consult our key stakeholders to obtain their views on how to improve the measures that are being put in place to achieve positive pay equity results.

They wrote that to the committee as a response to basically say, “We're noting and filing all the work that you did”.

There were over 200 people and 60 written submissions in a process that has gone on for over several years. It is not like it was a big hidden secret in Ottawa. This has been out in the public format for many years. It has been debated, it has gone through a couple of committee reports and it has had massive consultation. Why can we not move forward?

I want to read the four recommendations. It is important for the people listening to today's debate to hear them, and I think they are reasonable.

The first recommendation is:

replacing the current complaint-based model of pay equity with a new stand-alone, proactive legislation which would frame pay equity as a fundamental human right;

That avoids the issue with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we have right now. People have to jump through a whole series of loops and different types of barriers to get the proper rights that are supposed to be there.

The second recommendation is:

Expanding the coverage of pay equity legislation to cover all federally-regulated employees, including Parliament and federal contractors;

That should be obvious. We have to get our own house in order. I and my party support that completely. That could be the first thing, to be the role model to move that forward. There is no reason the government cannot do that.

The third recommendation is:

Extending pay equity protection to members of visible minorities, persons with disabilities and Aboriginal people...

This is important. Earlier I talked about the fact that we have a compounding factor, and that is the way people are treated in more difficult situations and the need to identify that specifically so we avoid future problems.

The fourth recommendation is:

Requiring all employers to develop and implement a pay equity plan.

Once again, I know that sounds difficult for some organizations to get their heads around, creating an action plan that will hold them to commitments and things that they do not want to necessarily do. However, this creates openness and dialogue in organizations and it can later be very helpful in other types of issues and challenges that they may face.

It is about building communication networks that are often taken for granted in a variety of different sectors. It is a reasonable thing to do. If the goal at the end of the day of is fairness and equity, then I think they will see a net benefit in the improvement of morale in the workplace. That is what happened in my organization. At the end of the day we all felt better for having gone through this. We were completing a sorry chapter in our organization's life that, for whatever reason, even beyond our own timeframe, had evolved through our system of employment in Canada. It was very positive to get that done.

(1255)

I will conclude by noting that this is something which can be afforded to support in terms of organizations. A proper plan brought in responsibly can be done working with different individuals and groups in the workplace.

I come from a city that has a history of collective bargaining rights on behalf of the labour movement. We all want to keep our jobs and we all want to make sure that the environment is strong and sustainable and able to compete.

This is one of the productivity issues that could be an improvement for our country. Study after study indicate that morale and productivity improve in a workplace when people feel comfortable and have a sense that there is social justice and they are working together. This is something that has to be done by this country if we want to stand up strong and say that we treat all our citizens with fairness and equity.

(1300)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Karen Redman:

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the division on the motion be deferred.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Accordingly, the division on the motion stands deferred.

The House will now resume with the remaining business under routine proceedings.

* * *

[Translation]

Petitions

Homelessness

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition calling on the government to renew the SCPI and the RHF immediately.

These programs must be improved. The government must expand them, because needs are steadily growing. These programs must also be made permanent. At present, the fact that the programs are subject to ministerial discretion can cause insecurity and distress.

This petition was signed in Drummondville by officials of organizations in the network known as the Réseau SOLIDARITÉ Itinérance du Québec. The signatories are from Quebec City, Montreal, Trois-Rivières, Longueuil, Labrie, Chicoutimi, Saint-Charles and Sherbrooke. This program must continue, because people at risk of homelessness need comprehensive support and services, including housing, food, psychological support, education and integration. That is what the petition is calling for.

For all these reasons, all these people in charge of services and organizations are asking that this program be renewed.

* * *

[English]

Marriage

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present a petition from residents in Trail, Rossland, Salmo, Fruitvale, Victoria and Montrose.

The petitioners call on the House to reopen the issue of marriage in Parliament and to repeal or amend the Marriage for Civil Purposes Act in order to promote and defend marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman.

* * *

Questions on the Order Paper

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

* * *

[English]

Judges Act

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Judges Act and certain other Acts in relation to courts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Loyola Hearn (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage and read the second time.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the vote is to be deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): Accordingly, the vote stands deferred until 5:30 p.m. today.

* * *

(1305)

Aeronautics Act

The House resumed from November 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Russ Hiebert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I am pleased to support the amendments to the Aeronautics Act introduced by my hon. colleague the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. In many ways the proposed amendments are critical.

[Translation]

The proposed changes will modernize the Aeronautics Act and help improve the safety of Canada's military aviation system.

[English]

More specifically, Bill C-6 will provide new powers that will ensure that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces have all the necessary authority to conduct full and proper investigations into military aviation accidents. At the same time, the bill will promote openness, independence and integrity in military flight safety investigations.

[Translation]

I would like to begin by describing for my hon. colleagues where things stand at present with the flight safety program.

