Status of Women Committee on Feb. 14th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Members of the committee, I'd like to start.

We have two sets of witnesses. They are here and have made an effort to come here, and we would like to show them that we are very appreciative.

Our normal routine is that the first round goes seven minutes, but with agreement from everyone, I propose that we go for five minutes, so that we'll all have second rounds.

Then the witnesses will have a chance to wrap up with a minute each. We're working on a very tight schedule.

Today we have with us Ardith Toogood, from the Canadian Federation of University Women,

Ms. Nathalie Goulet, Director of the Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail,

and Brenda Murphy, from the Urban Core Support Network.

Each of you has five minutes to present. I will be very strict on the time.

We can start with Ardith.

[Ardith Toogood, President, Canadian Federation of University Women]

The Canadian Federation of University Women welcomes the opportunity to present its views. We have grave concerns about women's equality in Canada.

As a non-partisan and self-funded organization of 10,000 women graduates from all provinces, we advocate for human rights, justice, peace, education, the environment, and the status of women and girls.

As an NGO, we have special consultative status at the UN and UNESCO.

CFUW is one of 82 national affiliates of the International Federation of University Women. Why is CFUW concerned about women's equality in Canada? I think we can all agree that women's equality is a human right, that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms proclaims that right, and that the issue of women's equality transcends party politics.

The question is, have women in Canada achieved equality? Our current government states that they have and has forbidden government-funded women's groups to advocate on behalf of women's rights.

Let's take a look at one aspect of women's rights: pay equity. CFUW began advocating for pay equity in 1922. Where are we now? In 2007 Canadian women earn on average around 72¢ for every dollar earned by men, while post-secondary-educated women fare even worse, as do disadvantaged women. This economic setback follows a woman throughout her life.

Are Canadian women to accept their lot as economic inferiors? Are they to happily silence their desire for equality? That seems to be the message we got last fall. Well, we think not. As Geraldine Ferraro declared, “We have chosen the path to equality; don't let them turn us around.”

CFUW began advocating for the restoration of the court challenges program in 1992. It was restored, but where are we now? In 2006 the government once again removed funded access to the courts from the disadvantaged whose charter rights may be violated. Everyone deserves justice.

By removing equality from the Status of Women mandate, the government washes its hands of its responsibility to strive for equality rights. Status of Women must hold central oversight for gender analysis and provide accountability to the women of Canada by ensuring gender equality is a priority in our society.

The ban on funding for research and advocacy silences the voices of funded women's groups that provide top-notch research on equality issues, research that CFUW benefits from and values. A democratic government listens to research-based findings. Otherwise, how can it design programs that are relevant and necessary to address the systemic roots of inequality?

Closing 12 of 16 offices and dismissing half the workforce weakens the regional effectiveness of Status of Women Canada, destroys many community networks, and limits women's access to health and advice.

Canada's commitments to CEDAW, the Beijing Platform for Action, Beijing Plus 5 and Plus 10, and the MDGs map out a map, a path, for social justice. Our international federation's affiliates are expressing dismay about Canada's current disregard for women's concerns--the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Croatia, Georgia, Turkey, and Rwanda. Women in the international community look to Canada for progressive public policy. CFUW urges the restoration of equality to the mandate of Status of Women Canada, the reinstatement of the former funding guidelines, and restoration of cut programs and regional offices. Canada should be a world leader in women's equality.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Ms. Toogood.

Madame Goulet.

[Nathalie Goulet, Director, Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I would like to begin by thanking the members of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on the Status of Women for the invitation to appear.

It is very important for us to come before you to talk about the repercussions for our organization of recent changes at Status of Women Canada. In that respect, we support the actions of the Special Coalition for Women's Equality and Human Rights, established last year to denounce both the cuts and the current changes. The Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail, or CIAFT, also met with the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Lawrence Cannon, last September, and the Minister of Labour, the Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn, last November, to make them aware that these changes are unacceptable. Both ministers seemed very attentive and promised to make representations to their Cabinet colleague who is responsible for Status of Women, with a view to having her quickly reverse her decisions.

In my brief opening statement, I would like to make you aware of some of the gains made by the CIAFT in recent years as a result of funding from the Women's Program and the support of Status of Women Canada in Quebec; following that, I would like to describe the disastrous consequences these changes will have for our particular organization as early as April.

What is the CIAFT? The Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail has been around for some 25 years. It is the primary group advocating for the women of Quebec's collective right to work. Our members are located in every region of Quebec and, for the most part, are women's employability organizations. Economists, experts on regional development, as well as professional guidance and vocational counsellors are also members of our organization. We focus our efforts in four main areas: the development of the female labour force; pay equity and employment equity; regional development; and, social programs related to family-work balance and the right to work of vulnerable women workers.

