Status of Women Committee on Dec. 13th, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order the 31st meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We are continuing with our public hearings on cuts and changes to the mandate of the Status of Women Canada, as directed by the committee.

We have four groups with us today: the Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale, represented by Mariette Gilbert; Collectif Féminisme et Démocratie, represented by Jackie Steele; Regroupement provincial des maisons d'hébergement et de transition pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, represented by Louise Riendeau; and the YWCA, represented by Paulette Senior.

We welcome you. You have five minutes maximum. Given time constraints, the buzzer will go off at four minutes and I will raise my hand to indicate that you have one minute left. We always want to ensure that committee members have adequate time for their questions as we proceed, so I will be keeping everybody close to the five minutes so that everyone has that opportunity.

We will start off with the Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale. Mariette Gilbert, would you like to lead off?

[Mariette Gilbert, President, Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale]

Madame Chair, members of the Committee, I want to thank you for giving us an opportunity to address this issue as part of your current consultations.

AFEAS is here to discuss the impact of its action and that of women's groups on gender equality, as well as the importance of maintaining and strengthening the mandate of Status of Women Canada and its funding, so that Canadian women will one day attain real equality.

A non-profit organization founded in 1966, AFEAS represents 13,000 Quebec women who work on a volunteer basis for 300 local groups in 12 regions. Founded on the values of peace, equality, fairness, justice and respect, AFEAS seeks equality in law and in fact for Canadian women, along with their complete independence, so that they can participate fully in democratic life in Canada and Quebec, at all levels.

Over its 40 years of existence, AFEAS has helped women in Quebec and Canada to become integrated into various sectors that were previously inaccessible. Let me give you some examples.

The work carried out by AFEAS has resulted in the recognition of unpaid, so-called « invisible » work by women in Canadian statistics, through the five-year censuses. We should also mention that women working in a family business now have the status of paid workers, as well as the integration of women in the political arena and in various decision-making positions.

These advances for women, and many others, were made possible by the enormous amount of work performed by AFEAS members in partnership with women's groups in Quebec, Canada and throughout the world. The significance of AFEAS's actions was underlined on November 29, 2006 before Quebec's National Assembly.

It's important to remember that on December 10, 1981, Canada ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, known as CEDAW. In 2003, the UN CEDAW Committee recommended that Canada redouble its efforts to achieve wage parity, fund a national daycare services program, enhance the Court Challenges Program, and consult with women's groups demanding equality.

However, in September 2006, the federal government eliminated the central objective of Status of Women Canada: that of working toward gender equality in Canada. Moreover, it banned the use of Women's Program funds for activities aimed at promoting equal rights for women and influencing all levels of government. At the same time, it slashed SWC's operating budget by 40 per cent, beginning on April 1, 2007.

As set out in its original mandate, Status of Women Canada played a key role until last September, in the achievement of gender equality in Canada. Today, the mandate of SWC is, and I quote “to facilitate women's participation in Canadian society by addressing their economic, social and cultural situation through Canadian organizations”. What this means is that the goal of achieving equality has now been scrapped and policy research has been discontinued. Funding will be available to for-profit as well as not-for-profit agencies. But how will Status of Women Canada be able to play an effective role with an annual operating budget of only $7 million, four offices and 50% of its staff?

With regard to gender-based analysis, which requires coordination and expertise, who will ensure its implementation and follow-up, given that the staff has been halved?

AFEAS is of the view that the changes in SWC's mandate and these budget cuts cannot be justified by any valid argument, especially since there is still an enormous amount of work to be done, particularly within the government itself, as evidenced by the 2005-2006 Departmental Performance Report from Status of Women Canada, which states the following:

However, because Canada's report shows very little gender-based data, it is difficult to clearly identify the progress of women across the government's work.

In conclusion, even though legal equality for women is taken for granted in Canada, de facto equality has still not yet been achieved in many different areas, such as paid work and unpaid work, family, violence, health, and so on. Indeed the Minister responsible for Families, Seniors and the Status of Women in Quebec has acknowledged that fact and will be tabling Quebec's policy on gender equality and an action plan in the coming days.

For all of these reasons, the membership of AFEAS, who want to live in an egalitarian society, find the change in mandate and the budget cuts to Status of Women Canada unacceptable. This government's decision is a violation of its commitments towards women and runs counter to specific terms of CEDAW. That is why AFEAS is asking the current government to immediately reinstate the mandate of Status of Women Canada and the funding guidelines in effect prior to September 26, and that it immediately cancel the $5 million budget cut.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Madam Gilbert.

Next we have Jackie Steele from the Collectif Féminisme et Démocratie.

Jackie.

