Status of Women Committee on Oct. 5th, 2006

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

This government has responded to the report that has been tabled. As far as funding for this organization is concerned, I know there was 24% in the report...that indicated that they felt the funding for Status of Women was quite adequate.

I would suggest that the previous Liberal government also found it was quite adequate, because they decreased the women's program funding three times in the last ten years. If they had wanted to increase it, they had that opportunity during the more than 13 years of being in office.

What we have committed to the women of Canada is effective use of their tax dollars, and I would suggest that for those of us who have had professional experience, who have had experience in life, who have had to budget for families, and who have had to make decisions as to where their dollars go, it is not acceptable to spend 31¢ to deliver $1. My professional experience says that 15% may be satisfactory, but not twice that amount to deliver $1 in services.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have one and a half minutes, Ms. Stronach.

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I have to say I'm not very satisfied with this answer.

Let's go back to May 19. It was this committee, not previous governments, that recommended the increase to the budget, and now we see a decrease, after pressure from other organizations like REAL Women. You were for equal rights for women and you said you'd back that. You said it needed more work. Then that organization put pressure on the Prime Minister. You met with that organization, and suddenly we see a change in the funding criteria.

I'd also like to ask, what does “for-profit organization” mean? Give me an example of what a for-profit organization is that would now receive funding under these criteria.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

You can look this up--everyone is aware of it--I've worked very closely with Canadian Women in Communications. Within that organization there are many for-profit organizations that have put forward scholarships, apprenticeships, etc. They've asked for support from government at various levels to hold their awards events, to celebrate, to enable the mentorship programs, the gatherings to hear from entrepreneurs on how they can improve their businesses.

I want to say this and I want to make it clear--and I want the full opportunity to do this, Madam Chair. I sit here as a member of this government. I sit here not only as a colleague of cabinet ministers, but I also have full support. I agree with our Prime Minister. He has asked me, and every minister, to deliver real action, to deliver and make changes in the lives of Canadians. Consequently, I have responded in the House that the organization called REAL Women is one organization out of hundreds of other organizations. Just as individuals are entitled to their different positions, so are organizations, and a responsible government.... I am glad I am part of the government, because it means that I can do something, that I have the support of my colleagues, and as government we can effect change.

Consequently, we listen to all organizations. That is the task that has been given by the Prime Minister. He supports me, and I support him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Minister Oda.

Ms. Guergis.

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

Thanks very much.

Minister, we really do appreciate your being here. You and I have even had some personal conversations on women's issues. I really appreciate the feedback and the respect and the time you've taken to hear what I have to say from my previous experience, and how you're incorporating that into what you're doing.

I do want to say that I think some of the suggestions around the table that women have been muzzled are absolutely ridiculous. I believe in the strength of women, and our party believes in the strength of women. I think all women in the House of Commons should have this same approach.

I'm actually quite offended by the suggestion that maybe I'm weak or something like that, that someone can just barrel over me, that I have no voice and I have no way of dealing with things here in Canada. I mean, that's just absolutely absurd. I'm really getting sick and tired of the character assassination, because when that is said, it's placed on me as a woman in this House.

I want to know what you think of that as a woman too, when you hear someone accuse you of that, because I'd be interested to see how it affects you. I think it's absolutely ridiculous.

Any barriers that have been suggested around this table are barriers that all Canadians experience, and we have a responsibility, as members of Parliament, to get rid of those barriers for all Canadians, for new Canadians who come here as well. Your reference to taking care of new immigrants and their foreign training credentials, which is something that was ignored by the previous Liberal government for years and years, I think is extremely important. I'm glad to see that we're finally taking that on as well. If you care to comment a bit more on that, you can.

At Status of Women Canada, of the money they have been receiving, $13.6 million is spent on administration. Having been a small business person, I have a hard time believing that any corporation, for 13 years, would allow an organization to go on and spend $13.6 million on administration, while only $11 million went to the grants--only $11 million of it is going out to the front line to solve the problems. I think it's just absurd that anyone would advocate that this should continue in any way. We have a responsibility, again, as members of Parliament, to ensure that the money is not only spent wisely, but that it's actually producing results.

Now I'll get into my personal side, which we have discussed, which is talking about violence against women. Thirteen years ago I has been volunteering in rape crisis for just shy of eight years. One out of two women was being assaulted. That hasn't changed at all. So I suggest to the honourable members across the way that whatever plan they had in place was not working. It did nothing. Nothing's changed. Can we please put our swords down here and actually work together to try to solve these problems?