Since 1942, the Canadian Forces have had an official flight safety program, designed to prevent accidental loss of aviation resources.

[English]

This program has proven to be very effective, and after nearly 65 years, is now firmly entrenched in the culture of the air force. The flight safety program includes investigating aviation accidents and developing recommendations to reduce or eliminate the same type of incidents from reoccurring.

Military flight safety investigators use processes, techniques and training that are similar to those of the Transportation Safety Board which investigates, under the provisions of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, civilian aircraft accidents. This act, however, precludes the Transportation Safety Board from investigating a military aircraft accident, unless a civilian aircraft or facility is also involved. In such circumstances, a coordinated investigation is required. Therefore, it is very important that both agencies, civilian and military, operate in the same manner.

For many years military air operations and training were exclusively military. The aircraft were Canadian Forces aircraft and all of the maintenance and flying instruction was conducted by military personnel. However, over the past number of years, civilians in the private sector have become increasingly involved in military air operations and training. For instance, one can now find civilian contractors conducting maintenance on Canadian Forces search and rescue helicopters, our Sea King helicopters, and transport aircraft. Also, one may find civilian personnel providing military flight training associated with base support services and aircraft maintenance services at the NATO flying training in Canada program at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan and Cold Lake, Alberta.

As well, a new civil contract has just been awarded to a company to conduct basic flight training along with advanced helicopter and multi-engine aircraft training at Southport, Manitoba. It is a program that employs civilian aircraft maintained by civilian personnel and operated by either civilian or military instructors.

[Translation]

Civilians are therefore increasingly involved in military aviation in Canada.

These changes in the way operations and flight instruction are supported are raising concerns about whether all the necessary powers to investigate aviation accidents and incidents are in place.

[English]

Specifically, today there is no legal means to compel civilian personnel who are involved in an accident to provide information to a military flight safety investigator. This means that under the current legal framework the Canadian Forces do not have the necessary powers to conduct flight safety investigations of military aircraft accidents when civilian personnel are involved. This is a very significant issue for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces.

[Translation]

Unless a full investigation into aircraft accidents is done, we may miss out on important safety lessons, and major safety problems might remain undetected and unresolved.

In the worst case scenario, a similar accident might occur again and result in death or serious injury because appropriate safety measures have not been determined.

This is a serious safety problem that we will address through Bill C-6.

(1310)

[English]

Under the new part II of the act, military flight safety investigators will be specifically designated by the airworthiness investigative authority for National Defence and the Canadian Forces. As a result, they will have the necessary powers to investigate military-civilian aviation accidents. One of these new powers will require civilians to provide information or a statement relevant to the investigation. At this time no such requirement exists and this can be problematic to the investigation process.

Moreover, these amendments will ensure that any additional powers and duties from military flight safety investigations remain consistent with those of the Transportation Safety Board investigators.

One of the key segments of this proposed legislation will extend privilege to oral and written statements made to investigators and also to on-board aircraft recordings and communication records. This will make release of these statements without proper authorization an offence under the law and will prohibit their use in disciplinary and other legal proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury.

This means that National Defence will be able to ensure that flight safety information reported by civilians involved in military aviation will be protected under the law. It is a move that will strengthen the military flight safety system and will ensure the best possible flight safety program for the Canadian Forces.

[Translation]

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada guarantees full protection of flight safety information, but investigations have shown that this protection has not been optimal when it comes to the military.

[English]

With Bill C-6, the Department of National Defence will be able to seamlessly share investigation information with the Transportation Safety Board during coordinated investigations.

I would now like to address what would happen to flight safety information in on-board recordings if a military aircraft accident occurred outside Canada.

First, a flight safety investigation would be conducted according to the new amendments to determine the cause of the accident. In addition, other investigations could also be ordered by the department for purposes other than flight safety. Such investigations would normally be conducted by the military boards of inquiry convened under the National Defence Act. Currently, during coordinated investigations with the Transportation Safety Board and during court proceedings, coroners would have limited opportunities to use on-board recordings.

The proposed amendments to the aeronautics act will provide investigators with the tools they need to fulfill their mandate. However, as an accident outside Canada could well raise significant international issues with allies in other countries, the new amendments will provide access to these records for military boards in limited circumstances. Canadians can rest assured that these amendments will only be provided during an investigation related to a Canadian Forces military aircraft accident outside Canada and only if the board of inquiry had been personally convened by the Minister of National Defence.

Furthermore, the minister will have to direct that these on-board recordings be released on a case by case basis. However, we should be reminded that use would still remain prohibited in disciplinary proceedings or any other proceedings relating to the capacity or competence of a Canadian Forces member to perform his or her functions.

I must now also acknowledge another significant problem that is currently frustrating military investigators. It concerns how next of kin of deceased personnel are engaged by the flight safety system.

[Translation]

Ideally, next of kin would be informed of the progress of the investigation and of the findings as they come up throughout the investigation.

However, this is currently not possible given the lack of a legal impediment to prevent the unauthorized and premature distribution of information during an investigation.

