Status of Women Committee on Feb. 7th, 2007

[Sheila Genaille]

Also, just as an aside, I live in Alberta, even though the national organization has the office here. In Edmonton, the Status of Women had a person on two or three or four hours a week, and they didn't even have an office. They were sharing with someone else. It was hard at that time to get the programs off the ground. And to shut the door fully is just....

The levels of bureaucracy, I don't have to tell you, and the steps you have to go through.... Making it smaller is just going to make it harder for groups.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Landolt, along the same lines, I have the same question. In light of your remarks and your testimony here this afternoon, how would you say the new terms and conditions for the women's program at Status of Women Canada square with the needs? You've made some obvious concerns known about the previous terms and conditions. How do the new ones square, from your point of view?

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

I think they're much more inclusive. They're not as discriminatory, because they're going to be open to anyone, which is a novelty for this particular department or agency.

The second thing is that I'm always puzzled by the fact that we're talking about transportation for women, or this or that. Those are matters of provincial jurisdiction. Why on earth is the federal Status of Women supposed to be responsible for matters that are provincial? Now, I can see, which was said previously, that it might be a good idea for the federal Status of Women to push the provinces, but you have different agencies in the provinces performing those very jobs. So why do we have a federal Status of Women doing a duplicate job? That always puzzles me.

What I do see in the changes is the advantage that it will be open to all women who have a concern. The second thing we appreciate very much about these changes and the guidelines is that finally it will be used for results. In other words, we find again and again that the money—$11 million—going out every year, a lot of it, is to promote an ideology and to service centres of propaganda, as it were. But they're not helping women directly, many of them. Now, some might, but we find that they're not dealing with women. New guidelines will demand that there be accountability and results. Believe me, that's a great novelty for this particular agency.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Ms. Deschamps.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am really in quite of state of shock after what I have just heard. I will try to get a grip.

First of all, I would like to welcome the people who agreed to appear before us today, as well as those who preceded them.

I am a bit surprised. This is the third meeting during which we have heard various women's groups and associations explain how they will be affected by the cutbacks that the government is preparing to make at Status of Women Canada.

I am particularly concerned by your testimony, Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt, because I feel that it runs counter to be overall concerns we heard from women regarding the status of women in general in 2007. In fact, very few have told us that even in light of the figures we have—

Women on average earn 71% of what men earn, to this day. We were told that women hold 21% of the seats in the House of Commons, which is a reality for all political bodies in our society. We were also told that three quarters of the women in Canadian prisons are victims of abuse or sexual assault. I am very worried when I hear figures like that and when I hear testimony such as that of the organization you represent, Ms. Landolt.

Could you tell me how many members there are in your group?

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

We have a minimum of 55,000 across Canada of all backgrounds, all differences. I'm a lawyer. We have a commercial pilot. We have many homemakers. We have many immigrant women who do flock to our organization, not feminist ones. You mentioned, and I've heard a couple of times today, that only 21% of the members of the House of Commons are women. I'd like to comment on that, and my comment is that women are not stupid. We vote for individuals because of their platform, for their values. We do not vote because a person is a woman--never. And if the woman has a platform, if she has values that the people want, they vote her in. And why should we vote for a woman because she's female? That's absurd. There's nowhere that I or women of my values would ever vote for a woman simply because she's a woman. We're far too intelligent for that.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Excuse me, but that was not at all what I was referring to—

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

Pardon? I can't hear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

She's allowed to interrupt you. She does not feel you're answering her question, so she has her minutes that she has to look after.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

That wasn't the point of my comment. What I am wondering about is that to this day, in 2007, only 20% of the positions in our political institutions are occupied by women. I never said they were stupid. As a matter of fact, with an equal platform—

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

That's one conclusion one gets from the statement....

I must say I'm having difficulty getting the translation. It's not coming through.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Just one second.

Madame Deschamps, repeat your question, please.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'm starting to realize that your philosophy is very close to that of the Conservatives which is to say that to you, in our day—and we've heard this before—women are all equal, all competent, all determined, and now they are able to flourish.