I appreciate that you're actually listening to me, that you're listening to other organizations across the country, and that you're prepared to tackle that. If you wanted to comment a little bit more on the commitment we've made to seeing some real changes in violence against women, I would really like to hear what you have to say.

Regarding pay equity, again, I'll just point out that I look forward to hearing from the minister, who has been tasked with responding to this committee. From what I've seen, I'm very impressed, because again we'll see some real action. We won't just see more reports; we'll see some action, and I'm really looking forward to that.

If you want to give us more on that, you may. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Just hold on for a minute, Minister. There was a point of order raised by Ms. Minna.

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

Madam Chair, I have no problem with people having their own opinions. I take objection to misinformation being intentionally put to this committee, first, in terms of what we did or did not do. Second, more importantly, is the suggestion that the department was using money only for administration. Its job is advocacy across the system and research. That's what the money was being used for: to speak on behalf of Canadian women in all departments.

This is absolutely unacceptable. I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but I will not accept—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you for clarifying that.

Minister Oda.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Chair, I am prepared to clarify the numbers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Minister Oda.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I will clarify the numbers. One thing I have certainly learned is that reading government numbers is not the easiest task an individual is given. Even after years of reading business plans, it seems it's very different.

To clarify, the entire $13 million is not just administration; there are areas of activity. That's where we will be reviewing what activities will continue that are included in the $13 million. It's misrepresentation to say that it's going to come out of programming.

I know, Ms. Ievers, that we are going to be looking, because we know we can reduce that 31¢ cost to deliver $1. For example, in order to administer and give out $10.8 million, the administrative cost, the directorate cost, is $3.3 million.

When we also look at another area, at directorate costs in some of the areas of delivery.... There are different areas, and we're very clear—I asked for these numbers and I got these numbers—as to how many of these dollars are going to programs, to activities, and how many are for administration. I'm comfortable that we will be able to find the $5 million in administration.

One of the things Status of Women voluntarily undertook, before expenditure review, was to look at the points of contact with Status of Women across the country, and to look at how it could be done more effectively and more efficiently. They had already undertaken that.

If I could, I would like to have an opportunity to speak about being called weak and frail and about being part of that nomenclature.

I have to say, Madam Chair, that as a visible minority, as a woman, as a person of colour, I face challenges that are unique. I would say also that there was a time in my life, in my youth, that I maybe felt weak, because I was being told I was different, I was being told I didn't belong, I was being told that I was special and would need extra help, and I was also being told that whatever I did would reflect not only on my family but on a whole community.

There are women like me, and many women around this table, who have maybe not the same challenges but different challenges, who have been able to not only work and advocate on their own behalf, but advocate on behalf of other people.

I believe we have a role, those of us who are fortunate to have won the confidence of the people in our communities. We are role models. The first thing I would not do is go back to my riding and call the women and address them as weak, vulnerable, or disadvantaged.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Minister Oda.

Ms. Deschamps or Ms. Mourani, which one of you chooses to go forward.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to make a brief comment, and then I will turn it over to my colleague.

Minister, in response to Ms. Mathyssen, you said that your Government had done more in six months and that you will not resign. It's quite true that your Government did take concrete and immediate steps as early as January 2006: no more money for Quebec for daycare services, no Canadian daycare services, no legislation on equity, a $5 million cut in the budget of Status of Women Canada, abolition of the Court Challenges Program and, contrary to what the Committee was asking, no increase in funding for the Women's Program.

You're right: your Government did take immediate and concrete steps to deal a blow to the status of women in Quebec and Canada.

I'll turn it over to my colleague now.

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

Minister, I'm looking at the new version of the Women's Program. From now on, it will be limited to achieving women's full participation in the economic, social and cultural life of Canada.

You clearly believe that it is no longer necessary to facilitate the participation of women's groups in the process of developing Government policy and improving the public's understanding of issues related to women's equality; that it is no longer necessary to promote the development of policies and programs in key institutions that reflect the different impacts they can have on women; and that it is no longer necessary to help women's groups work more effectively to improve the status of women.

Probably because of your Conservative ideology to the effect that all women are strong, you likely believe that there are no longer any differences, that there aren't weak women out there anymore and that there is no systemic discrimination against women. You say that they can assert their rights using a tool called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, you are telling women that they are basically on their own.