[English]

The early release of information can easily compromise flight safety investigations. Let me explain. If one of the suspected causes of an accident is the failure of an aircraft component, the military investigators would be very interested in reviewing the reasons for the failure with the manufacturer. The manufacturer will have all of the technical data to complete this analysis, and therefore the importance of this interaction cannot be understated, but if this information were also made known to the next of kin, there is currently no legal sanction if the next of kin in turn passes this information on to the media or another third party.

Such sharing of information could cause the equipment manufacturer to cease all communications with the investigators before they can complete their analysis and necessary recommendations. As a result, next of kin are currently not given an update on the cause of the accident until the investigation is completed because of the risk of premature release of information. This has created a situation that is inappropriate and insensitive to the needs of the families involved. The next of kin of our personnel deserve much better.

The legislation before us today will prohibit the unauthorized release of specific investigation information. This will allow full disclosure of the progress and findings of the investigation as it unfolds. Not only will this keep the next of kin in the loop, this amendment will also allow them to be consulted as the investigative reports are being prepared. This process will permit the next of kin to review early drafts of a report and provide valuable feedback on the human factor to investigators. In essence, the amendments to the Aeronautics Act will create a more transparent process that will serve to bring comfort to the loved ones of those lost in air accidents.

Once again, it is important to note that, under the proposed legislation, statements made by the next of kin of personnel involved in military aviation accidents will be privileged. As I mentioned earlier, unauthorized disclosure of privileged information by anyone will be strictly prohibited by law. This will allow the next of kin to remain informed of the progress of an investigation. It will allow them to contribute to the investigation, but it will ensure that they do not release that information to the media or the public. This is crucial to the security and effectiveness of the investigation process.

We all know that sometimes people may find it difficult to come forward and speak about a problem. These amendments to the Aeronautics Act will help address this critical and important issue. As I mentioned before, under the amendments, flight safety information such as oral or written statements, on-board aircraft recordings and communication records received by military flight investigators will be privileged.

(1315)

[Translation]

We will encourage voluntary statements and we will protect those who disclose information or reprehensible acts. We could, at the same time, implement safety measures that will make the workplace safer for soldiers and civilians taking part in Canadian Air Force operations.

[English]

Another factor that must be considered is the safety of the public. When aircraft accidents occur, the aircraft accident site can pose a number of risks to the health and safety of the public. It is therefore very important that public access to the crash site be restricted without delay. This measure will ensure that the site is secured while protecting the public from the dangers posed by such accidents.

Currently, if the crash site is on government controlled property, access of the public is not an issue, but if the accident occurs on privately owned land, public access can be problematic. The proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act would correct this problem by giving accident investigators the authority to restrict access to the accident sites on private land in the interests of public safety. This in turn will ensure that the aircraft wreckage is as undisturbed as possible.

The proposed amendments will also place additional responsibilities on my department. For example, in order to ensure for the public that an open and independent investigation has been conducted, there will be a requirement that the flight safety investigation report be released to the public on completion of the investigation. These reports include appropriate recommendations for public and aviation safety. Though this is something we have been doing voluntarily since 2001, this practice will now become a legal obligation.

I must emphasize that civilian aviation accidents will of course continue to be investigated by the Transportation Safety Board.

The new amendments will also establish the requirement that a confidential interim report on the progress and findings of an investigation be shared with other departments with a direct interest in the investigation. If an occurrence involves a death and significant progress has been made in an investigation, then an interim report could also be provided to the coroner.

Taken together, these new powers and responsibilities will ensure that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces have the authority necessary to promote openness, independence and integrity in military flight safety investigations.

Military flight safety investigators will be thoroughly trained in respect to all aspects of the new powers and they will be tested before being allowed to exercise them.

Our military has identified some significant gaps in the current legislation and the government has responded.

(1320)

[Translation]

Amendments to Bill C-6 will improve the capacity of the Canadian Forces to ensure the safety of the men and women in the air force community, civilians involved in military aviation and the general public.

[English]

I think all of my colleagues will agree that these amendments show that the government is committed to independent, complete and open military flight safety investigations. I strongly encourage and recommend that all members support these amendments to the Aeronautics Act.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-6 concerning the Aeronautics Act.

When this bill was first debated, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport Canada told us that it provides for a legislative framework to further enhance aviation safety and, through safety management systems, to have a system in place that will actually allow a continuous method of keeping Canadians safe. According to him, Australia and the United Kingdom have had great results from this system.

Bill C-6 does indeed deal with integrated management systems and does allow for voluntary reporting programs under which information relating to aviation safety and security can be reported. Bill C-6 is indeed also based on the work done by the previous Liberal government.

However, it will be up to the present government to persuade us, to persuade us and Canadians, that the bill is still a good one.

