Status of Women Committee on Dec. 6th, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order meeting number 28 of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

This meeting is being recorded on CPAC and will be on air at a later date. Today, of course, is a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women, and that has been acknowledged in the House by all of us.

We will begin our meeting. Before I do, I want to remind all the members you should have received, in a brown envelope in your offices, a copy of the draft report that was sent out. I received it about two hours ago, so I believe it was all sent out at the same time. That is my confirmation from the analysts and the clerk. So everyone should have it. If you would take the time in your busy schedules, prior to tomorrow's meeting, to go over it carefully, we'll have our three-hour meeting tomorrow, and I hope we'll get through that report at the end of the day.

We will now move into our open forum. We have a variety of witnesses with us today. We have the National Council of Women of Canada, represented by Catharine Laidlaw-Sly. We have the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action, Leilani Farha; the National Association of Women and the Law, Andrée Côté; and the Native Women's Association of Canada, represented by Sherry Lewis, the executive director. We were to have the National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada, but regrettably, they had to cancel.

I will ask that we now go into the forum. You each have five minutes and then we will have rounds of questioning by the members.

We will start with the National Council of Women of Canada, Ms. Laidlaw-Sly.

[Catharine Laidlaw-Sly, Policy Advisor, National Council of Women of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for this opportunity to appear on behalf of the oldest federation for women in Canada, which was founded almost 114 years ago by women who were working for their rights at that time, which of course included the right to vote.

We are very concerned and we have submitted a brief about the cuts to Status of Women Canada. We are very concerned because Canada signed and ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, CEDAW. During the election, the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, signed the CEDAW pledge, as did all other party leaders.

However, our government has now cut funding to the operating budget for Status of Women Canada, in addition to letting women’s groups know that they will no longer receive funding from Status of Women Canada for the advocacy, lobbying, and research work that they do. So we are concerned. We ask how this government can keep its commitment to uphold the terms of the CEDAW convention, if they cut funding to the very department that helps to implement it?

In particular we are concerned because in our opinion this action effectively repudiates Canada's signature on the CEDAW treaty, and it casts into doubt the process of preparing a credible CEDAW report, which is due in 2007 and fast coming upon us. How can a truncated department do a credible job?

We are also concerned because article 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that women are to be equal before and under the law. However, while women have equal rights on paper, the reality is that there is still great inequality.

For example, at every education level, women earn less than men. In fact, the 2003 United Nations CEDAW report recommended to Canada that it accelerate its efforts regarding equal pay for work of equal value at the federal level, which is in paragraph 376. Canada has a commitment to produce a quadrennial report, and that is one of the issues that has to be answered. We wonder what capacity there will be to do a credible job.

In addition, we note that there will be no incentive or resources to investigate the real income differential between men and women. The statistical difference cited—72 cents to each dollar earned by a man—does not take into account the fact that women in certain employment or professions can and do earn as much as their male colleagues. In fact sometimes they earn more. Therefore, there could be a greater difference, if one measured just the income levels in employment areas not governed by equal pay legislation or professional rates of payment. Can a truncated department undertake this sort of research? Does its new mandate without the inclusion of the word “equality” actually even allow for that sort of study?

Status of Women Canada was established to help women participate in public policy process and bring gender equality issues to light. These cuts render it unlikely that there will be an effective way to continue doing gender-based analysis, or to ensure gendering proposed legislation when the staff is cut back. The capacity to consult with the stakeholders is reduced, and equality is not part of the mandate.

Additionally, a truncated department will be unable to investigate reported instances of systemic discrimination against women that arise as a result of having legislation and regulations drafted without any input from a seriously weakened department.

How can Canadian women now ensure that they will continue to progress towards complete gender equality? With the 40% cut to Status of Women's administrative budget, research into important issues affecting women’s equality will be drastically affected. How will the government be able to monitor issues affecting women to ensure that they are being dealt with fairly and effectively?

Aboriginal, immigrant, and visible minority women especially will find it more difficult to make their voices heard and have their issues addressed.

