Our MP Karen Vecchio votes against Pay Equity!

It is a sad day to note that our MP, Karen Vecchio voted against pay equity in the House of Commons. On Wednesday, Feb. 3, the Liberals and the NDP voted in solidarity 224 to 92 to  pass an amendment for pay equity in Canada. The only party to oppose the vote was the Conservatives, including our MP Karen Vecchio.

This motion called upon the “federal government to close gaps in pay equity in Canada, recognize pay equity as a right, implement the recommendations of a 2004 task force on pay equity in the public service and appoint a special committee that would propose a pay equity regime for Canada.+ (source: ipolitics).

We do have various pay equity models in Canada but they range from various businesses, school boards, and public unions. As the sponsor of the bill, NDP MP Sheila Malcolmson stated “ there are varying political strategies … and that “is why a national framework is needed”. She further stated that “this legislation would affect not only government employees, but also areas of the private sector that are federally regulated such as banks, telecommunications companies and airports”.

It is a shame that Karen voted against this motion under the false protest that this would cost the taxpayers $250,000 but that is misleading and disingenuous.

The sad reality is that pay equity, even after it has been in the public debate for decades, is still is a serious and significant problem. There is no magic or one-stop solution. This is a problem that requires continual provincial-federal dialogue to move progress forward. This bill was a step in the right direction.

And Karen can spin the excuses, but the end result is that she and the entire Conservative caucus voted against the bill to support pay equity.

David Goodwin

President Federal Liberal Elgin Middlesex London Riding Association

Check Also

Statement from Ontario PC Health Critic Jeff Yurek on Alzheimer Awareness Month

The following is a statement from Ontario PC Health Critic Jeff Yurek on Alzheimer Awareness …

76 comments

  1. I’d like to hear her reason why? Was she following her party and got told too? Either way,,, very sad!

  2. I’d like to hear her reason why? Was she following her party and got told too? Either way,,, very sad!

  3. I’d like to hear her reason why? Was she following her party and got told too? Either way,,, very sad!

  4. I’d like to hear her reason why? Was she following her party and got told too? Either way,,, very sad!

  5. I’d like to hear her reason why? Was she following her party and got told too? Either way,,, very sad!

  6. All ppl need to struggle in life to realize how hard ppl work for little money. If your born with a silver spoon in your mouth you would never realize the struggle. Pay Equity would have meant less of a struggle which she may know nothing of. It’s very sad I agree….

  7. All ppl need to struggle in life to realize how hard ppl work for little money. If your born with a silver spoon in your mouth you would never realize the struggle. Pay Equity would have meant less of a struggle which she may know nothing of. It’s very sad I agree….

  8. All ppl need to struggle in life to realize how hard ppl work for little money. If your born with a silver spoon in your mouth you would never realize the struggle. Pay Equity would have meant less of a struggle which she may know nothing of. It’s very sad I agree….

  9. All ppl need to struggle in life to realize how hard ppl work for little money. If your born with a silver spoon in your mouth you would never realize the struggle. Pay Equity would have meant less of a struggle which she may know nothing of. It’s very sad I agree….

  10. All ppl need to struggle in life to realize how hard ppl work for little money. If your born with a silver spoon in your mouth you would never realize the struggle. Pay Equity would have meant less of a struggle which she may know nothing of. It’s very sad I agree….

  11. She probably followed the party line just like her predecessor. Very sad.

  12. Shame on her! I don’t even want to hear her excuses to why. I know I didn’t vote for her!

  13. Shame on her! I don’t even want to hear her excuses to why. I know I didn’t vote for her!

  14. Shame on her! I don’t even want to hear her excuses to why. I know I didn’t vote for her!

  15. Shame on her! I don’t even want to hear her excuses to why. I know I didn’t vote for her!

  16. Shame on her! I don’t even want to hear her excuses to why. I know I didn’t vote for her!

  17. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  18. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  19. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  20. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  21. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  22. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  23. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  24. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  25. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  26. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  27. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  28. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  29. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  30. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  31. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  32. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  33. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  34. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  35. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  36. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  37. Thanks for the comment, but this was nothing to do with the average Canadian. This is dealing with pay equity, an act that was put in place for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY and to form a committee that already works on this issue.

