Status of Women Committee on Oct. 26th, 2006

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Yes. I have a couple of comments. Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we not had a motion that is very similar to this around the table before, or is this just déjà vu for me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

No. We did have one introduced by Ms. Mathyssen a couple of meetings ago, I believe.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

What happened with that one?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It was adopted by the committee.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

It did not deal with certain aspects that this one does.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

I don't want to see us wasting time going over the same motion every week. I'm sure we have really important things to do around the table, and doing the same thing over and over again doesn't appeal to me.

Please explain to me what's different.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Minna.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

The previous motion did not explicitly talk about the changes to the criteria in the program that affect the equality-seeking organizations. I want to make sure that this motion is a bit more comprehensive and addresses both the $5 million and the changes to the criterion that affect the equality-seeking organizations in our country. It deals specifically with the terms and conditions of the women's program, as being rewritten by the current government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any further discussion?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Yes. I have a few points here.

I don't recall, when we had the minister here in front of us, having a detailed discussion about criteria and changes in criteria. If I've missed something, would you mind clarifying that for me in detail? Just to say draconian changes and going on--

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Sure. I can answer that.

I understand that the minister was here with us, unfortunately, for just an hour, but when the minister left and the officials were here, we did discuss the changes in terms and conditions. This committee has discussed and raised those here before.

As part of the estimates and documents is the vision on the future direction of the department, which includes the elimination of these terms and conditions, it's quite relevant for us as a committee to say that we disagree with those changes.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

As I'm reading the motion--obviously it's pretty heated in the House right now, and we're all politicians around the table--it's very one-sided, of course, and very political. I believe that the sole purpose of the motion is to really attempt to not just label us on this side of the House, but to label the entire Conservative Party as maybe being anti-women or against women. To be really honest with you, I find that very offensive.

I am a woman, and there are many women across the country who are part of the Conservative Party of Canada who would also believe that this was very offensive. I emphatically resent this motion because it is so one-sided. I feel as though I'm being attacked, to be really honest with you here.

I know that the opposition seems to expect that Canadians really believe that every single government program that was operating from the previous Liberal government was running smoothly, was delivering on exactly what it intended to do, and there were no problems whatsoever. That's just not realistic, and I know that Canadians know it's not realistic to suggest that everything was just tickety-boo and delivering what Canadians expected and deserved.

I don't think that addresses the reality of the situation for everybody, even in their own individual home situations with their own finances. We don't always make the best decisions and the best purchases at home, so I don't think this is really realistic of the situation.

In the past thirteen years, as I've pointed out before, there haven't really been a lot of changes for women in some areas. So I submit that our party is trying to find other areas where we can maybe improve things with a different strategy. All my female colleagues are very involved in developing that process. I want to assure everyone here that that is the focus of the party. It may be a different approach, but there is a certain approach. I point out that the $11.8 million, of course, will still go to the programs. That is not intended to change.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

All I'm saying--

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

I still have a couple more points. If you want to interject--

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I think Ms. Minna has been pretty clear. Perhaps you can just sum up, Ms. Guergis.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

As I pointed out at committee before, we over here really believe in the strength of women and the power of women. I really need to see some kind of a change in the wording of the motion, because it suggests that all women are weak, really, or that there's nothing out there at all, or that they're completely incapable and have no abilities, that they're just victims, and that they're weak all across Canadian society.

I do believe in the strength of women. I believe that barriers that are suggested, of course, are barriers to all Canadians, and that we have a responsibility collectively to work and to find some solutions to these problems.

So obviously I don't agree with the motion. Obviously, I believe that my colleagues all have an opportunity to voice their opinions. We have the right to do that, whether it's strictly for political purposes right now or not; we do have the right to do that around the table. But I absolutely insist that we stop labelling women as being weak, that we recognize that there is strength in women and that we are determined. When we want something, we're determined, and we set our minds to it. We can accomplish things, regardless of barriers. We've seen many examples of many women who were able to do great things, even though there were barriers.

I really would like to see some wording in here that acknowledges the strength of women and the ability of women, and acknowledges that there is some progress made here in Canada, and that we do have some really good things going on here--some acknowledgement of women's strength and ability.

I don't think I could support this. If my words are ignored here for political reasons, I would really like to see some sort of a dissenting motion or a dissenting report that at least recognizes what I've been speaking about here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Guergis, you are clearly within your ability and your rights to to do that at any time.

I have Mr. Dhaliwal, Ms. Smith again, and Ms. Neville. It is 12:45, and we have some important issues about human trafficking that we must discuss. So if there are some brief comments to the motion itself....

Yes, Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thanks, Madam Chair. I'll be very short.

When I look at this, Madam Chair, I don't see mention anywhere of Liberal, Conservative, Bloc Québécois, or NDP. It seems as though this motion deals entirely with women's issues, because I'm sure they are the most vulnerable group of people in Canada. I think we should all address this in a very non-partisan fashion, and I would be fully supportive of this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Ms. Smith.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

[Inaudible--Editor]...because of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

That's fine.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ms. Smith.

I'm also speaking against this motion. I find the words and the rhetoric in this motion to be highly speculative. It's essentially presupposing what outcomes might come from the changes. I think we need to be mindful of the terms and conditions of the women's program, a program that has not been cut in fact. In fact it has an additional $1 million dedicated to it over and above the $10.8 million that was allocated to it last time, and we recognize that the extra $1 million was for the Sisters in Spirit program. These terms and conditions were approved by the Treasury Board Secretariat. These are all part of a normal conditioning and review of government programs. And to suggest that just because this government has made changes with respect to the administrative side of Status of Women Canada and has put an emphasis on making sure that funds get to community-based organizations that are actually doing work on the ground for women in the communities, as opposed to those that would be consuming greater amounts of public dollars for things that ultimately don't end up improving access and equality for women...I believe that's an approach the government is in a good position to take.

So for those reasons, I strongly disagree with this motion, and I hope we can incorporate some of those objections into a dissenting opinion, should this motion pass the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It's certainly up for amendment at the same time. I'm reminded by the clerk that what we are to speak to here at the committee is not the preamble but only the actual recommendation that's in here.

I have Ms. Neville and Ms. Mathyssen, and then I'm going to ask that we call a vote on this motion.

Ms. Neville, go ahead, please.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm speaking to the issue of the terms and conditions, and I acknowledge that the dollar amount left in the program is the same as what was previously in it. But I am very concerned about the shift in the terms and conditions that were brought about. They are substantial. They were done without consultation. They were done without any indication to women's groups.

I have, Madam Chair, a summary of the notes taken by an individual who attended the round table with Ms. Oda in early July in her consultation with women's groups across the country. It's quite clear from the comments made by the individuals who attended that round table--and I don't know how many women there were, fourteen or fifteen--that the issues they were concerned about are the issues that were addressed by the previous terms and conditions of Status of Women.

So if the terms and conditions are to be altered--and I understand there's a new government in place and there's a different ideological base--when we're serving women, I think it's important, or it's incumbent upon us, to do a consultation with them on any major shift in the terms and conditions. That did not happen.

In fact, the notes I have here really reaffirm the importance of the previous terms and conditions. I believe the changes were substantial, and I think it's important that we discuss this motion in the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Do you want to table the notes you have?