[English]

Before I delve into the provisions of the text, let me make perfectly clear the principle upon which this side of the House's comments are predicated. The average Canadian citizen trusts that when it comes to boarding an airplane in this country, to fly to any destination, our federal government carries out its responsibility to ensure that the flight will be safe.

When parents send their teenage daughter on her first trip away from home, they trust in our federal safety system. When children see their father off on a business trip, they trust in our federal safety system. When a family waits patiently at the airport for a visit from their grandmother, they trust in our federal safety system.

The government has assigned this responsibility to Transport Canada and this bill seeks to amend a large piece of the legislation that safeguards passengers on the planes in our skies.

Bill C-6 amends the Aeronautics Act, which, as we know, establishes the Minister of Transport's responsibility for the development and the regulation of aeronautics in Canada and the supervision of all matters related to aeronautics. In particular, the Aeronautics Act enables the minister to apply the Canadian aviation regulations, which are, in effect, the rules governing aviation in Canada.

Keeping this in mind, I believe all members in the House will understand the caution that we as an opposition will bring to our examination of Bill C-6.

There are four avenues of inquiry that I would like to raise here today. If Bill C-6 is acceptable in premise to this House, then we will soon see it in committee and will be able to apply a stringent analysis of it, beginning, I hope, with these questions.

A large portion of this bill deals with the decision to make “integrated management systems” the basis for a broad range of important regulations, but what exactly are integrated management systems?

Over the past 10 years, companies in the transportation industries have adopted complex plans to achieve certain goals. These are management tools. These plans are systemic, in the sense that they coordinate activities throughout the company to achieve their goals, and they are integrated, in the sense that they bring together the standards set by outside authorities with the processes used by modern transportation enterprises.

Safety management systems are an example of an essential kind of integrated management system. Under a specific safety management system, an airline may, for example, set out how and how often its mechanics have to check an airplane's engines. The plans, the safety management systems, are meant to prevent problems from occurring by taking every reasonable precaution.

By planning how often mechanics are to check the engines and by planning what they should do if there is a question mark of any sort, hopefully there will never be a safety incident. This is the role of a safety management system.

Transport Canada has been working with airlines and safety management systems for several years. Up until now, they have guided a company's actions but have not had the force of law. Instead, Transport Canada has continued to enforce safety regulations, enabled by the existing Aeronautics Act, as the legal standards for safe flying.

If an airline did not comply with the actual aviation regulations, including the paperwork submitted to prove that it was in compliance, it did not matter how good the safety management system was. The airline was simply breaking the law.

Now, with Bill C-6, the government would like to change the obligations of airlines and certain other aviation organizations. The government is saying that Transport Canada should be able to compel these organizations to meet their safety standards, these requirements, and do away with the old prescriptive Transport Canada regulations.

The argument for this evolution is that airlines have many things to do to ensure safety. They have every incentive to be safe and so have already come up with the systems that are most effective.

(1325)

It is a waste of time and energy, the government argues, for these companies to verify to Transport Canada at every turn that the safety checks are done. Instead, Transport Canada should focus on ensuring that the system agreed to is actually in effect through audits and inspections.

Let us think about this for the average Canadian as if we were taking care of a truck. Right now, Transport Canada tells the company to inspect the brakes every month. It asks for paperwork stating that the inspection was complete. The company's representative declares that the inspection was done and that there was no problem. With Bill C-6, Transport Canada would instead require the company to plan to check the brakes and it would check to see that the plan was being followed, but no paperwork would be submitted on a continual basis attesting that those individual checks were done successfully.

Is this a better way of ensuring safety for travelling Canadians? Does it allow precious safety resources to be better focused on integrating a whole safe system so that incidents do not occur? Or, does it relieve pressure and ultimately lead to gaps that could have tragic consequences?

Despite the enthusiasm of the parliamentary secretary and the minister for Bill C-6, I do not see a clear-cut answer to this yet. We need to know that the safety measures that are to be used are accurate and encourage the safest possible flights. We also need to know that the safety indicators, tracked by different airlines, are comparable, that when we raise the bar, we are comparing apples to apples in establishing our safety standards.

[Translation]

Bill C-6 contains the provision on voluntary reporting of information relating to aviation safety and security, a provision that gives rise to another concern.

The bill authorizes the minister to establish a program under which individuals working in the transportation industry may report to his department any information relating to aviation safety that they consider to be relevant, in the strictest confidentiality. The goal here is for people who are responsible for mistakes to have every reason to admit them as soon as possible so that they can remedied before any damage is done.

I fully support the creation of an environment in which employees and others will do everything possible to ensure safety. In fact, from the important work done by our government in the area of intelligent regulation, I have observed over the years that we must be more flexible in the instruments we choose to achieve the desired result. The desired result in this case is clear: safe aircraft—period.

(1330)

[English]

The government has a spectrum of possible tools at its disposal to achieve this clear goal of safety. They range, on the one hand, from specific command and control style regulations, with Transport Canada saying, “Thou shalt abide by this rule”, to, on the other hand, purely voluntary measures. My concern is that voluntary reporting of critical safety information may not be sufficient in a situation where people's lives and people's livelihoods are at risk.