  38. Did anyone bother to read the bill?? A nice clean, attention grabbing headline gets lots of views……but isn’t the whole story.

  39. Did anyone bother to read the bill?? A nice clean, attention grabbing headline gets lots of views……but isn’t the whole story.

  40. Did anyone bother to read the bill?? A nice clean, attention grabbing headline gets lots of views……but isn’t the whole story.

  41. Did anyone bother to read the bill?? A nice clean, attention grabbing headline gets lots of views……but isn’t the whole story.

  42. Karen L Vecchio Can you please not cut and paste your reply to every comment as Facebook sees this as a spamming action and will block all your posts.

  43. Thanks for the comment. Yes I did.

  44. Thanks for the comment. Yes I did.

  45. Thanks for the comment. Yes I did.

  46. Thanks for the comment. Yes I did.

  47. Greg Lauzon : I too am surprised , although I shouldn’t be , that people once again are jumping all over this without knowing what its about . Typical fools I am also surprised not one poster has read what Karen Has replied in this very thread
    I know.. Hatred is easier
    Listen everyone, this article is political spin It has NOTHING to do with pay equity for the average person ONLY government workers which already have a committee, at high costs on us, doing the same thing
    Struggling people should be pissed that fed govt and fed employees want to take more from you
    Read Dammit

  48. Greg Lauzon : I too am surprised , although I shouldn’t be , that people once again are jumping all over this without knowing what its about . Typical fools I am also surprised not one poster has read what Karen Has replied in this very thread
    I know.. Hatred is easier
    Listen everyone, this article is political spin It has NOTHING to do with pay equity for the average person ONLY government workers which already have a committee, at high costs on us, doing the same thing
    Struggling people should be pissed that fed govt and fed employees want to take more from you
    Read Dammit

  49. Greg Lauzon : I too am surprised , although I shouldn’t be , that people once again are jumping all over this without knowing what its about . Typical fools I am also surprised not one poster has read what Karen Has replied in this very thread
    I know.. Hatred is easier
    Listen everyone, this article is political spin It has NOTHING to do with pay equity for the average person ONLY government workers which already have a committee, at high costs on us, doing the same thing
    Struggling people should be pissed that fed govt and fed employees want to take more from you
    Read Dammit

  50. Greg Lauzon : I too am surprised , although I shouldn’t be , that people once again are jumping all over this without knowing what its about . Typical fools I am also surprised not one poster has read what Karen Has replied in this very thread
    I know.. Hatred is easier
    Listen everyone, this article is political spin It has NOTHING to do with pay equity for the average person ONLY government workers which already have a committee, at high costs on us, doing the same thing
    Struggling people should be pissed that fed govt and fed employees want to take more from you
    Read Dammit

  51. According to the news, the conservatives wanted to amend the motion by having the recommendations from the 2004 pay equity coalition to be removed. And it’s those recommendations that will help pave the way for pay equity for the average person. I read Karen’s post and she doesn’t talk about that? So how does that make me a typical fool?

  52. According to the news, the conservatives wanted to amend the motion by having the recommendations from the 2004 pay equity coalition to be removed. And it’s those recommendations that will help pave the way for pay equity for the average person. I read Karen’s post and she doesn’t talk about that? So how does that make me a typical fool?

  53. According to the news, the conservatives wanted to amend the motion by having the recommendations from the 2004 pay equity coalition to be removed. And it’s those recommendations that will help pave the way for pay equity for the average person. I read Karen’s post and she doesn’t talk about that? So how does that make me a typical fool?

  54. According to the news, the conservatives wanted to amend the motion by having the recommendations from the 2004 pay equity coalition to be removed. And it’s those recommendations that will help pave the way for pay equity for the average person. I read Karen’s post and she doesn’t talk about that? So how does that make me a typical fool?

  55. The comments arise due to a lack of information. Therefor providing the info would have assisted in opinions.

  56. The comments arise due to a lack of information. Therefor providing the info would have assisted in opinions.

  57. The comments arise due to a lack of information. Therefor providing the info would have assisted in opinions.

  58. The comments arise due to a lack of information. Therefor providing the info would have assisted in opinions.

  59. The comments arise due to a lack of information. Therefor providing the info would have assisted in opinions.

  60. Ummm… I’m not a politician or a history buff… And, I have not yet read the bill…but, doesn’t this sound like communism to anyone else ?

