Status of Women Committee on March 31st, 2009

[Verna Heinrichs]

Thank you.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

I want to address this to Marie White.

Thank you for sharing your story. I would like to reassure you that our government is working to improve the lives of Canadian women. That is why just lately we have invested $75 million for the construction of social housing units.

Recently we had a witness, a disabled lady in Alberta, and she had talked about the conditions at home. I'm wondering, what are the living conditions like right now for women with disabilities, and how will this investment of $75 million for construction help the ladies with disabilities in your community?

[Marie White]

I have worked on housing and homelessness in St. John's for the last eight years, since the homelessness program was created. For women with disabilities, the issue stems from the fact that most of them would never be able to afford their own house because they can't work and they live in poverty.

It's a good start, and I was very pleased to see this funding. I can be positive sometimes. I was very pleased to see the investment in social housing. It is an area that was taken away quite abruptly some years ago, I believe in the mid-nineties, and it created the homelessness problem we have today.

The issue, more broadly, is that all government policies should have inclusion and accessibility principles tied to them to ensure that at the outset, as opposed to retrofits, the women you reference are able to avail themselves of the housing provided.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you. That's the end of it.

Now, Ms. Mathyssen, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses. The information you've provided is absolutely essential to our study.

I'd like to begin with Ms. Heinrichs. On your discussion about the need for optimism and the importance of giving women that opportunity, that hand up, in terms of that hand up, is advocacy for women important? Is that something we should make sure is in place?

[Verna Heinrichs]

Absolutely. I feel advocacy for women is critical. As women, we need to be supportive of each other. We need to build each other up and work with each other. We need to educate ourselves, qualify for improved skills, build ourselves up, and build good lives. Because when you're helping women, invariably you are helping their children. This is critical. And when you help women and their children, families benefit. You're helping everyone.

It makes a huge difference for communities, be they rural or urban.

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

And as government, we need to know how to effectively help women. So is the kind of research in our communities that tells us specifically what women and communities need something we should be supporting too?

[Verna Heinrichs]

I feel that research is critical. We need to keep moving forward. As I said earlier, one of the things is being a chameleon. We need to change with our environment and with the needs of changing times.

This is something I feel has really been critical. I feel this government is very honestly trying to help with this. As evidenced here today, they are looking for direction and they are open-minded on this. They have been working to implement some changes to further benefit women and families.

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

Should women be lobbying for other women as well, in bringing that message to government? Is lobbying important too?

[Verna Heinrichs]

Who better than women lobbying for other women? I think that's very important. And I think advocacy and positive women in advisory capacities are all critical. We need to work at that.

I really have to commend the Status of Women for refocusing to do this at the grassroots level. This is so important, because there are many women out there who truly have their fingers on the pulse of what's happening in their own communities. We need to listen and help, which is exactly what they're doing. They're showing this. They're putting their money where their mouth is. They've increased funding by 42%, which is absolutely remarkable. I really have to commend them on it.

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

I'm sorry, I do want to ask questions of other witnesses, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you, because advocacy, research, and lobbying are precisely what Status of Women cut in budget 2006. I'm glad you support it and I hope you will lobby this government to put it back.

I want to go on. We had a witness, Kathleen Lahey, who is a professor of economics from Queen's University, and she talked about the infrastructure spending and what is happening in terms of this current government investing. According to her statistics, there was no gender equity in that funding. All these millions and billions of dollars are going to support mainly male-dominated jobs like construction and trades, and women will not benefit because the social infrastructure, the child care, the expanded affordable housing, and employment insurance have not been funded.

I heard this morning on the news that at the G20 there's going to be a discussion about a shift. Instead of stimulus funding, there's going to be a discussion about changing our social structures. I would hope that includes changing the social structures we've been talking about. I'm wondering if any of you, or all of you, would like to comment on the feminization of the lack of stimulus and that need for structural change.

[Marie White]

If I could be so bold, I suggest that when policies are made, sometimes it's the implementation and the practice that we find lacking. It's not just one lens but many lenses that are required. It is not just the gender lens; I will say quite clearly that it is a disability lens, an immigrant lens. We have to make sure that when we create policies--and I agree with you that the stimulus package is very focused, it's clearly bricks and mortar, get our shovels ready--unless it's done within the context of a social policy framework and a government that is not afraid of advocacy and being challenged, if I could be so bold again to pick up on your comment...because it's the challenge that stimulates the creativity.

[Lucille Harper]

Living in a rural area, I'm never opposed to good roads. I just have to say that.

