Status of Women Committee on Dec. 6th, 2006

[Sherry Lewis]

Our organization is a collective of 13 provincial-territorial member associations. For sure, our collective voice is going to be impacted, because we don't formulate our national perspective based on what's going on at the national office; it's from our grassroots women who feed into the provincial or territorial member, who then feed into the national level. With the lack of support at the provincial or territorial level, it will limit their ability to talk to grassroots women, to get issues out there in a quick manner. Quite often, discussions require short timeframes to get back. So it sends a ripple through the whole process that's been designed and built on what's here today, with no provision for how you make that adjustment to still hear grassroots women's voices.

Even things like the cancellation of the court challenges program, by which the average aboriginal woman would have an opportunity to bring her voice forward, has now been silenced.

It's a ripple effect that's going through, and every avenue through which she could talk to government about her issues is now shutting down. We're desperate to try to figure out how we still hear from the women every day who are struggling out there.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

My question, in a way, is for all of the witnesses. Will the closing of 12 offices and the loss of 68 employees cause you any delay in your work? Last summer, the Women's Program had a number of small problems relating to the processing of various grants. Will the fact that you have fewer offices and fewer employees have any real effect on the work that you are expected to do? Does it mean that the grants will take even longer to process? How do you think these delays will impact what Ms. Oda has set out to do?

[Catharine Laidlaw-Sly]

This is slightly beside your question, but closing the different offices means that I have to support my sister speaking on behalf of aboriginal women, and I do so most emphatically. The national council has been very much dismayed with the long and repeated delays in raising conditions of life and standards of living for aboriginal women. We are very much aware that this particular lack cannot be addressed, unless the government is repeatedly reminded of what the actual situation for these women is. There is absolutely no way any group, never mind women already living well below the poverty line, the cut-off line, wherever they are, can access the government when the offices are so distant.

I think the department and the minister should be reminded that there is a large population of aboriginal women in western Canada with one single office. If the staff is reduced, there will be great delays for them in getting replies to their questions. As concerns groups like the National Council of Women that have never been funded and given core funding at all by the department and have always lived off our own dues--we lived on a shoestring and we continue to live on a shoestring--we find that the restrictions in the program will seriously inhibit our ability to even apply for project funding, because what we do is try to do some research, some public opinion evaluations within our large membership, and come back with recommendations that are advocacy to the government. We're not allowed to do that and we will not be allowed to get funding for our only purpose in existing. It calls into question the good intentions of the government, in our opinion.

[Leilani Farha]

For FAFIA, we're a membership organization. We have local organizations across the country. The cuts to Status of Women Canada and the closure of those regional offices, combined with the changes in what will and will not be funded, are having a tremendous effect on our members.

I will read to you an e-mail that I received from a member in the north, in the Yukon. She says:

Instead of accessing service from Vancouver with staff that know and understand the conditions and issues in the Yukon,

--so it used to be that there was an office in Vanouver--

we will be competing for service out of Edmonton by staff who will be stretched to the limit given the huge geographic area they will be required to serve with no new staff. We were already underserved. The changes that are required to help women in the North require systemic changes, and do not happen woman by woman.

That's just one small example. FAFIA feels that the local organizations are getting hit doubly. Not only do they have to deal with the mandate changes, but they're now having to deal with lack of regional offices.

[Andrée Côté]

I support my colleagues. Finally, I think that there will be more red tape involved, because women will only have four offices country wide with which to deal. They will have to cover long distances. Moreover, it will impact on the work done by the local program officers. They acted as an interface, they provided information, and through the local women's groups they ensured that that information was circulated. The work that they did at the federal, provincial and territorial level has been eliminated from the mandate.

I think that it is a great loss for a country like Canada. We will be deprived of the information that we require to properly consult with our national and provincial governments in order to promote understanding among women's groups from various regions and various provincial governments and the federal government. It is disheartening to see that the government is weakening its capacity to understand the needs and the status of women from various regions and communities in Canada and Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Côté.

Our next questioner is Ms. Smith.

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

Thank you.

Thank you so much for joining us today and for being here. I'm very familiar with a lot of the aboriginal concerns. My son is an RCMP officer, married to an Ojibway girl. I meet on a regular basis, from the bottom of my heart, with all these initiatives that are so important.