  61. Ummm… I’m not a politician or a history buff… And, I have not yet read the bill…but, doesn’t this sound like communism to anyone else ?

  62. Ummm… I’m not a politician or a history buff… And, I have not yet read the bill…but, doesn’t this sound like communism to anyone else ?

  63. Ummm… I’m not a politician or a history buff… And, I have not yet read the bill…but, doesn’t this sound like communism to anyone else ?

  64. I didn’t vote for her. I knew she was not for the working class and her interests in politics were purely selfish. She had/has her own agenda.

  65. I didn’t vote for her. I knew she was not for the working class and her interests in politics were purely selfish. She had/has her own agenda.

  66. I didn’t vote for her. I knew she was not for the working class and her interests in politics were purely selfish. She had/has her own agenda.

  67. I didn’t vote for her. I knew she was not for the working class and her interests in politics were purely selfish. She had/has her own agenda.

  68. So it’s just for federally employed…FOR NOW! I know your con govt isn’t used to hearing this, but our leaders are supposed to LEAD on important issues such as equal rights! Oh and don’t forget they put a negative comment, towards your govt.’s past inactions and the changing of the 2009 policy, so you wouldn’t support it. Childish antics, nice try Karen.

  69. Ok. Then maybe reporters should report properly.

  70. Ok. Then maybe reporters should report properly.

  71. Ok. Then maybe reporters should report properly.

  72. Ok. Then maybe reporters should report properly.

  73. Ok. Then maybe reporters should report properly.

  74. Why because it’sf or federal employees??? Why would a company bother to pay equally if even the govt doesn’t want to? You start somewhere, and LEAD!!!

  75. Why because it’sf or federal employees??? Why would a company bother to pay equally if even the govt doesn’t want to? You start somewhere, and LEAD!!!

  76. Why because it’sf or federal employees??? Why would a company bother to pay equally if even the govt doesn’t want to? You start somewhere, and LEAD!!!

  77. Why because it’sf or federal employees??? Why would a company bother to pay equally if even the govt doesn’t want to? You start somewhere, and LEAD!!!

  78. It also covers federally regulated employers, like banks. So no, not just for federal government employees.

  79. It also covers federally regulated employers, like banks. So no, not just for federal government employees.

  80. It also covers federally regulated employers, like banks. So no, not just for federal government employees.

  81. It also covers federally regulated employers, like banks. So no, not just for federal government employees.

  82. It also covers federally regulated employers, like banks. So no, not just for federal government employees.

  83. Here is a link to the text of the motion. First point, the the government must take action; second point, that pay equity is a right; third point, well, it’s not very long. It reads as, it’s time to get off our collective butts and here is how we are going to start.

    https://openparliament.ca/votes/42-1/12/

  84. Here is a link to the text of the motion. First point, the the government must take action; second point, that pay equity is a right; third point, well, it’s not very long. It reads as, it’s time to get off our collective butts and here is how we are going to start.

    https://openparliament.ca/votes/42-1/12/

  85. Here is a link to the text of the motion. First point, the the government must take action; second point, that pay equity is a right; third point, well, it’s not very long. It reads as, it’s time to get off our collective butts and here is how we are going to start.

    https://openparliament.ca/votes/42-1/12/

  86. Here is a link to the text of the motion. First point, the the government must take action; second point, that pay equity is a right; third point, well, it’s not very long. It reads as, it’s time to get off our collective butts and here is how we are going to start.

    https://openparliament.ca/votes/42-1/12/

  87. A few points.

    1.) Votes are generally whipped so she may not have been able to vote for it even if she wanted too.

    2.) In Politics Bills are usually worded in such a way that not voting for them has a political cost. A good example of this is the “Patriot Act” in the US. If you don’t vote for it you obviously aren’t a patriot in the eyes of pundits. This is not unique to any party, all parties do it. So when she voted against it. it opened her up to the bylines like the one above.

    3.) If she voted against a bill with plain language that stated that people of all gender identities. race. and sexual preference to be paid equally across all professions there would be more that just smoke here.

  88. A few points.

    1.) Votes are generally whipped so she may not have been able to vote for it even if she wanted too.