Undoubtedly, we need a mix of rules and regulations that provide for the best opportunity to prevent air disasters. We have a good track record. Let us be careful about what changes we are ready to make here.

My third area of concern is the powers of the minister generally. There are several pieces of legislation before us this fall, during a minority government no less, that intend to increase the powers of the Minister of Transport.

Bill C-3 would give the minister the direct power to authorize the construction of international bridges and tunnels without parliamentary oversight. Bill C-6 would open the door for the minister to devolve his powers and responsibilities for aeronautical safety to other organizations. Bill C-11 would allow the minister to review mergers and acquisitions in all federal transportation sectors, hardly the hallmark of a Conservative government. Bill C-20, if we ever see it come to the fore, proposes to let the minister oversee and constrain the operations of airport authorities in new and restrictive ways.

[Translation]

When taken as a whole, these measures indicate clearly that the government is moving forward on all fronts to give the Minister of Transport new powers.

It is fear of this very tendency, what was described as a power grab, that prompted a loud outcry from the members of the Conservative Party when they were in opposition. I note that they have been strangely silent for several months now, however, when it comes to expanding government powers. This is particularly true in the case of the backbenchers on the government side.

I would note that I am not opposed to the principle of greater powers when that is necessary, but I would like to remind the minister and the government side of what they said and the expectations they created on the part of the Canadian public. They still have the onus of demonstrating the urgent need to expand the minister’s powers, not only in Bill C-6, but also in four other transport bills.

[English]

Finally, let me turn to my fourth subject and my fourth area of concern, the proposed creation of the Canadian Forces airworthiness investigative authority. The new CFAIA, as it is called, would take on the responsibilities of the Transportation Safety Board for aeronautical incidents, including accidents that involve Canadian Forces aircraft.

The information surrounding these events would now fall under the clear jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence, as we have just heard from his parliamentary secretary. This is, in and of itself, a sensible development. However, the concerns expressed to me by various groups, which I wish to express to the government, regard incidents that involve both military and civilian aircraft.

The new CFAIA would be given the authority to investigate these incidents and accidents in Bill C-6. However, Canadians want to be assured that they will still have access to full and complete information in the unfortunate circumstance that an accident affects them or their loved ones. In fact, they would like access to full and complete information whether or not the accident directly affects them because transparency is of the utmost importance in a democratic society such as ours.

The new subsection 17(2) of the Aeronautics Act would read that investigation observers from outside the forces are “Subject to any conditions that the Airworthiness Investigative Authority imposes...”. It is incumbent upon the government to now clarify what measures are being taken to guarantee that the facts of any future incident will not be covered up using the proposed provisions of the Aeronautics Act.

I know that the government is committed in words to transparency, but Canadians need to see that the government is equally committed to act in a transparent manner.

I am pleased to see that under Liberal leadership, the government did extensive consultations with industry, labour and other stakeholders, and that there appears to be widespread support for some of the provisions in this bill, but as a responsible opposition, we are not yet convinced that the bill as written meets the appropriate societal tests.

There is no doubt in my mind that we must be constantly vigilant to ensure that the federal government, which is constitutionally seized with and responsible for aeronautical safety, and the private aircraft operators and companies who compete today in a low margin, highly competitive international marketplace, have struck the appropriate balance of rule and regulation to provide for safety in the greater public interest.

The families who depart and arrive in airports throughout Canada, every minute and every hour of every day, deserve no less than our full attention to Bill C-6.

We will support the bill at second reading and I look forward to the opportunity in committee to hear witnesses explain, in much greater detail, what will actually happen on the ground should Bill C-6 earn our ultimate approval.

(1335)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave a well organized, concise and clear presentation on this important bill.

I would like to come back to the idea of smart regulation, which is important if we want our economy to be productive and competitive. Whenever we talk about safety, I personally believe that it is better to be safe than sorry. The hon. member made a point about how this bill would require airline companies to keep records but that somehow there will be a change in focus. In other words, under the bill, as I understand it, the airline companies would no longer need to show their company records to the government for verification. It would simply require them to submit record keeping plans to the government.

I was watching an interesting program on television the other night about an air accident that occurred in Hawaii a few years ago, where part of the plane came off in mid-air. It turned out, after the investigation, that one of the screws used when the fuselage was being repaired was actually too small for that particular piece. In fact, using the naked eye, one could almost not see it. The investigators discovered the problem by pouring over the company's very detailed records of which screw the engineer took out of inventory, so on and so forth. It was all because of very detailed records that the citizens of the world found out why the accident happened.

I would like the hon. member to comment on whether he thinks the bill, as it is written now, could perhaps lessen the likelihood of finding the answers in cases like the one I just mentioned.

(1340)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David McGuinty:

Mr. Speaker, deep concerns are being expressed by many individuals around the balance or not in the bill with respect to record keeping and making operational this concept of a safety management system.