Canada was rebuked after the last CEDAW report for failing to raise living conditions and health care for aboriginal women in particular. With fewer offices in the field, instead of reaching these disadvantaged women better than before, the National Council of Women of Canada believes that Status of Women Canada will be inaccessible for most of them.

Also, in providing funding for profit groups, it will force non-profit groups into an uneven competition for what have always been limited funds. This will not, and I'm quoting from the reorganization documents, “facilitate women’s participation in Canadian society by addressing their economic, social and cultural situation through Canadian organizations.” It will further disadvantage all those women's groups representing all marginalized groups, since they are supported mainly by their members and other interested women who donate time, work, and money as best they can.

It is obvious that by cutting back the actual offices in Canada, reducing the budget, and operating with a changed mandate, the department is meant to become a spokesperson for a particular, highly selective, and restrictive interpretation of CEDAW. Considering that CEDAW's text, like all UN documents, was arrived at through an exhaustive process of consensus building and is therefore not a cutting-edge document, these changes do, in our opinion, amount to a repudiation of Canada's signature on the treaty. This is no way to celebrate 25 years of work.

In closing, the National Council of Women of Canada has repeatedly called on the Canadian government to do more, not less, to implement the terms and intent of what is regarded as the United Nations human rights treaty for the world's women. The real long-term effect of these cuts will be to destroy the department and render the terms of the UN treaty non-operational due to lack of capacity and will within the government apparatus itself.

In short, the effects of these cuts could result in the derailment of any further progress towards true equality for women in Canada. Therefore, the National Council of Women of Canada recommends that the funding to Status of Women Canada be restored and increased by a further 25%, as recommended in this committee's report of last winter, as a result of the hearings that were held in December 2005.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

The next presenter will be Leilani Farha. I will raise my hand when you have one minute left. Maybe that will help us to keep everything succinct.

[Catharine Laidlaw-Sly]

I hope I didn't go over my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It's okay. We gave you a little bit of leeway.

Ms. Farha.

[Leilani Farha, Co-Chair, Human Rights Committee, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Leilani Farha. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this committee on behalf of the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action, of which I am a board member and co-chair of the human rights committee.

FAFIA is a pan-Canadian alliance of over 70 women's and human rights' groups across the country. Our member groups include local women's centres, associations of shelters and transition houses, as well as regional, Quebec, and national groups.

FAFIA's mandate is to monitor Canada's domestic implementation of its international human rights obligations under the United Nations treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.

I have been an international human rights lawyer for the past ten years. Most of my work has focused on the economic and social rights of women. I have extensive experience working both internationally and domestically, using international human rights law in my work. I am well apprised of the Government of Canada's human rights obligations and I would like to use my expertise to shed further light on the impact of the cuts and changes to Status of Women Canada.

My comments are focused on one central point: the cuts and changes to Status of Women Canada are contrary to the federal government's international human rights obligations to promote women's equality. The obligation to promote women's equality, as I'm sure you are well aware, appears in a number of treaties that Canada has ratified: CEDAW; the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; etc. The Government of Canada has also committed itself politically to this objective in the Beijing platform for action.

In case you have the impulse to dismiss the domestic implementation of our international human rights obligations as perhaps irrelevant, I want to remind you of two things. First, with respect to treaties, these are legal obligations. They are not policy objectives; they are human rights, and they cannot be tossed aside in the name of efficiency.

Second, as my colleague mentioned, Prime Minister Harper made a personal and political commitment to promote women's equality when he declared, in a signed letter to FAFIA earlier this year, and I quote:

Yes, I'm ready to support women's human rights and I agree that Canada has more to do to meet its international obligations to women's equality. If elected, I will take concrete and immediate measures, as recommended by the United Nations, to ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitments to women in Canada.

Why do the cuts and changes to Status of Women Canada contravene the federal government's obligation to promote women's equality? In Canada, it has long been understood that the government alone cannot do all that is necessary to effectively promote women's equality. The women's program of Status of Women Canada recognizes the government's own need for the advice and expertise of women, and in fact this is a mark of a healthy democracy.