As I listened to your presentations, I was taken by some things that I think you either don't know about, or you have been lobbied by other groups with inaccurate information. I want to go over some of these things and ask a couple of questions along the way.

The minister has made a commitment to reinvest the $5 million, as you know, to help women in their communities. There is an application form online so people can not only apply in big cities, they can apply in the rural areas, which didn't happen before. This applies also to a lot of the more remote areas. I've been up to the far reaches of Canada, and there is Internet there. She was needing to make this kind of application more accessible.

I think this is a big improvement from what was there before. You used to have to go to regional offices for people help and things like that. Anybody can apply, and as long as it's a program that is on the ground working with women, everybody has a chance to do that.

I keep hearing about funding cuts. These are cost savings. You still have the money until 2007. In here today, as I've listened to the presentations, it sounds like today you have no money. The money is still in place until 2007, to give some transition. Also, there is opportunity to apply over the Internet if there's a women's program that is really needed. Status of Women Canada has one program, the women's program, and funding for that program right now is $10.8 million annually. It's still there. It's alive and well. As far as the aboriginal concerns, we still have funded Sisters in Spirit to $1 million annually, and they tell us they're extremely pleased with that.

For the first time, we've seen guidelines, because there has been a lot of money put out there and a lot of Canadian women are telling us that they never see the programs they need right on the ground. I know, for instance, FAFIA from December 2004 to May 2006—correct me if I'm wrong, and I will look it up—I believe it's close to $600,000 that has been put in the FAFIA organization. Again, for the National Association of Women and the Law, we have in excess of $450,000 from October 2000 to March 2006.

I know there is a lot of good work that has been done. I understand that, and it's very good. It has done a lot of good things. But when I listen to the member from the National Council.... That application is on the website. I would invite you to apply. It's there.

What we have seen is a lot of lobbying by members opposite with not accurate information, so we're really happy that you're here today to get as much accurate information as you can, because we want to help women. I'm a woman. I have four daughters, and I have been an advocate for women's rights all my life. I feel very strongly that a lot of women across our nation are going to benefit. You know, taxpayers expect that their money will be used well. They want to see results for their money. Quite honestly, I think we can be very proud when women have programs that actually help them right in their communities.

Interestingly, last November 28, when we passed this budget we had about $223 million of the $1 billion in spending restraints announced in September and we had estimates in November, and members all around this table passed this unanimously. Now we're hearing complaints about what they call “cuts”. These are not cuts. These are reinvestments in another place. Those programs for women are going to be better than they've ever been before.

I'm going to ask you, where did you get all this information that you came forward with today? This is interesting...misinformation, I must say.

[Andrée Côté]

With respect, madam, I think if you look at the Status of Women Canada website you will now see the new guidelines of the women's program. They quite clearly state that equality has been evacuated from the mandate and that advocacy groups will no longer be funded--nor will lobbying, nor will research.

So I don't think there has been any exaggeration. I don't think there's been any exaggeration when we say that there's been a $5 million cut to Status of Women Canada. It's clear. It's been covered. It's in the budget estimates. I think it's obvious. You're now saying it's being reallocated; we look forward to hearing where it will be reallocated.

In terms of inaccurate information, your minister, Madam Oda, has been saying that NAWL has received $450,000 this year. In fact that is incorrect. We wrote to her saying that we were very pleased to learn that our funding had been re-established to our previous level. We had a response that in fact we indeed would not be receiving $450,000 but only $290,000 up until next September, in 2007, the date at which we will not be eligible for any more funding from the women's program because of the change in criteria.

So I'd like to see who is distributing bad, incorrect information. If you look at any reports--Status of Women, Statistics Canada, or other research reports--women's inequality is ongoing, pervasive, deep, and systemic, especially for certain groups of women.

The piecemeal funding of services--

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

Could I just ask you a question about that money?

[Andrée Côté]

--that will now be provided to for-profit groups, perhaps even religious groups, under your new women's program initiative is not going to be an answer to a systemic problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. The time is up. We'll move on to our next speaker.

Just to set the record straight, the estimates that were adopted were the 2006-07 estimates. They were adopted unanimously by the committee. The cuts that are being discussed today are cuts that will be effective April 1, 2007. I just wanted to correct that.