We are considered by the Government of Quebec to be a full-fledged labour market partner. Indeed, the CIAFT has been a member of Emploi-Québec's Comité aviseur Femmes en développement de la main-d'oeuvre since 1998, and oversaw the implementation of an intervention strategy for the female labour force. We were also the voice of the Coalition en faveur de l'équité salariale, which spearheaded the adoption of Quebec's pay equity legislation in 1996 and, ever since, we have been closely following the way in which the legislation is being enforced. We also act as a spokesperson with the Francophone and Anglophone media in Quebec on these particular subjects, such as work-life balance or women's equality in the workplace, in general.

What gains have we made as a result of the Women's Program in recent years? As an advocacy group, we are supported by the Government of Quebec, through its independent community action support program, as well as by the Women's Program, at the federal level.

We have been a part of many legislative changes and the work carried out by government in recent years. I would like to give you a couple of examples. The first is the improvements to Quebec's labour standards legislation in 2002. We were able to have psychological harassment included in the legislation, as well as additional days of leave for family responsibilities. We took part in consultations on a comprehensive policy relating to work-life balance in Quebec three years ago, and with support from the Women's Program, we were able to develop a platform on that same issue within our organization. We also were part of the effort to defend the universality of child care services. We are part of every and all consultations provided for under the Pay Equity Act, according to the specific timeline it sets out. We take part in developing five-year plans in the 19 regions of Quebec. We have made enormous gains, particularly as regards pay equity. We have been able to secure a business audit program and a working group on vulnerable female workers. We also took part in developing the Quebec parental leave system. So, there are a lot of different initiatives we have been part of.

The repercussions of these changes on our organization's mission will be significant. Indeed, the CIAFT will lose 66 per cent of its advocacy funding, since it will no longer be eligible to receive funds under the Program for this type of policy work.

In fact, we support this Committee's recommendations to restore core funding for women's groups across Canada. I could perhaps come back to this later on.

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

No, Madam, we have the paper, so we'll read it. What we would like every presenter to do is add value to that.

You have one minute to finish.

[Nathalie Goulet]

Fine. I don't have any time left? All right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Oui, merci.

Ms. Murphy.

[Brenda Murphy, Coordinator, Urban Core Support Network]

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

My name is Brenda Murphy, and I am with the Urban Core Support Network in Saint John, New Brunswick.

We're a coalition of individuals who live in poverty, non-profit groups, the faith community, government, and business community representatives, working systemically to reduce poverty in our community.

Our focus is to influence provincial policy-makers by conducting research, policy analysis, and advocacy, based on barriers experienced by low-income women. We also provide a community education role, informed by the voices of our members and marginalized women, with limited forums in which to speak.

The changes in the mandate to Status of Women Canada will have a profound impact on our organization. A key strategy of our work has been to develop and nurture relationships with decision-makers. As a result of those relationships and partnerships, we've seen concrete changes that directly impact low-income women and their ability to participate in society.

Recently a provincial assistant deputy minister in New Brunswick told us how difficult it is for government to gather the same data as community-based organizations, because the relationships of trust between government and women living in poverty are difficult, if not impossible, to cultivate. The provincial Government of New Brunswick readily acknowledges their reliance on equality-seeking groups to help shape policy and practices to address the real needs of many thousands of women in our region whose voices are muted. Taking away our ability to advocate leaves a huge gap.

Women living in poverty, who are trying to survive, make ends meet, and make sure their children have food on the table, are often not in the position either physically or emotionally to travel to Fredericton, Ottawa, or even to an MP's office to discuss their barriers.

One example of where our advocacy is making a difference is a report we've just completed and presented to the province. In short, we're recommending changes to a specific government policy that has been a barrier to women trying to transition from income assistance to employment. We're also recommending a wage supplement to assist low-wage families.

I want to illustrate how these recommendations could make a difference by introducing you to Joanne. She's a single mom who started working in November at a call centre, where the pay is slightly more than minimum wage. She is determined to keep working, even on the days when her shift ends at one o'clock in the morning and she has to walk through the dark streets of Saint John for an hour to get to her home, because there is no bus service and she can't afford a taxi on her salary.

Who is going to speak for Joanne? She is barely able to respond to the demands of her job and her two teenaged children, let alone try to meet with a politician or a decision-maker to state her case and ask for changes that will help her.

In some respects, Joanne has made it. She's participating fully in society through full-time employment. If we're successful in our advocacy efforts for a wage supplement program, Joanne would be able to receive a top-up, and then maybe she could take a taxi home, easing her fear and stress, and adding to the likelihood that she'll stay employed.