However, having said that, what has happened in our rural communities with the loss of social infrastructure, as I said earlier, is that we've really lost the kinds of jobs that support women. So when we're moving out our schools, our small health clinics, our grocery stores, when we're moving out so many of those essential supports—our community services workers, EI offices, etc., many of which are staffed by women and many of which are decent paying jobs—we're really removing some of those opportunities for women.

Investing in social infrastructure is one of the best ways to bring women into a labour market at decent fair wages and to enable women to support their families. I absolutely agree that a good house has a good foundation. The foundations of most houses I know are the women who live in them. So we really need to absolutely support women and support women where they are in their communities.

If we want to talk about stimulation, one other thing we could really do is eliminate student debt or at least reduce student debt. Why not $5,000 per degree, maximum? That way we're really freeing our young people up to be able to stay in their communities. One of the reasons we're seeing the out-migration of our youth is that they have to go where they can afford to pay off their student debt, if they've been able to access education. That hasn't been rural Nova Scotia for sure, or probably other rural communities either. So all that will enable women and youth to stay and build.

With respect to lenses, yes, I think we need a number of different lenses. Gender impacts everybody, and if you're a woman with disabilities you're more severely impacted, and it's the same with immigrants. It's the same across the board. That's why that's an overarching piece.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Ms. Harper and Ms. Mathyssen.

I would like to thank all the witnesses who came here today. You gave very interesting and fulsome presentations. I know it will help us with our report.

Now I would like to end this session and move in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We have a notice of motion from March 20 from Irene Mathyssen. I don't know if you have it with you, but it reads:

That the Standing Committee on the Status of Women immediately hold four extra meetings to examine the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and invite Minister Vic Toews, the Public Sector Labour Relations Board, Public Service Alliance of Canada, Professional Institute of the Public Sector of Canada, Communications Energy and Paperworkers, Canadian Labour Congress and Marie-Therese Chicha, Pay Equity Task Force Member and any other witnesses that the committee agrees upon.

Now, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Yes, Madam Chair. I don't know—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Actually, before you speak, I know there was a discussion the last time—and I do have some information on this for the committee—that the Senate has been looking at this issue, but not in a fulsome way. It just listened to about four or five witnesses when it did this particular work.

What we do know is that on March 12, 2009, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. Also, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance heard from four witnesses on extending the Budget Implementation Act, 2009, and it also discussed the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. On March 10 and 11, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance heard from several witnesses on its study of the Budget Implementation Act. And the following witness discussed the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, and that was Hélène Laurendeau.

I point this out just so you have the information. This was distributed to the committee, actually.

Now, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I did indeed read those notes, and it struck me that although the Senate had looked at Bill C-10 and perhaps brushed part of the issue around the Equitable Compensation Act, it hadn't been given the full discussion it required.

Based on the response we're hearing across the women's community, and the concerns raised, and our obligation as a committee to examine issues that impact women and to be their voice in this Parliament, I believe it is incumbent upon us to take a little bit of time to hear about the impact this bill is having and what the consequences are, as they roll out, for women. I think that's our job, Madam Chair. I believe it will not detract from our other study. It will be four extra meetings, and there are precedents for having extra meetings. I think this is too important an issue to allow any minor concern to get in the way of our doing what I perceive to be our job.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Mathyssen.

Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I know that we had some extensive discussions on this at one of our previous meetings. We did talk about the different committees that had looked at this and the employees who had appeared before the committee, and so on. I don't want to belabour this, and you have elaborated on it a bit more.

The reality is that we did set the scope of the study that we were going to do. This was not part of it. I think that trying to hold four extra meetings would be overkill, for lack of a better word. I think we need to continue with the work plan we have in place. Certainly if this can be worked in at the end, as we said at the last meeting, then it should be put on the agenda to be continued at the end of our studies. But I think we need to continue with what we have in front of us right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is there any further discussion?

Go ahead, Ms. Hoeppner.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much.

I would concur with my colleague. Unfortunately, if we take this and put it in the mix now, because there may be other topics we decide might be of interest or might be important, I think it would disturb what we've already decided. We would almost have to go back and start from scratch, because things are changing and moving very quickly. I think the wise thing may be for us to continue with the plan we decided on and then see if we can add it at the end.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Ms. Neville.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I certainly would support Ms. Mathyssen's motion, but I wonder.... Anecdotally, we've all been receiving comments and reports from individuals and groups in terms of the impact of this legislation. But I'm wondering if Ms. Mathyssen would be willing to remove the word “four” and just leave it at “extra meetings”. If we can do it in two, so be it. My real concern is simply the time factor and how we're going to be able to work something like this in. I support it in principle, but I just question whether we have to have the word “four” in there.