I don't think the fact that organizations defend the rights of women necessarily makes them a feminist movement.

Ms. Landolt, in a press release dated September 26, 2006, you rejoiced in the fact that the government was slashing the budget of Status of Women Canada, because that department does not express your view but the feminist point of view. You also said that this was a good step toward completely eliminating the program, which is what you want.

Even if we agree that, before the arrival of the Conservatives, Status of Women Canada was a hotbed of feminism, can you explain how completely altering the nature of the program and shutting up these women is a good thing?

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

Let me give you an example. When REAL Women began, we applied many times for funding. We never got a response. They wouldn't even send us application forms. Under the Access to Information Act, we found material showing they were deliberately ostracizing us. We knew that, and one day we decided to prove it. So we phoned and said we were representing a whole new group of women called the national association of lesbian mothers. Within two weeks we got a response, and the application forms, with a little handwritten note saying, welcome to the Status of Women.

That was the proof we were waiting for. We have it. We still have that documentation. We have presented this to prior committees. If you doubt me for a minute, we have the documentation to back up what I'm saying. It has been a discriminatory organization.

We represent grassroots women. We are an advocacy group. We have no charitable number. We are able to exist because grassroots women, ordinary women who are not wealthy, have been able to say they are willing to support us. We have a lot of volunteer help. We are a prime example of how, when you have the support of grassroots people, women can exist and be an advocacy group without government funding. We reflect that. If we can do it, why cannot all these other groups?

Why can't LEAF or CRIAW support themselves if they have the support of women? They obviously don't. They don't have the support, because they can't even get their own funding. You gave $1.5 million to the research group CRIAW, and LEAF has had $1.5 million, from 1992 to 2002.

What have they done? Look at their court cases. They represent feminist ideology. We go to court; REAL Women has intervened in court many, many times, but we've paid for it ourselves. We pay for all our visits to the United Nations. We pay for it ourselves. It can be done, because we have support of Canadian women behind us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madame Deschamps, you have one and a half minutes. Vous-avez une minute—

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you. I think that the testimony we heard from other groups who defend and represent the interests of women was also grassroots testimony In some cases, when you talk about the grassroots, these are poor women, women who are socially and economically underprivileged. I don't think that these women, who in my opinion are also part of the grassroots, are in a position to afford an organization that is self-financing. So these women go to organizations to have some representation, to have a voice.

I am from a rural region, as was the group that we just heard. Without the help of these organizations, which in my opinion do not conduct feminist or discriminatory research, it will be impossible to put forward measures to counter the tragic situations often experienced by these women, for example poverty. When a region is in economic upheaval, who's the first person who will directly be impacted by that situation? Most of the time, it's a woman. Most of the time, it's a woman who is head of a single- parent family.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madame Deschamps, I'm sorry, the time is up.

Ms. Landolt, you may keep that question in mind to address when you do your closing remarks. I have to go to the next round.

Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do hope to have a chance to question all three of these witnesses, but I would like to start with Ms. Landolt.

I'm a little confused. You said that you had never received any funding from Status of Women Canada.

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

Very minor funding.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Oh. That's different from none.

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

It was $6,000, as opposed to millions and millions that were received by other women's groups. Our funding has been cut off entirely, from 1996, and only under enormous—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Order.

Ms. Mathyssen is asking a question, so wait for her, please.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Actually, it indicates here that you received $6,000 twice. I wonder, now that the funding mandate has changed, will you be applying for funding as you have in the past?

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

If we have a project that will help women, that will be accountable, and that will show results, we will apply. But we're not going to apply just to have ongoing core funding, because that's a waste of taxpayers' money. We certainly will apply, but we have managed to survive and do all our projects all on our own up to this time. We've been 23 years funding our own material, and all we've ever had was a paltry $6,000 for a few years, and that was cut off entirely in 1996. We have never even been invited to the Status of Women meetings. Why?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you. And thank you for correcting the record.

I wonder, do you think that equal pay for work of equal value is a laudable goal?