Canada's support for women's NGOs through Status of Women Canada has been a means of compensating for the gross under-representation of women in formal political structures. The funds enabled organizations to do the advocacy and lobbying necessary to ensure that women could participate in policy development in other ways. Consequently, the new restrictions on advocacy and lobbying with federal funds and the ban on projects which promote women's participation in public life will dramatically diminish democratic participation for women in Canada.

If the current restrictions stay in place, we expect that organizations like FAFIA, if it receives Status of Women Canada funds, will not be able to do things such as appearing before this committee. In FAFIA's opinion, this government's changes and cuts to Status of Women Canada conflict with its international human rights obligations and commitments, and I can refer you to articles within the treaties where this is so--for example, article 7 of CEDAW, which obliges the government to ensure women the right to participate in the formulation of government policy. This is also noted in the Beijing platform for action in many instances.

Finally, we draw to this committee's attention the impact of eliminating the research arm of Status of Women Canada. Status of Women Canada is one of the only, if not the only, governmental body that consistently produces solid research on pertinent issues pertaining to women's equality. This research is necessary and an important part of the promotion of women's equality. Also, as a result of this research Status of Women Canada has established an international reputation for producing quality, cutting-edge research that is relied upon by many stakeholders around the world.

In conclusion, FAFIA believes that the cuts and changes to Status of Women Canada seriously call into question this government's commitment to promoting women's equality and are not in compliance with their international human rights obligations. We believe that the Government of Canada has traded in women's equality for the sake of so-called “efficiencies”.

At the end of the day, who will be most affected by this? It is the most marginalized women in Canada, who have little access to decision-making structures and now, no means of getting there.

FAFIA calls on the government to reverse the cuts and changes to the mandate of Status of Women Canada.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Farha.

For the National Association of Women and the Law, we have Andrée Côté. Welcome.

[Andrée Côté, Director, Legislation and Law Reform, National Association of Women and the Law]

Good afternoon Madam Chair. I would like to thank you and your colleagues for giving me the opportunity to address your committee.

It is with a great deal of emotion that I appear here today, on December 6, before this important committee. For the rest of my life I will remember the cold silence that fell over Montreal, a heavy chill on the steep road leading to the 14 white caskets of the young women who were gunned down at the École Polytechnique, on December 6, 1989. It was a silence under an open sky, the silence of thousands of women and men who were grief stricken by this deadly attack committed by a man who was consumed by hatred for those that he identified, whether rightly or wrongly, as feminists. Strangely enough, in the decade that followed the École Polytechnique massacre, sexist, misogynist and patriarchal voices that had been silent for almost a quarter of a century began to make themselves heard.

Since then, some areas of the right have done so much to discredit feminism that the current minister for the Status of Women, Ms. Bev Oda, stated, during a meeting with the representatives of women groups last October that those who spoke out against inequality of women were exaggerating, that they were victimizing women and that, when all was said and done, they were all somewhat hysterical. The minister is very much mistaken in her characterization of the status of women living in Canada and she would be well advised to consult the work that has been done by the Policy Research Fund, a program that she has just abolished.

In fact, the decisions announced by the conservative government are detrimental to women and equality will take a step backward; take, for example, the decision to an end to funding for a national childcare network and the decision to not adopt a pay equity legislation.

Moreover, the change in the mandate and funding criteria for the Women's Program is an unprecedented effort by the federal government to silence the feminists, particularly the groups who represent women's rights at the municipal, provincial and federal government levels. The Women's Program will now fund services provided directly to groups of women who are particularly vulnerable, something that is no doubt necessary, but that is not enough.

The Women's Program will no longer support groups like the National Association of Women and the Law, the NAWL, which analyze government policies, consult with women from various communities and regions, bring forward measures to ensure the full respect of women's equality rights and promote rights and policies in Ottawa, as well as in various jurisdictions throughout Canada and Quebec. In other words, there will no longer be funding for the work that is necessary to effect systemic change, to ensure that equity, equality and social justice are the true forces guiding the development of all of the government's policies and practices. Some groups will be hard hit by this decision. Others, like the National Association of Women and the Law, might simply have to close up shop.