The airlines will say, on the one hand, to the travelling public and to Canadian consumers and citizens that they could not possibly afford the damage to a brand. I would point, for example, to the Air France accident at Toronto's Pearson airport a year and a half ago. The damage to the brand had a great impact on sales and on the choices being exercised by consumers not to fly one airline over another. On the other hand, we have heard from mechanics on the front lines of Jazz Air who have gone public to say that the government is compromising airline safety for other reasons now, for example, in terms of some of the existing standards.

We will need to watch for this in committee. I would say to my hon. colleague that any views that he can bring forward as a member who is very engaged with the Montreal airport, the Trudeau airport, and some of the challenges we are facing, if those views could be brought forth to committee we would be in a better position to strike the appropriate balance.

However, we are in good shape because we will be able to use the incredible work that we did as a government on smart regulation, having asked the Privy Council Office to create a smart regulation panel. There is much for us now to glean from those learnings and apply to this bill.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of the member opposite on this bill. We on this side of the House have a number of concerns about the bill and I wonder if he would address one that stands out to me, which is the issue of the number of flight attendants on aircraft.

My understanding is that the regulation may be reduced by up to 25% fewer flight attendants per plane. That raises a lot of concerns for many people because flight attendants are actually the key people on a flight. If something goes wrong, they are the ones who look after passengers during turbulence, cabin decompression or emergency evacuations. They have a very high standard of training in order to deal with this.

We know after the crash of Air France in Toronto last year the plane was on fire and it was actually the flight attendants who successfully evacuated all the passengers and crew on that plane without the loss of life or serious injuries. That was remarkable but they were at full capacity under the old regulations.

I am wondering how the member feels about this potential of fewer flight attendants on aircraft in Canada.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David McGuinty:

Mr. Speaker, it is a matter that has been debated in committee. In fact, to be frank, we are not quite sure where this regulatory shift stands, but for the average Canadian citizen, so that they have a better understanding, it involves shifting the number of flight attendants on an airplane from one flight attendant per 40 passengers to one flight attendant per 50 seats, whether or not those 50 seats are filled.

The shift, the argument goes, would take the country more in line with European Union standards and American standards.

When this came to the attention of the committee, the minister then stood up in the House several days later to say that the issue of changing the flight attendant ratio in Canada was not going to be pursued. For the sake of Canadians and for the sake of transparency, it would be important for us to know just what the evidence actually says about this issue. Members of the committee are deeply concerned about this potential shift, particularly from a health and safety perspective.

For most Canadians who fly, they know how hard flight attendants work. They know how difficult it is in terms of the amount of time they have to serve an average group of passengers for example. More importantly, from the point of view of safety in exiting the plane there are some deep concerns.

The question of a regulatory shift in flight attendants appears to have evaporated under this minority government just as Bill C-20 that we are waiting for on airport authorities appears to have evaporated. We have not seen this at all even though it was supposed be in and out of the House several times. It is a mystery to me, as the critic, to know where this is heading, but we are tracking it very carefully and we will report back if we get better and more information.

(1345)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about some elements of the bill first and then use the opportunity to go on to talk about some safety elements related to my riding. They may not be totally connected to the bill, but as everyone knows, I always like to talk about my riding and the issues that are important to it.

Bill C-6 which amends the Aeronautics Act, will provide Transport Canada with an increased ability to maintain and increase safety and security of Canada's aviation systems.

If an imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we in the Liberal Party are very flattered as this proposed legislation mimics Bill C-62 introduced by the former Liberal government in the last Parliament. When talking about flattery, I must say you are doing an excellent job, Mr. Speaker, for your first time in that chair.

Where the safety and security of the flying public and air transport employees are concerned, there can be no compromise. That is why this legislation is so important. There can be no compromise on safety.

Canada is a geographically large and vast country. It is essential that we have the ability to travel by air safely and securely between our large urban centres as well as between the outlying remote communities. Air transport links us as a country from sea to sea to sea.

Air travel is necessary for Canada to compete in the global economy, to allow our tourism industry to flourish, and to unite family and friends who may live half a continent away. Canadians have come to rely on, indeed most take for granted, the safe, secure transportation system of our aviation industry.

We can see that particularly in the north. There are many communities that we cannot even get to except by air. Just to get to work every week I fly every month more than the entire circumference of the world. When I get home, I have to cover an area larger than any country in Europe. Often we use small planes. It is instrumental, part of commuting, that there be safety provisions, both mechanically, legislatively and personnel wise.

This act and its predecessor, Bill C-62, have resulted from extensive consultations through the Canadian Aviation Regulatory Advisory Council and reflect the learned input of labour and management organizations, operators and manufacturers, and aviation associations, all of whom consider safety their number one priority.

I would not be as comfortable in sending this to committee for further study had there been not all this consultation done with labour, manufacturers and those companies that are involved in the industry. They are the experts in the industry and know what needs to be done to ensure the highest level of safety.