[Jackie Steele, Spokesperson, Federal Representation, Collectif Féminisme et Démocratie]

Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for agreeing to hear from the Collectif Féminisme et Démocratie as you pursue your Committee work.

The Collectif was created in 2002 to intervene in favour of reforming democratic institutions in Quebec and achieving equal representation of women and men in political bodies. We are now comprised of a network of roughly 1,000 women, predominantly in Quebec.

First and foremost, we wish to convey our profound opposition to the recent decisions of the current Government of Canada, decisions that offend us to the core. First, the closing of 12 of the 16 regional offices of Status of Women Canada for us means that decisions will be centralized, for the most part, in Ottawa. Next, the support granted women's groups will now essentially be mediated via the Internet, whereas in the past, groups could count on the expertise and technical assistance of staff on the ground locally, as has been our experience over the past four years.

In addition, the removal of the objective of achieving equality from the mandate of Status of Women Canada is an unacceptable step backwards that is inconsistent with the democratic principles laid out in both the Canadian Constitution and the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Finally, the new eligibility criteria for funding under the Women's Program reflect a troubling contempt for women's political participation and deny the close connection between advocacy for women's rights and women's ability to fully participate in the country's economic, social and cultural life.

According to the Minister responsible, the Honourable Bev Oda, equality is now a reality simply because it is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If equality is a reality, how is it that only 31% of members of the Quebec National Assembly are women — which is actually the highest percentage in all of Canada. As far as we are concerned, however, that is not enough. Furthermore, only 20% of members in the House of Commons are women, and a meagre 11% of the Conservative caucus are women. If equality exists in the letter of the law, we must nevertheless admit that equality is far from having been achieved in practice. That is true in the case of political power, just as it is for pay equity, violence against women, and I could go on and on.

According to the Collectif Féminisme et Démocratie, in order to achieve genuine equality, we need a clear expression of political will at all levels: local, regional, in Quebec and federally, and on multiple fronts: in other words, the creation of direct services, education, coordination, research, consultation with a wide diversity of women and, of course, the passage of progressive legislation and public policies.

It is worth remembering that it was only in 1929 that women officially became “persons” before the law, and this, as a result of a costly legal challenge that had to be taken all the way to London before it could be won. The abolition of the Court Challenges Program and the dismantling of the Law Commission of Canada are clear manifestations of an unprecedented authoritarianism that will handicap our democracy in Canada and Quebec. It is evident that we have not eliminated the legacy of 200 years of discriminatory laws towards women, which continue to have harmful effects in 2006, as well as resulting in systemic discriminatory practices.

If the problem is systemic, collective responses must also be systemic. For there to be more women in government, we cannot rely solely on strategies that focus on direct and individual interventions with candidates. From the moment a principle, such as equality, is affirmed by society, government action is both necessary and legitimate, in order to ensure that equality is respected and realized. That means taking collective measures, such as passing legislation and introducing incentives, in order to achieve equal representation of women and men, with every election.

The fact is that over 100 countries worldwide have adopted these kinds of positive measures. Equal sharing of power between women and men is an indisputable cornerstone of modern democracy, which recognizes the effective right of women to govern. We also believe that this sharing of power between women and men is a prerequisite for the adoption of laws and public policies that fully address the needs and realities of a wide diversity of women and men.

It is in that spirit that the Collectif Féminisme et Démocratie engages in political representation in Quebec, at the federal level, and internationally, to strengthen democracy. In Quebec, since 2003, the Collectif educated over 2,000 individuals, primarily women, with respect to the linkages between democratic issues, the voting system, affirmative action and political representation of women. That work has been carried out alongside a myriad of efforts, including awareness-raising among civil society groups, the production of informational tools, organizing events to promote debate within Quebec society, representations to political parties and to the Government of Quebec. It is this kind of action strategy, developed in close collaboration with a variety of partners, that has enabled us to advance the rights of women in Quebec.

According to the new funding criteria for the WP, or Women's Program, these kinds of activities are no longer valued by the current Government of Canada.

For its part, the Government of Quebec announced this morning that it intends to advance to cause of equality in Quebec by including, in its new elections legislation, a provision for male-female alternation on proportional representation lists, and making this mandatory for all political parties. However, within this parliamentary arena, it is obvious that there is still much work ahead, as we pave the way forward on the road to equality.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Steele.

Madame Louise Riendeau is next.

[Louise Riendeau, Coordinator of Political Files, Regroupement provincial des maisons d'hébergement et de transition pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale]

Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen members of the Committee, thank you for giving the Regroupement provincial des maisons d'hébergement et de transition pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale the opportunity to present its views today. I speak today on behalf of 48 member facilities located in 16 of the 17 administrative regions of Quebec.