    2.) In Politics Bills are usually worded in such a way that not voting for them has a political cost. A good example of this is the “Patriot Act” in the US. If you don’t vote for it you obviously aren’t a patriot in the eyes of pundits. This is not unique to any party, all parties do it. So when she voted against it. it opened her up to the bylines like the one above.

    3.) If she voted against a bill with plain language that stated that people of all gender identities. race. and sexual preference to be paid equally across all professions there would be more that just smoke here.

  89. A few points.

    1.) Votes are generally whipped so she may not have been able to vote for it even if she wanted too.

    2.) In Politics Bills are usually worded in such a way that not voting for them has a political cost. A good example of this is the “Patriot Act” in the US. If you don’t vote for it you obviously aren’t a patriot in the eyes of pundits. This is not unique to any party, all parties do it. So when she voted against it. it opened her up to the bylines like the one above.

    3.) If she voted against a bill with plain language that stated that people of all gender identities. race. and sexual preference to be paid equally across all professions there would be more that just smoke here.

  90. A few points.

    1.) Votes are generally whipped so she may not have been able to vote for it even if she wanted too.

    2.) In Politics Bills are usually worded in such a way that not voting for them has a political cost. A good example of this is the “Patriot Act” in the US. If you don’t vote for it you obviously aren’t a patriot in the eyes of pundits. This is not unique to any party, all parties do it. So when she voted against it. it opened her up to the bylines like the one above.

    3.) If she voted against a bill with plain language that stated that people of all gender identities. race. and sexual preference to be paid equally across all professions there would be more that just smoke here.

  91. I stand by my statement since the Conservatives were the only ones who voted against it.

  92. Did you read the bill… The motion in the house? Which news did you listen to? Depending upon which news you listen to, and this works on both sides of the political spectrum, it gets pretty biased , much like this article ( and much like the election) and its up to us to say ” this doesn’t sound right” and luckily, with the advent of the internet, we can actually find for ourselves exactly what we need. ( example: same radio station, 2 different hosts, had exact opposites on this very bill )
    Btw: my reason for looking it up were not political bias but it didn’t at all make any sense to me that a woman, who has had to fight gender bias, would vote against a bill on equality. This bill DOES NOT pave the way for everyone, it paves the way for government employees only

  93. Did you read the bill… The motion in the house? Which news did you listen to? Depending upon which news you listen to, and this works on both sides of the political spectrum, it gets pretty biased , much like this article ( and much like the election) and its up to us to say ” this doesn’t sound right” and luckily, with the advent of the internet, we can actually find for ourselves exactly what we need. ( example: same radio station, 2 different hosts, had exact opposites on this very bill )
    Btw: my reason for looking it up were not political bias but it didn’t at all make any sense to me that a woman, who has had to fight gender bias, would vote against a bill on equality. This bill DOES NOT pave the way for everyone, it paves the way for government employees only

  94. Did you read the bill… The motion in the house? Which news did you listen to? Depending upon which news you listen to, and this works on both sides of the political spectrum, it gets pretty biased , much like this article ( and much like the election) and its up to us to say ” this doesn’t sound right” and luckily, with the advent of the internet, we can actually find for ourselves exactly what we need. ( example: same radio station, 2 different hosts, had exact opposites on this very bill )
    Btw: my reason for looking it up were not political bias but it didn’t at all make any sense to me that a woman, who has had to fight gender bias, would vote against a bill on equality. This bill DOES NOT pave the way for everyone, it paves the way for government employees only

  95. Did you read the bill… The motion in the house? Which news did you listen to? Depending upon which news you listen to, and this works on both sides of the political spectrum, it gets pretty biased , much like this article ( and much like the election) and its up to us to say ” this doesn’t sound right” and luckily, with the advent of the internet, we can actually find for ourselves exactly what we need. ( example: same radio station, 2 different hosts, had exact opposites on this very bill )
    Btw: my reason for looking it up were not political bias but it didn’t at all make any sense to me that a woman, who has had to fight gender bias, would vote against a bill on equality. This bill DOES NOT pave the way for everyone, it paves the way for government employees only

  96. Btw: i should have added this… Commision for pay equity and standards were developed and brought into being in 1986… Each govt since then has tried to modify/ tweak it.. Incl the Cretien Libs and Harpers Cons…which in effect continues to be duplicated over and over to create an overly bloated bureaucracy. On top of that.. There already is a commitee within the public service who are responsible for this file… As well, public service contracts also ensure pay equity. The motion is nothing more then a feel good/look good motion of waste which helps me understand more of why Karen might have opposed it.. She is right about something..we have got to stop wasting money on duplication and passing that waste on down to our kids..