The loss of the NAWL would mean the loss of a unique voice that has been making itself heard for 30 years on the federal scene, one of the rare voices to defend the rights of women in crucial areas such as family law, violence against women, poverty, pay equity, the protection of human rights, immigration law reform and the constitutional and international rights of women.

This will represent a loss for grass roots organizations as well as provincial and national organizations in Quebec and Canada which use our analyses as reference material, participate in our consultations and which, then, can take part in the democratic process that has led us, over the years, to progressively reform our society and make it a place that is more respectful of women's equality. It will also be a loss for the public service, parliamentary committees, members from all parties and ministers who, over the years, have benefited from our expertise, our interventions and our recommendations.

Women remain grossly under represented in political and legal circles, so it is essential that independent feminist organizations be involved in developing the standards for our democratic society.

The NAWL urges the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to defend the reinstatement of the original mandate of the Women's Program, which was based on promoting the equality of women and asks the committee to recommend not only the reinstatement of the funding but an increase in the funding of Status of Women Canada.

Finally, we also urge the committee to consider the recommendations of the expert panel on gender equality which tabled its report this summer, and seek to determine the best legislative framework to guarantee stable and sustainable action by the federal government to respect and promote equality rights of all women in Quebec, Canada, and among the first nations. We must not allow the voices of women, of women's groups and of feminists to be silenced.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Our next presenter is Ms. Sherry Lewis, from the Native Women's Association of Canada. Welcome.

[Sherry Lewis, Executive Director, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Thank you very much. I bring you greetings and warm wishes from our president, Beverly Jacobs, who couldn't be here with us today. I'd like to also acknowledge the Algonquin people, whose traditional territory we are on here today.

On behalf of the Native Women's Association of Canada, I wish to thank you for inviting me here today to speak on the issue of funding cuts and program changes at Status of Women Canada. The direction this government is taking on women-specific issues is disturbing. These decisions have huge impacts for aboriginal women and children in Canada. My goal here today is to impress upon you, respected committee members, the extent to which grassroots aboriginal women will be affected.

I just want to note as well that, in our rush to get our submission in, it went from a 9-page document to a 500-word document, and we realized that a lot of the meat of what we were trying to say made it very confusing. I'd therefore like to put emphasis on the speaking notes, as opposed to the submission.

First, I'd like to acknowledge how particularly fitting it is for us to be presenting here today, December 6, as we commemorate the national day of remembrance and action on violence against women. Our hearts go out to the families and friends of those fourteen women who were murdered on this day in Montreal in 1989—murdered because they were women.

As the only national organization representing aboriginal women in Canada, we must also take a moment to remember all those who have been taken from us over the years not because they were women, but because they were aboriginal women. The Manitoba aboriginal justice inquiry, in 1999, noted that Helen Betty Osborne might be alive today if she had not been an aboriginal woman. Extensive lobbying in the years following the inquiry by NWAC and other equality-seeking organizations brought about federal support for aboriginal women's issues and enabled us to look more closely at a disturbing trend called racialized sexualized violence.

The following points provide context or background to the position we are presenting here today. This is really a human rights issue. We've worked very hard over the years to help the Canadian government understand that the historical treatment of aboriginal women has resulted in permanent adverse effects. With colonization and assimilation that came through the systemic breakdown of our societies, our connections to the land were severed through legislation intended to civilize. We quickly became disenfranchised from our families and our children, from our communities and our traditional territories. We lost vital connections to our roots. Our traditional roles and matriarchal ways of being were denigrated and ultimately abolished. This experience has translated into alarmingly high rates of violence, incarceration, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide, and death. It has resulted in aboriginal women's overall poor health and socio-economic status. Forty percent of our women are living in poverty.