Since our group was founded in 1979, our members have given us the mandate to bring about far-reaching social change in order to gradually eliminate spousal abuse. In order to achieve that, our organization has regularly made representations to the Government of Canada, and particularly, the Government of Quebec.

Right from the start, women working for shelters clearly saw that inequalities in such areas as education, access to employment, legal status, economic autonomy and issues related to marriage and family, made women vulnerable to male domination. Providing shelter and support is not enough to help them escape the violence. Therefore, removing the objective of the pursuit of equality from the Department's mandate is something that we consider completely unacceptable and that we believe to be a clear violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, as well as other treaties and conventions signed by Canada, whether they deal with civil and political rights or economic and social rights.

For our organization and many others, the changes made to the terms and conditions of the Women's Program will have serious negative impacts. For example, without the Women's Program, we and our members would never have been able to lead the battle in Quebec for the right of abused women to access shelters, nor would we have succeeded in convincing the provincial government to make an additional $30 million commitment. Indeed, since 2003, an extra $18 million has been spent on direct services for women.

Regarding the Divorce Act, it would have been impossible to add our voice to that of other groups in order to let the federal government know that judges often do not consider violence when granting custody and access. We would never have had an opportunity to take part in the work of the Women and Justice Tripartite Committee created by the Government of Quebec with a view to improving the way domestic violence offences are treated by the legal system. And we could not have demanded and secured changes to the Quebec Civil Code so that abused women have the right to break their lease if their personal safety is at risk. These are only some of the women's equality initiatives funded by the Women's Program in recent years.

Will we now have to invest both time and money in fundraising, to ensure that abused women will be able to cope? Will we have to increase dues paid by our members in order to replace the Women's Program subsidy? That will be tantamount to removing 3,000 hours of direct intervention with women, and some years, it would even be 3,600 hours. We did not fight to secure funding just to see services cut back subsequently.

And if some organizations involved in advocacy can no longer afford this, what will happen? Will we have to pay consultants to make up for the lack of partner groups with more expertise at the federal level who can help us defend the rights of abused women with respect to divorce and where criminal matters are concerned? I am thinking in particular of the National Association of Women and the Law, better known as NAWL.

We certainly cannot expect to help abused women if we have no opportunity to let people know that they need social housing, that they need protection under the law, and that they need a decent income. Yet there seems to be an attempt to encourage us to do just that, even though those needs are in fact rights.

In addition, budget cuts at Status of Women Canada will lead to other serious problems. Cutting back the Department's budget is tantamount to destroying a mechanism that is critical for the equality of Canadian women. These cuts will result in the elimination of positions held by women and the demotion of certain female workers. The office closures will result in a lack of expertise and knowledge with respect to concrete realities on the ground, in each of the provinces, as well as much longer processing times. Because of a reduced ability to take action and influence other departments, laws and programs will no longer consider potential impacts on women. It will be just too bad for equality.

Finally, the elimination of the research carried out by Status of Women Canada or funded under the Women's Program will deprive us of important information for policy development. As is clear to us all, the budget cuts and changes to SWC's mandate jeopardize not only Status of Women Canada, but the equality of all Canadian women. We very much hope that the government will change its mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Riendeau.

We have Paulette Senior from the YWCA Canada.

[Paulette Senior, Chief Executive Officer, YWCA Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members.

Thank you for the opportunity and the invitation to present the views of YWCA Canada on the two areas identified specifically as the potential impact of recent funding cuts and the program changes at Status of Women Canada.

My presence here today is an indication of the level of importance YWCA Canada places on the issues at hand, particularly considering the wide-reaching impact on women in Canada.

Let me preface my comments by providing some historical context and background to the YWCA. Since 1871, the YWCA has been providing programs and services to women, girls, and their families in Canada. Our history here began when Mrs. Hoodless recognized that unpasteurized milk was the cause of her child's illness and eventual death. She took the initiative to lobby the authorities of the day to ensure that no other children would become ill from milk. Today, her contributions in this area continue to live on in the spirit of the YWCA.

I share this small bit of history with you to make an obvious but important point: our 135-year history is founded not only on responding to the program and service needs of women; the importance of advocacy and research formed a critical part of our history, and still does today.

In 2006, the need to advocate for women's equality remains an important priority for the YWCA. In fact, it is integral to our mission, which is to be a voice for equality and a strong voice for women. As we move forward in a new strategic vision, public policy and advocacy form a significant part of our focus over the next four years.