  97. Btw: i should have added this… Commision for pay equity and standards were developed and brought into being in 1986… Each govt since then has tried to modify/ tweak it.. Incl the Cretien Libs and Harpers Cons…which in effect continues to be duplicated over and over to create an overly bloated bureaucracy. On top of that.. There already is a commitee within the public service who are responsible for this file… As well, public service contracts also ensure pay equity. The motion is nothing more then a feel good/look good motion of waste which helps me understand more of why Karen might have opposed it.. She is right about something..we have got to stop wasting money on duplication and passing that waste on down to our kids..

  98. Btw: i should have added this… Commision for pay equity and standards were developed and brought into being in 1986… Each govt since then has tried to modify/ tweak it.. Incl the Cretien Libs and Harpers Cons…which in effect continues to be duplicated over and over to create an overly bloated bureaucracy. On top of that.. There already is a commitee within the public service who are responsible for this file… As well, public service contracts also ensure pay equity. The motion is nothing more then a feel good/look good motion of waste which helps me understand more of why Karen might have opposed it.. She is right about something..we have got to stop wasting money on duplication and passing that waste on down to our kids..

  99. Btw: i should have added this… Commision for pay equity and standards were developed and brought into being in 1986… Each govt since then has tried to modify/ tweak it.. Incl the Cretien Libs and Harpers Cons…which in effect continues to be duplicated over and over to create an overly bloated bureaucracy. On top of that.. There already is a commitee within the public service who are responsible for this file… As well, public service contracts also ensure pay equity. The motion is nothing more then a feel good/look good motion of waste which helps me understand more of why Karen might have opposed it.. She is right about something..we have got to stop wasting money on duplication and passing that waste on down to our kids..

  100. Personally i’m glad I DID vote for her! Very sad about the people that make these comments without understanding the issues. No wonder the liberals got in.

  101. Personally i’m glad I DID vote for her! Very sad about the people that make these comments without understanding the issues. No wonder the liberals got in.

  102. Personally i’m glad I DID vote for her! Very sad about the people that make these comments without understanding the issues. No wonder the liberals got in.

  103. Personally i’m glad I DID vote for her! Very sad about the people that make these comments without understanding the issues. No wonder the liberals got in.

  104. Lynn Vicary please read the motion again.

  105. Kristina McDonald this act was put into effect November 2012. This is a duplication.

  106. The St. Thomas Blog(null) then please do your research before titling something so inaccurate.

  107. Thanks, It seems the whole story was missed…again.

  108. Thanks, It seems the whole story was missed…again.

  109. Thanks, It seems the whole story was missed…again.

  110. Thanks, It seems the whole story was missed…again.

  111. Thanks, It seems the whole story was missed…again.

  112. Karen L Vecchio If you read the post you will see that we didn’t write it. It was submitted for posting by someone else. Also you seem to be implying that if the title were different you wouldn’t have spammed all the comments.

  113. I’m not commenting on the topic of pay equity but I think it should be pointed out that the article is biased, written by the President of the Federal Liberal EML Riding Association.

  114. I’m not commenting on the topic of pay equity but I think it should be pointed out that the article is biased, written by the President of the Federal Liberal EML Riding Association.

  115. I’m not commenting on the topic of pay equity but I think it should be pointed out that the article is biased, written by the President of the Federal Liberal EML Riding Association.

  116. The NDP were the party that brought the bill for vote.

  117. The NDP were the party that brought the bill for vote.

  118. The NDP were the party that brought the bill for vote.

  119. Les Thomas I did read the bill and since my Daughter has been a Federal Employee for 24 years, this has been an ongoing argument. Also your assertion that it was passed in 1986 is not viable since I was assessed for it and still was not paid equally. Government employees pay taxes also and deserve equity as well as everyone else. What the Conservatives wanted to vote on with their amendments would have gutted it.