Yes, Mrs. Smith.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, what I was trying to say was that I do believe the $450,000 began.... Please check this out, but I believe it was $450,000 between October 2000 and March 2006. The end of it was in March 2006, and I believe what you got was the ending of that $450,000.

I would ask that you look it up just to make sure that everything is accurate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

[Andrée Côté]

If I may, I can send to this committee the letter from the minister so that you can have a copy of what she's been saying to other groups about our funding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, that would be fine. Please send it to the clerk. She will distribute it to all committee members.

Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm thankful that you corrected the record regarding the estimates.

I have a profound sense of turmoil and outrage here. I very much feel that there's been a betrayal by this minister of women across Canada. That's why I too think she has to resign, no question.

I have a number of questions. First, we've heard a great deal over the last few weeks about the work of Status of Women Canada over the last 25 years. I'm wondering if you could put into perspective some of that work. In other words, what would Canada look like if 20 years ago we'd had these kinds of cuts and this change in mandate? What would have happened to the progress that women have made?

[Andrée Côté]

Well, 20 or 25 years ago, under the Criminal Code, men were allowed to rape their wives.

Aboriginal women who married non-aboriginal men lost their status.

Rape victims had to deal with discriminatory provisions on how to prove whether they had effectively been raped or whether they had consented to sexual assault. In the 1990s defence attorneys started accessing confidential files of sexual assault survivors to discredit them.

Immigration provisions were explicitly sexist against immigrant women on all sorts of levels. Sponsored women would still be sponsored for over ten years. Now it's been reduced to three years.

Matrimonial property would not have been redefined in such an egalitarian way in family law.

The Employment Equity Act wouldn't exist at the federal level.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

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

I thank you for that.

We've heard that the $5 million, which is gone, is going to be reallocated somewhere, although this contradicts the budget revisions we saw at the end of November, where very clearly that money was gone. In light of this, I'm wondering whether the expanded eligibility criteria, in terms of organizations applying for the little bit that's left, include for-profit organizations and charities. I'm wondering what will the impact be on the not-for-profits. We've heard a little bit, but I'd like to hear more.

In regard to these charities, I also wonder, does this new role fit with current laws that regulate charitable charters? Are we contravening the law here?

[Catharine Laidlaw-Sly]

Thank you.

I did raise the issue of the funding to be provided to for-profit groups, as well as for non-profit groups. We see it as an unfair competition. For-profit groups will be able to figure in recovering the costs that they have to put into their presentation, when they go forward to look for these funds, limited though they may be.

Not-for-profit groups are short of women power right from the beginning, they are short of time, and they are short of financial resources to enable them to compete in the same way that any for-profit group can. You're asking apples to compete with very beautiful, ripe oranges. It's not an even playing field; it's not a level playing field.

Furthermore, with the changes in the program as described to us—I have not looked at the new criteria, and certainly I shall look at the new guidelines, as recommended by the member who spoke about this—we still understand that if we are not getting funding for advocacy or work that will lead advocacy, then what is the purpose of the funding? There is no point even applying for it, unless you are willing to lie through your teeth.

[Leilani Farha]

Madam Chair, I'd like to correct, or at least clarify, the record, based on what the last honourable speaker said. She mentioned FAFIA's funding, I think in the amount of $600,000 or $650,000, between certain years. I want to clarify that a large portion of the money facilitated the participation of Canadian women in the Beijing Plus 10 proceedings in New York.

If I might follow up with an answer to some of your questions, one of the things that I would like to do with your question is slightly turn it. Rather than asking about the effect on non-profits, I'd like to ask, what is the effect on women and the non-profits that service women? For the record, I should say it's news to us that there has been a reallocation of the $5 million. I suppose I'm pleased to hear it and look forward to more information about that.

I don't want to speak for my colleagues, but certainly we all agree that women on the ground, poor and marginalized women, who struggle day to day in Canada, need services. We don't disagree with that of course. That may be necessary, but is it sufficient for women's equality in this country? It is not sufficient for women's equality.

I'll give you an example. I am a member of FAFIA, as well as being on the board, and I work in the area of housing with a lot of low-income women who experience violence. It is absolutely true that they need services. They need social workers, counsellors, and housing help centres. There are all sorts of immediate services that they need.