So why this focus? If for no other reason but to bring attention and voice to the issues and barriers faced by ordinary women right across Canada. As the country's largest multiservice national women's organization, the YWCA provides programs and services to over one million women, girls, and their families in over 200 communities across Canada. We know of what we speak, and speak we must.

Thus comes our need to raise our collective voice with other national and regional women's organizations to emphasize the point that the cuts to Status of Women Canada and the regional offices are already having a negative impact on our ability to serve women with proven best practice models.

Specifically, I can mention our recent release of effective practices in sheltering women fleeing violence, which is the second phase of this project. It is unfortunate that as we were about to launch into phase 3 of the shelter study, the project as designed no longer qualifies under the new terms and conditions. Despite the incredible work completed over the past three years, we are now in a state of limbo and great uncertainty in continuing this critical work to effectively respond to violence against women and in seeking ways to work collaboratively and in partnership with government and community stakeholders.

Phase 2 was successfully approached in this collaborative manner, and thus deals with critical information from 368 women residing in 10 shelters across the country. In this landmark study, shelter residents and providers responded openly to queries regarding service quality, client needs, and identified gaps.

It is difficult to imagine a better way for the government of the day to demonstrate democracy in action, particularly as it relates to issues impacting women's equality. This and other similar initiatives are demonstrable examples of government and community effectively working collaboratively to improve, and in some cases save, the lives of ordinary Canadian women.

Thus we cannot underestimate the impact and importance of research and advocacy as they relate to service provision to women on the ground. As mentioned previously, the YWCA has been delivering these very services for over 130 years. Our success is due to our persistence in pursuit of women's and girls' equality, as reflected in these principles and commitment in our programs and services.

In conclusion, I urge you to reinstate if not strengthen the principles and commitments of equality and advocacy in the terms and conditions, and to reverse the cuts to Status of Women Canada and the regional offices across the country, thus re-invoking the practice and spirit of partnership that has led to advancing women's equality in Canada.

In 2006, we cannot afford to lose the ground we have gained, only to see these gains eroded due to misplaced ideological beliefs. Canadian women and girls deserve better.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We will now go into questions from our members.

Ms. Minna, you have seven minutes for questions and answers.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the presentation that was made here today. You're all very strong voices.

Much of what you've said, I and my other colleagues on this side have been saying for some weeks now, and we continue to, so there isn't a disagreement.

I was watching an interview with the minister a couple of days ago on Mike Duffy Live. She was saying the cuts aren't the issue because the cuts will be redirected, although that remains to be seen. We've seen nothing to that effect; I received a letter from the minister that doesn't mention any of that.

But putting that aside for a moment, it's bad enough, but for me the money is really bad. The biggest offence is the criteria change, because it's saying women's equality in this country doesn't matter, it's not the government's responsibility, it doesn't exist, and it's changing that altogether.

When she was asked about that, about shutting up the voices of women who do the research and the advocacy--many of you have given all kinds of terrific examples--she said that was fine, there's no problem, and why should the government have to pay for it?

It's as if somehow the money is coming out of her pocket and she's having to pay for it, as opposed to all of us looking after each other.

I'd like you to tell us, and to tell her through us, why the Government of Canada should be paying for it, or why your tax dollars should be paying for it. I'd appreciate that. You've given us some examples. Give it to us in as direct a message as you can as to why we should be paying for it, because it relates very directly to the mandate.

[Louise Riendeau]

Canada adopted a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it also signed international conventions under which it has an obligation to treat men and women equally. Equality is not something that is supposed to be realized gradually; it is an immediate obligation for all the signatory governments. So, the government has a responsibility to protect these rights, to promote them and to implement them.

That is why it is so important for the government to fund mechanisms that will allow us to work to advance the rights of women in Canada.

[Jackie Steele]

I would just like to add that the Conservative minority government is currently responsible for managing taxpayers' money, but that money does not belong to it. It should be using the money that is entrusted to it responsibly and in a manner that is consistent with its constitutional obligations.

We live in a constitutional democracy. The limitations on political power are enshrined in the Canadian Constitution and the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That money belongs to all the women and men of Canada, and it has to be used to advance democratic principles that we have a duty to abide by as diverse political communities within the Canadian federation.

[Mariette Gilbert]

We have rights, but just because certain statutes or charters grant us rights does not mean that they are automatically respected. It is important to work to implement them. Actions that have been taken in Quebec have been very successful. Even though the situation is not entirely satisfactory in our opinion, the fact is that more than 30% of the members of the National Assembly are women. Progress has also been made in other areas. If all we needed was for a law to be passed in order for people to comply, we wouldn't need police forces or any other type of mechanism, or the Auditor General, for that matter.