Do you realize that you are depriving an organization such as the Fédération des femmes du Québec of the power to advocate for women and defend women's rights?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I guess I'm just going to have reiterate it again. What I've learned is that if you keep saying it and saying it and saying it, maybe people realize what the truth is; the difference is that you have to make sure what you say and say and say is the truth to start with.

What I'd like to say is that in no way does this government say all women are strong. In fact we recognize that among all women, just as among all men, there are those who will have the opportunities and the strength and the personality and the support to take leadership roles. There are those men who will not play the same role as other men. There are children who have different advantages and opportunities, just as there are women who will have different opportunities, disadvantages, and advantages. So to characterize what we are saying as a belief that all women are strong is a mischaracterization.

We are not saying there are no weak women, but what we will not say is that all Canadian women are weak. We will not say that all Canadian women are vulnerable. What we're saying is that we also know at the same time that all Canadian women have dreams and aspirations, all Canadian women want to feel safe in their communities, all Canadian women want to be able to participate in their chosen ways, and in some areas they have more challenges than in other areas. What we're saying here is that there are women who are facing barriers we can do something about with real action, who are facing challenges we can do something about by helping them in their local communities through organizations. That is what this government is saying.

It is a total mischaracterization to say that by redesigning the terms and conditions, we are automatically saying that women are not weak, that all women are strong. That's not what we're saying. That is a mischaracterization of what we're saying.

I think the first step is totally the opposite. We recognize there are some women who are going to need our help, and that's why we want to get to the communities and to help them in their daily lives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Minister Oda, thank you very much for spending the hour and five minutes for questions and answers. As a committee, all of us very much appreciate that. We have, of course, made a request for you to come back to talk with us again about some of the other issues and to respond to some of the reports we have some questions on. We look forward to your coming back as soon as you can.

Thank you very much. We will allow Minister Oda to leave. Ms. Ievers will be here for the balance of our meeting to answer other questions that we still have.

Yes.

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Chair, I would like to advise you that I'll be tabling a document from today's Winnipeg Free Press. They actually conducted a poll that I think Ms. Smith would be very interested in because it pertains to her constituency, which she claims is very happy. The poll says, “Do you support the Harper government's decision to stop funding women's advocacy, lobby and research groups?” Only 29% say yes; 70% say no. I will be tabling that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Ms. Mathyssen, you are next on the list to question the departmental witnesses.

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

Thank you very much for being here.

With regard to gender-based analysis, can you describe what accountability mechanisms are in place and are they effective? Do government departments essentially have the available resources they need in order to be accountable, and are managers held accountable in regard to gender-based analysis?

[Florence Ievers, Coordinator, Status of Women Canada]

I must say that in the last year, and you will see that from our response to the standing committee report, a lot of effort has been put into making sure the central agencies, which are really key to holding departments accountable, are playing a key role in making sure that gender-based analysis is implemented on policies and programs. When I talk about central agencies, I mean the Privy Council Office, which has a challenge function when they look at MPs and when they look at the programs and legislation that's coming about. I'm talking about Treasury Board, and I think our response quite describes the kinds of roles they've begun to play, as well as the Department of Finance.

This is something new. I think the committee has been very effective since its inception in holding the feet to the fire of those central agencies, which are really the key. And if you look at the expert panel report, they are the key to making accountability work.

Now, you ask me, do all departments do that? No. But with the help of the central agencies and with the help of Status of Women Canada in providing the tools and providing expertise, I think we will build on the results. Our focus at Status of Women will be to focus on the government priorities. And the minister mentioned the economic situation of women, aboriginal women. Those are the kinds of things that we will be focusing on. We're really pleased at the progress that was made last year; that continues with central agencies in order to build in more accountability, which was greatly needed.

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

Thank you.

When do the funding cuts begin in your department, and could you provide the committee some detail in regard to a list of the cuts? Will regional offices be affected? Will there be closure in some of the regions?

[Florence Ievers]

The cuts apply only in the next fiscal year, so we're talking about 2007-08. The cut is for $5 million, to look for efficiencies in the operations of the agency. It's too soon to tell. We were only informed of the magnitude of the cuts recently. We will be working in the coming weeks with the minister and others to find the appropriate means to apply the savings that the government has requested, but also to continue to improve women's lives and bring tangible results for the women of Canada.

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

Now, $5 million is a considerable amount of money. Could it have been reinvested into programming if it's an administrative savings? Could it have been reinvested, and should it be reinvested?

[Florence Ievers]

That is a policy question that would best be asked of the minister.