NWAC works toward revitalizing individual and collective human rights, with the main goal of ending violence against aboriginal women. Human rights infringements and legislated discrimination perpetuate the alarming statistics. In order for real change to occur, these root causes must be targeted for change. Without the continued support of Status of Women Canada, our ability to see these changes through will be jeopardized. Our women will not have a national voice, and the families of missing and murdered women across Canada will be devastated. I'll ask you to keep in mind as well, as you deliberate these changes, that aboriginal women today do not have the same rights as every other Canadian woman in this country.

The Sisters in Spirit initiative was a direct result of tireless advocacy work raising the profile of the violence issue. It was only after several months that NWAC and other national supportive agencies finally received attention. Given that the Sisters in Spirit initiative is currently the largest contribution agreement at Status of Women Canada, the question on our minds is the degree to which our ability to advocate on behalf of aboriginal women's issues, through the Sisters in Spirit initiative, will be affected by these cuts and changes at the department.

The funding cuts and proposed changes to the department are extremely upsetting and, quite honestly, confusing. We are struggling to understand the rationale that would support this move. The Sisters in Spirit initiative has a strong research component that is critical for the development of policy positions and effective advocacy measures. We want to express how concerned we are about the security of the Sisters in Spirit initiative and its staff and the overall capacity that we have gained through this initiative.

Sisters in Spirit is about a public safety issue. Research was required in order to show and demonstrate to all that this is a critical issue that's really happening in this country.

The Status of Women has successfully advanced the gender equality portfolio through the accountability agenda of the current government. Great strides have been made this year towards the development of equality legislation, and these are instrumental steps forward validating the work we do. It would be a huge blow to abandon these achievements.

NWAC's work on a culturally relevant, gender-based analysis framework complements the Status of Women's achievements in this area. We were shocked by the recent announcement that almost half of the department's budget has been cut, that 12 regional offices will be closing. These measures fly in the face of election promises to respect and promote women's rights. They are contrary to Minister Prentice's agenda to make aboriginal women and children a priority for this government.

NWAC is almost exclusively dependent on contributions by the Status of Women, unlike other national aboriginal organizations who receive core-like funding from the Department of Indian Affairs. In fact, we've been directed that we will only get project-based funding. They will not consider core-like funding, so these impacts will have a much greater result with NWAC than with any other aboriginal organization.

As an organization, we are particularly susceptible to what's happening here. We've been doing what we can to prepare for the worst. I must tell you, however, that it's been most difficult preparing the families of missing and murdered women. We also look at the risk to the advancements we've made internationally, and specifically the inclusion of indigenous women-specific clauses in the Beijing Plus Ten platform.

I thank you very much for your ear.

Niawen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you all very much for your very enlightening presentations and for keeping as brief as you did on a very difficult and complex subject.

For some of the issues you may want to get across, you can use your answer time to the various colleagues who will be asking the questions. It's an opportunity to get a point across.

We'll start with our usual seven minutes of questions and answers, beginning with Ms. Stronach.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for being here today with us.

Sherry, as you mentioned, I too am struggling with the rationale in trying to understand these cuts. I can appreciate the need for efficiency when we're spending hard-earned tax dollars, but I don't see that efficiency and equality are mutually exclusive.

We have also asked for the reinstatement of the cuts, and also the increase in the budget that was originally called for. We do not see a champion in this current government who champions women's equality rights. I have therefore called for the resignation of the minister.

I have a few questions, but I would first like to ask you what consultations, if there were any, took place to talk about proposed cuts and to examine and understand both the short-term and long-term implications of these cuts?

I direct that to all of you. Were there any consultations?

[Sherry Lewis]

Speaking for the Native Women's Association of Canada, which is currently undertaking matrimonial real property consultation across the country, when the disturbing news in the media started to report what was happening to Status of Women Canada, we began to hear comments from grassroots women about how this was going to affect their daily lives, as they already struggle with the barriers that are in place. Now, potentially, additional challenges will result.