But let's take an example from the Yukon. Women there don't just need those services; they need people who can advocate for them. Why? Because at the municipal and territorial government levels, priority is not accorded to women who are leaving abusive relationships for social housing. The social housing provider, which is an arm of the government, does not prioritize abuse as a reason for getting social housing.

Under Status of Women Canada's new mandate, organizations are not allowed to lobby or advocate with government. That means women who are fleeing domestic violence have no one there to advocate for a safe place for them to live. Is that really what we all want to happen to women in this country?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go into the five-minute rounds.

I have Ms. Neville, and then Ms. Minna.

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

Thank you.

Again, thank you to all of you for being here today.

I have to advise you that the first we heard of the $5 million reallocation of funding was yesterday or the day before, when the minister raised it in the House of Commons.

The budget quite clearly shows a cut of $5 million in operating dollars. When the Status of Women Canada staff were here, they indicated they weren't sure what arrangements were going to be made to account for it. Since there are fewer places to access Status of Women because of the cutbacks in offices, there's a cynic in me who wonders whether there's an intent to slip the money to show there's not really a demand for it, but I hope I'm wrong on that.

We've heard a number of you mention the issue of research. In my community I know of a number of research projects that have ultimately resulted in policy changes by government based on the research that was done, most notably one on the relation between elderly poor women and health.

Could you comment from your perspective on what effects the cutbacks in research funding will have for your organizations and for women generally?

[Catharine Laidlaw-Sly]

Thank you for the question.

For an organization like the National Council of Women, the cutbacks, quite simply.... If the applications are being governed by the guidelines that we have seen, it means we will not have funds, and not be able to access funds, to do research on issues like maintaining the health of elderly women, many of whom happen to belong to groups that are still doing the volunteer work that is unpaid, uncounted, and not acknowledged in Canada's gross domestic product. Most of it is being done by senior women. I believe it's between 80% and 85%.

Should this particular workforce, this unsung workforce, become ill or die, which they will eventually, we wonder just who will be left to do the volunteer work that is still not acknowledged by any level of government and, in spite of repeated requests, has not been recognized by previous governments. It's a serious question. Without funding to do research, we can't even establish the validity of maintaining this force of women.

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

Fair enough.

[Sherry Lewis]

I think it's important as well. Although Sisters In Spirit has not been affected by the cuts as of yet, there's no guarantee that it won't be impacted in the future.

I also want to ask you to recall that when Sisters in Spirit was initially tabled, it was a $10 million initiative, and it was cut to $5 million, based on being able to rely on the infrastructure within Status of Women Canada. They talked about resource sharing and said that we wouldn't have to go out and access different kinds of services that we wanted to from within our budget, because we could rely on the expertise at the Status of Women offices. Now that expertise is starting to go, and the infrastructure that we could rely on is not going to be there either.

When you're looking at streamlining and you're using technology and connectivity to increase access, you have to also balance that with the fact that not all women have equal access to technology and that there are huge gaps among those who have the technology. Newfoundland and Labrador still uses dial-up connections, so they are not able to get access as quickly as other places in the country are. There is no overall connectivity or technology process within the government. It's haphazard. There's no structured process that improves technology or access to technology for women, despite the fact that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has been at the forefront of pushing forward technology on behalf of aboriginal women.

These cuts and this lack of research also stall many issues that for more than 100 years aboriginal women have been talking about. Valuable departments like Status of Women Canada, who take up research, show that from what an independent group says to what aboriginal women themselves say, yes, there's an issue. There are issues such as that of unstated paternity. There is still legislation that says if you're a victim of rape and you cannot name the father of your child, your child will not have access to status because you can't prove that the child is of aboriginal ancestry on both parents' sides. Then the Indian Act kicks in and says this child can have status, but the grandchildren will not. There are lots of impacts that affect no one in this country other than specifically aboriginal women. So I'd kindly ask you to remember all of those provisions that are in there.

Matrimonial property has been in place as an interim measure for 30 years. Even though Status of Woman Canada has helped us, through research, to bring it to the forefront, it's still taken us 30 years to get to where we are today. We can't believe what is going to happen to us now, when we don't have Status of Women Canada saying, “Yes, that's an important equality issue and there's research to back it up.” If we say it ourselves, we don't have the impact, and we don't get our issues put forward.