Just because a law has been passed doesn't mean that it is automatically understood and accepted by everyone. People do not necessarily change their attitudes just because we tell them they have to do something. Specific measures have to be taken to support and implement such changes.

[Paulette Senior]

If I may add to that, I completely agree with my colleagues at the table. The only piece I could add to that is to say that if we don't support and pay for those programs and make sure we reinstate the funding to the size we had, and also support equality measures, we're going to be paying for them later through other means. And we know from the experience of the YWCA that that is what happens.

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

It seems that I have only one minute left, so very briefly, because it helps me a great deal—I think I have some of the answers, but I just want to put it on the record—could you give me a specific example of the kinds of things that will be impacted by the changes of the criteria, not the costs but the changes of the criteria specifically? That's the major pernicious thing for me.

[Paulette Senior]

I mentioned in my comments the shelter study we did. It's the first ever national shelter study of its kind. We do need to be able to continue that work, but under the new terms and conditions we won't be able to. In fact, one particular important part of doing the study was to be able to bring together all the different federal departments that impact women's lives when women experience violence in their lives, such as justice, such as health, such as homelessness, and so on. So we were able to, in phase 2, get funding from all of these different departments to do that, because the premise of the recommendation was that we need to have an integrated response to violence against women, at the government level and at the community level. We are not able to have that sort of integrated response now from the government, and therefore it's impacting our ability to be able to do that on the ground as well. At the end of the day, we won't be getting that kind of support.

[Louise Riendeau]

I just want to add that all the examples I gave you could not be achieved today. We could no longer go and explain to the Government of Quebec or the federal government that abused women are afraid to press charges, for example, and that they cannot actually exercise their rights, even though those rights exist and are protected under the Criminal Code.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

The next questioner will be Ms. Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I would like to thank you all for your presentations and for being with us today.

This question is addressed to all of you. In your opinion, what are the major or minor implications of the closure of SWC offices, and the fact that we will now have only four offices for all of Canada?

What do you think of that? What are the practical implications of those closures?

[Louise Riendeau]

First of all, it is obvious that with only four offices, SWC officers will be nowhere near the communities they will be called upon to serve. So, we are certainly talking about a loss of knowledge. I am sure that there will be a learning curve for officers in Quebec, if they have to provide services in new areas.

Furthermore, the process for reviewing applications already took a very long time. We can certainly expect that it will take even longer now. We certainly cannot conceive of SWC being able to provide better service with less staff.

In addition to that, there will obviously be direct job losses for some women. That is also a concern for us.

[Jackie Steele]

The Collectif Féminisme et Démocratie benefited from the support of staff in Montreal to develop its project. Twice we tried to submit projects but we were only successful the second time. I have to say that this would not have been possible if staff in Montreal had not provided some follow-up, because it is difficult to use the Internet if you're not sure of all the ramifications or what type of project could meet the stated objectives. We obviously needed support in that area.

And with only four regional offices, we expect there to be increased demand. As a result, we may well not benefit from this kind of very concrete support for future applications. As well, coming back to the question posed by the Honourable Marie Minna with respect to eligibility criteria, most of our work involves political action for women and providing women with the tools they need to be full participants in the democratic life of our society.

The new criteria do not recognize legitimate work of that kind. We want to be sure that we can participate fully in the economic, cultural and social life of this country, but we are told that as citizens, we have no right to a voice that can help us influence public policies and access our governments, to make our voices heard and to let them know what kinds of public policies we would like to see implemented. It is ridiculous to claim that all these rights — political, economic, social, cultural and civil — are not interconnected.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Ms. Steel, the fact that the criteria for the Women's Program have changed must have a direct impact on an organization such as yours, which is only involved in political action and advocacy, in a way.

[Jackie Steele]

Yes, of course.

We used to receive funding under the Women's Program to provide a series of training sessions to women all across Quebec. Our goal is to equip women to engage in political action, so that they can get involved in their community and participate in the democratic life of this country. That kind of activity will no longer be eligible.

I should also say that, in many cases, the funds are used for managing and coordinating projects. Our educators work on a volunteer basis when they go into the regions to provide training to women. So, we're talking about small amounts of money that help to ensure some coordination in terms of all the requests for training we receive from various groups all across Quebec, whether it is the Outaouais, the Megantic or the Northern Quebec region.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Does that mean that your organization might end up shutting down?

[Jackie Steele]

What it means is that, from now on, our activities will be carried out on a purely volunteer basis. Of course, under such conditions, it becomes extremely difficult to operate. Under these conditions, it is difficult to really influence public policies. We believe that the government has a responsibility to truly support access for women and give them a voice in terms of public policies and governance, at the municipal, provincial or federal levels.