Women at our consultations have been saying, “What have you heard from Status of Women? Is this going to affect the work we're doing?” They're very nervous out there about the few supports that are already in place and what the impacts will be.

[Andrée Côté]

I didn't personally attend, but NAWL attended a meeting with the minister in early October, and others here may have been present, where the new funding guidelines for the women's program were announced. There was no consultation at all at that moment.

In fact, the extensive consultations that did happen around Status of Women Canada and the women's program for the evaluation of the program indicate that the groups and the stakeholders were very satisfied with the old mandate of the women's program, which was focused around equality and funding groups to promote equality and take different initiatives.

So it's very disappointing to see that after extensive consultations with stakeholders in 2004 and 2005, this government has adopted a policy that goes completely against what was recommended in their own evaluation program that is on Status of Women Canada's website.

[Catharine Laidlaw-Sly]

I have no further comment.

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

What I would also like to understand is the change in mandate, removing the words “equality” and also “political” and “legal”. What are both the short-term implications for you and the longer-term implications for women's equality in society?

I'll go to Ms. Laidlaw-Sly.

[Catharine Laidlaw-Sly]

I think removing the word “equality” calls into question the legitimacy of having a status of women department, because if we're not working for equality, then what are we doing? Everything depends on that principle of equality and the end of all kinds of discrimination, whether it's overt or systemic. In particular, systemic discrimination is the most difficult to overcome because it has deep fingers and tendrils throughout the entire governmental process and it tends to make it very easy for people to take it for granted that when you pay lip service to equality that in fact actual equality has been achieved.

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

Are you concerned that this may be the first step, or the first several steps, because we're seeing a trend, towards the elimination of Status of Women Canada?

[Catharine Laidlaw-Sly]

Yes, we certainly are, and I think we said so in our brief. We're very concerned that this is the first step to take to dismantle the actual effectiveness of the department. It might continue, but we question whether it can be effective.

[Sherry Lewis]

With the Native Women's Association of Canada, our concern is that the removal of the word “equality” makes the assumption that all women have equal rights in this country. I said earlier in my speech that it's important to note that aboriginal women today do not have the same rights as every other woman, especially with regard to matrimonial property rights on reserve and the ability to lodge a human rights complaint while living on reserve. So those are two very critical rights that every other woman has that aboriginal women do not.

[Leilani Farha]

Not to repeat what my colleagues said, but by removing the three that you mentioned--equality, political, and legal--basically it straps women, it makes women unable, in our opinion, to make the gains necessary to reach equality. They're saying on the one hand that we've reached equality, so don't work on it, and they're taking away the means we would normally use to ensure our equality: political means and legal means.

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

To give me a better feel for it, what's going to be the impact on your day-to-day operations, actually, on the ground, with the closure of the offices, which are now reduced to four from 16 ? How is that going to affect your day-to-day operations?

[Andrée Côté]

As far as the National Association of Women and the Law is concerned, this will have a hugely negative impact on our day-to-day operations. Most of our funding does come from the women's program at Status of Women Canada, so we are anticipating layoffs of probably all of our staff, and we are not even sure we can commit to renewing our lease at this point, which will be ending in July.

We are really devastated, as an organization, by the ramifications of these changes, and we are very concerned that Canada is backtracking on its commitments to women, domestically and on the international scene, whether it be at the Beijing World Conference on Women or the Beijing Plus Five, where Canada has systematically acknowledged the importance of supporting the work of women's organizations. Ever since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in 1971, up until the recent voluntary sector initiative, different instances have recognized that this is a key component of a vibrant democracy, and it is essential for ensuring that governmental agendas do include egalitarian law reform.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

The next questioner is Ms. Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you Madam Chair.

I would like to thank all of you for your presentations. I have a number of questions to ask. Ms. Stronach has already touched upon some of them.

Today I received a letter from Ms. Oda explaining the reason for the closings and the cutbacks.

Ms. Lewis, the Montreal office will be responsible for everything from Quebec City to Nunavut, because the Sainte-Foy office will be closing. How do you feel about that?