The legislation addresses a myriad of administrative clauses so essential for the smooth and safe operations of our aviation systems. The devil is in the details and this devil has been put in its place by the legislation.

The act provides for the establishment of an integrated management system providing for the cumulation of dates that will help Transport Canada to better manage and regulate safety and security concerns, and to set standards leading to continued improvements to adapt changing circumstances. The aim is create a culture of safety and to continuously engage the aviation industry in amending or developing regulations.

One interesting and innovative approach is that the legislation authorizes the establishment of a voluntary reports program under which information relating to aviation safety and security may be reported without fear of reprisal. The program provides for individuals to provide confidential reports of regulation violations, not with the view of punishment but to identify and correct mistakes and to make safety improvements.

To err is human and if mistakes do happen in a less safety regulated environment, let us learn from those errors with immediate disclosure.

(1350)

It is one of the whistleblower protections in the public service with essential safety and security as its end good. Better to prevent a tragedy than not to have the information.

The protections in section 5.396, part (1), will not apply. However, if there has been a prior contravention of the act within a prior two-year period before to or subsequently, there is a management system of the employer that encourages an employee to disclose a system if the employer did not do so.

I would add a cautionary note, however, that the government and Transport Canada in particular must be vigilant on the safety performance of airlines and by monitoring violations of safety rules must ensure that the whistleblower aspect of this clause in fact has the intended effect of improving aviation safety.

We must be mindful of an incident reported by the media where airline mechanics acknowledged being pressured to release planes with defects that could compromise public safety. Such conduct is simply and utterly unacceptable, not only for the confidence of our flying community in the planes that crisscross our skies but also for the economic stability of airline companies. Second best or next time just does not cut it.

In an earlier hour of this debate I asked about, and I hope the witnesses in committee will be prepared to provide some information on this, mandatory reports. What was the incidence of non-compliance when these reports were missing? What type of percentage? What was the number and with this new voluntary reporting system, what effect will that have? Will there be more chances for abrogation or less chances? Would it result in more reports being put in or less reports?

As my colleague mentioned in his speech before mine, there would not be, on occasion, reports to be collected. What effect would this have? If Transport Canada does not have all the reports to do analysis on, is there a possibility that these reports could act like the canary in the mine shaft and be a warning?

There are all sorts of excellent airline companies in the north. There is Air North flying out of Whitehorse, and I know the member from Thunder Bay will be happy to hear about that one. There is First Air, Canadian North, Alkan Air, all small airlines in this country that are very useful and helpful.

However, in their combined reports there may have been one particular mechanical failure to a particular part of the plane. Hopefully, there are not very many in this industry because the results could be devastating. If Transport Canada has all these reports and sees the very same mechanical failing and maybe two months later the same mechanical failing elsewhere, could it put those together and analyze them and prevent a potential tragedy by having that accumulated information? By having the information regarding an airline, a manager of an airline would be quite interested in having this information regarding the safety of his airline. I am hoping the witnesses can comment on this and how it would relate to the new reporting system and its effect.

I also want to mention inputs I have had from local airlines. One flying out of Watson Lake in Yukon was unhappy about some of the conditions, not necessarily safety but related to maintenance on the runways related to gravel. That was for the Dawson City Airport.

Transport Canada has an excellent program that provides grants for improvements to help airport safety across the country. It is an excellent program. We have had excellent projects in Yukon, but unless the amount of money increases in that program, all the projects that need to be done to improve safety at Canada's airports cannot be completed.

(1355)

On the other side, I had a letter a few days ago about an aircraft flying from Watson Lake to Whitehorse, I believe, a flight of a couple of hours. It was a small plane. In the north, of course, it is a whole different environment, with all sorts of small planes with different technologies. There are bird dogs for the forest fires and the mining camps. There are float planes taking in tourists for canoe trips. This particular small plane landed at place called Teslin, about two hours from Whitehorse, because there was bad weather. These people complimented Sue and Linda at the Teslin airport for the wonderful reception. They were delighted that there was an airport in a town of only several hundred people.

This is an essential investment in Canada's north. It may not seem at the outset to be very economical, but we cannot put a price on a life. That airport was ready for that small plane to come down in bad weather. It is essential, and we need to keep up the investment in the small and rural airports across this country, not underestimate them for something as simple as dollars and cents at the expense of life.

Another thing I want to talk about is one of our major airlines in the north. Although it is a major airline and uses the same planes, like 737s, to be economical and to survive in that environment it needs to put baggage in part of the plane and passengers in another part of the plane. Otherwise, it would need much smaller planes, which would not be economical and would not be as comfortable for the passengers. The airline could not survive.

We do not need any regulations that are unnecessary, regulations that would, for instance, preclude putting baggage in the main compartment. It has been done for years. It is totally safe in the northern environment. It is absolutely essentially that it continue.