  120. Les Thomas I did read the bill and since my Daughter has been a Federal Employee for 24 years, this has been an ongoing argument. Also your assertion that it was passed in 1986 is not viable since I was assessed for it and still was not paid equally. Government employees pay taxes also and deserve equity as well as everyone else. What the Conservatives wanted to vote on with their amendments would have gutted it.

  121. Les Thomas I did read the bill and since my Daughter has been a Federal Employee for 24 years, this has been an ongoing argument. Also your assertion that it was passed in 1986 is not viable since I was assessed for it and still was not paid equally. Government employees pay taxes also and deserve equity as well as everyone else. What the Conservatives wanted to vote on with their amendments would have gutted it.

  122. yup could see this coming she is for the party not the people I didn t vote for her either.

  123. The article is not biased, it is based on a voting record for a specific bill, and we all need to hold all our politicians whether they are municipal, provincial or federal accountable. The pay equity bill was supported by all the Liberals and NDP in the house, and it is important that residents of EML understand how are MP voted. And judging from the comments, not many people in the riding were aware of the issue or how she voted. Holding people accountable for how they vote is not a bad thing.

  124. The article is not biased, it is based on a voting record for a specific bill, and we all need to hold all our politicians whether they are municipal, provincial or federal accountable. The pay equity bill was supported by all the Liberals and NDP in the house, and it is important that residents of EML understand how are MP voted. And judging from the comments, not many people in the riding were aware of the issue or how she voted. Holding people accountable for how they vote is not a bad thing.

  125. The article is not biased, it is based on a voting record for a specific bill, and we all need to hold all our politicians whether they are municipal, provincial or federal accountable. The pay equity bill was supported by all the Liberals and NDP in the house, and it is important that residents of EML understand how are MP voted. And judging from the comments, not many people in the riding were aware of the issue or how she voted. Holding people accountable for how they vote is not a bad thing.

  126. Just because it’s written by liberals doesn’t mean the facts contained are not accurate, or that it biased per se!

  127. Just because it’s written by liberals doesn’t mean the facts contained are not accurate, or that it biased per se!

  128. Just because it’s written by liberals doesn’t mean the facts contained are not accurate, or that it biased per se!

  129. Actually Pat The existing rules are pertinent and are followed through ( if they aren’t then the union, who sits on the existing commitees arent doing their job) if you had truly read this bill, the proposals, and even the talking points, you would have easily realized that the pay equity format proposed is flawed . It gives almost all federal civil servants a raise So its not designed to just bring equity to those that ‘apparently” aren’t being paid equally but to bring everyone up to a set value including the top earners Another suck at the trough by civil service employees at the cost of hard working normal people So, you, like those of your ilk are showing again that you dont give a rats a** about normal hard working people, lower wage earners or the future of their children Sad!!!

  130. and telecommunications, like Bell, Rogers, Telus – lots of employees…

  131. Les Thomas Actually I did read the bill and I don’t deserve your condescending remarks and you remarks regarding civil servants are quite insulting who actually are hard working people. I was a hard working person for 28 years long before you were around. You are the ignorant one here. Karen voted against it because she was told to and you must have voted for her otherwise why so defensive. My grandchildren will have a better future than the former government would have given them.

  132. Pat: I deleted my reply because it became very unbecoming of me. In my world, everyone deserves respect until they prove otherwise. You have lowered the natural respect that you may have deserved
    As far as voting. Unlike yourself, I do not vote as i am told to, but vote on decisions made after I educate myself. So, that would mean that I make decisions based on truth, not lies. Yes, Im happy to admit that I voted for Karen, but not because shes Conservative, but because she is honest. Much like this article, the Liberal Party of Canada lied through their teeth ( i can prove that with almost everything they said) This article is designed to assassinate the character of our representative, but as has been proven time and again, much like the idealogy of IS, the Liberal Party, public service unions and their supporters, will attack anyone who doesn’t support their idealogy. ( i actually like opposing opinions, so definitely not a Liberal)
    If you actually follow this bill with an open mind, and considering the non civil employees, you will get my point and possibly gain respect

  133. Ps: The federal Conservative Party is led by a very socially conscious woman… Karen toeing the party line here should give you pause
    Now..go hug your grandchildren