As always, I am promoting a rural lens on regulations, a northern lens, to make sure that legislation is effectively looked at from the perspective of small rural communities where we can maintain safety but also be flexible so that it is realistic in the environment we are talking about.

This will probably be the last bit of time we have before members' statements and I thank the Conservatives for all their support for my speech as well. I know they are always enthralled with my speeches.

It is a fact that we now have thousands of flights going over the north pole, the circumpolar area. That never occurred in the past. That is a whole new safety regime. The distance from airports is longer and there is a different type of landing potential in emergencies, but most important for me is the lack of search and rescue north of 60.

Many members have heard me talk about this in the House and in committee and have seen it in the newspapers. The fact that we do not have a single DND search and rescue plane north of 60 is unacceptable. We definitely have to work on that. Why would we have all our search and rescue planes close to the Canada-U.S. border and have to fly all that distance to save someone on one of these flights?

I am happy to have contributed to the debate. We look forward to sending the bill to committee.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

The hon. member for Yukon will still have six and a half minutes left for his speech after question period.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

* * *

[English]

Infrastructure

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, October 29, the killer highway, Trans-Canada Highway 17, claimed the life of another victim.

Seventeen-year-old Stacey Tabbert was returning home from running errands when she was killed after the vehicle she was driving crashed into a tractor-trailer. Stacey was a popular grade 12 student at Fellowes High School in Pembroke and will be sadly missed by her friends, her family and the community.

The need to make Highway 17 four lanes from Arnprior to North Bay has become even more critical now that our new Conservative government is investing $520 million in Chalk River laboratories as well as the expansion of CFB Petawawa. Traffic will only get worse.

The residents of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke congratulate the people of Quebec and their premier for working with our Prime Minister to improve their roads.

The time has come for the premier of Ontario to put aside his petty partisan bickering and work with Canada's new Conservative government to improve highway infrastructure for the safety of all the people of Canada.

* * *

(1400)

Anna Mae Simington

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Anna Mae Simington, who passed away on October 19 of this year. Anna Mae was passionate about establishing new programs and generating public awareness about drinking and driving.

Lawrie Palk, who volunteered with Anna Mae on the Brant/Brantford impaired driving committee, echoed the thoughts of many who knew her, saying, “She inspired countless numbers of people to the cause. Because of her work, a number of laws have been changed and things are a great deal better”.

Anna Mae was also a trailblazer in the area of victim services and helped establish victim crisis assistance services in my community and across the province. She was the president of the board of directors for Victim Services of Brant, a position she held since 1990.

Anna Mae was the beloved wife of Skinny Simington, mother of Kathy and Jennifer, and grandmother of two grandchildren. She will be missed by many and has left a tremendous legacy.

* * *

[Translation]

Sophie Thibault

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to inform the House of another event that illustrates the pride of Quebeckers. The source of that pride is a woman, a woman whose name evokes compassion, humanity, professionalism, dedication and integrity. Those are the qualities that led her from community radio to the TVA network, where she has held the enviable position of chief news anchor since spring 2002. Sophie Thibault is the first woman in North America to occupy this position, and she is also one of the most admired news readers in Quebec.

She was the winner of the Métrostar award in the category of news anchor for three successive years in 2003, 2004 and 2005. Yesterday, she was inducted into the Broadcast Hall of Fame by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

It is with great pride that my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I, in turn, warmly applaud her and say to her, “Madame Thibault, you deserve this honour. Bravo and thank you for representing so well the talent of Quebeckers”.

* * *

[English]

Post-Secondary Education

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, Canadian students and their families need a comprehensive needs based grant system in Canada. Liberal and Conservative policies have only facilitated the rise of student debt to an average of over $24,000 now.

Today the NDP proposed a cost-neutral program to shift funding from the Liberals' ineffective Canada education savings grant program and the Conservatives' token textbook tax credit. These two programs disproportionately benefit high income Canadians and do nothing for students when tuition is due.

Our proposal would double current federal grants and reduce the debt of Canada's low income and middle income students by 25%.

We are refocusing this funding because student debt is bad for students and their families. With mortgage-type loans, students must foreclose on career and life opportunities. We ask the government to borrow this idea, interest free, and tackle student debt now.

* * *

Veterans

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for two reasons. The first is to pay tribute to the past. My community of St. Catharines is home to many veterans of the second world war, whether they be Dutch, British, Polish or other immigrants who fought against the injustices that caused the war. Their commitment and sacrifice remind us all of our proud history of fighting for the freedoms and privileges we all enjoy today.

This ties into the second reason I rise today, which is our future. The Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, CASA, is an organization made up of university students from across our country. The students are here in Ottawa today to promote their issues, but what is more important, they represent the future of our country.

I cannot think of a better way for my son, who is celebrating his 15th birthday today, to see and understand the importance of the sacrifices Canadians made for our way of life.

When we see students, especially those from Brock University, focused on making our country the best it can be, we can see that our future is indeed a very bright one.

* * *