I've been asked how the changes affect women on the ground. This is just one of countless stories of women who are fighting to get through each day. Yet despite their challenges, women are involved with our organization because they know we make a difference. It's a safe space where they can share their stories, talk about what will work for them, and then take the next step into training, employment, or other opportunities.

We want to have the ability to continue to work with and for them. To do that, it is critical that we're able to access funding from Status of Women Canada to continue to advocate for changes that will ensure they can fully participate in our society. Because we work at the level of systemic barriers to poverty reduction, we have not been eligible for funding sources that are designed to support direct delivery service. This has meant that Status of Women Canada has been a lifeline for women's equality-seeking organizations.

To close, I also wish to speak to the administrative cuts by acknowledging the invaluable role played by the regional project officers. They have consistently helped our small organization to clarify goals and objectives. They've linked us with complementary organizations elsewhere. They have provided us with technical support in areas such as evaluation. These regional staff members have helped build momentum and continuity and have kept our work firmly entrenched in the realities of Atlantic Canada. Their loss will be catastrophic to us.

Thank you again for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We will now go to the first round of questions.

The members of the committee make it interactive, so they may interrupt you if you're not responding to their questions. That will be a polite interruption.

We'll start off with Ms. Redman for five minutes.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for coming. I think you've hit on a lot of topics that I have to tell you very much resonate in my riding of Kitchener Centre.

It seems to me that the rationale for this government's draconian ratcheting back of funding is that it wants value for money spent. Somehow they want to be able to say, we put x dollars in and this is the result we got. My understanding of how many community-based organizations work is that's just not possible.

Brenda, I think you were really eloquent when you pointed out Joanne as somebody who is working but not making enough money to advocate on her own behalf.

I also wanted to touch on the court challenges that artists brought up, because I think the court challenges program is really key. I'm not a regular member of this committee, so I don't know if you've maybe talked about this in the past, but the court challenges program is one that I have great difficulty in seeing not funded.

I know, for instance, that LEAF took on the issue of ESL for new Canadians and the fact that if you were male, ESL was funded by the federal government, because it was assumed men would go out and work, but for the women, it was not funded because it was assumed they would stay home and take care of the family. Yet when you do any community-based research, you see that among new Canadians it's often the people who are at home who are more isolated and who need that kind of outreach and those kinds of services.

That's more of an observation than a question, but I look at these cuts and I wonder who is doing the gender-based analysis of these cuts to tell us how incredibly damaging these are to women. Is there a way to discuss the value for money invested, which is what this government seems to obsess about, in any of your organizations? It seems to me that what we're talking about is an absence of some bad things happening. So to say that we're going to put x millions of dollars in, or we're now going to fund for-profit organizations instead of non-profit ones.... Can any of your quantify in any way what the ramifications are from your organization's perspective?

[Ardith Toogood]

Can I go first, Karen?

We think the cuts are really a drop in the bucket when it comes to the whole budget. This department, Status of Women, is one of the departments that receives amongst the lowest budget allocations. The cuts will take us back not just a little bit, but decades.

In the Canadian Federation of University Women, we've been working for 88 years on these issues, and in particular for 30 to 40 years on the issues I mentioned. The ramifications are huge for women, because whenever you have a setback, it's very hard to come back to where you were. We were actually advocating, and have been since the eighties, for a doubling or maybe more than a doubling of Status of Women's budget, and we would like to see a minister at Status of Women with full cabinet status. So in terms of our advocacy, this is a huge step back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have one more minute left, if you would like to respond, Ms. Murphy.

[Brenda Murphy]

I guess I just wanted to say that our organization is the only one in our community that has not been providing direct service. There are many that are providing direct service to women. The need is so great, they don't have the opportunity, the time, or the resources to advocate. So when our office closes down because we no longer have the ability, there isn't anyone speaking. No one is speaking any longer on behalf of the women I talk to all the time—the Joannes and the other women—because the organizations and agencies providing direct service are just trying to provide service alone and they don't have the ability to do the advocacy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have half a minute, Ms. Redman, if you want to make any concluding remarks.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Could we hear from Nathalie perhaps?

[Nathalie Goulet]

I do not claim to speak for all women's groups in Quebec. However, I can tell you that these changes have been very badly received in Quebec. This is the only federal program for women's groups in Quebec, and reaction is extremely negative. We have the feeling that this is an attempt to get rid of national organizations.

Over the years, many local and regional Quebec groups have joined advocacy coalitions, have made representations to government, gained expertise, and so on. My group, which is involved in fostering women's access to employment, as well as other groups involved in every other area relating to women's issues, will all be facing very serious problems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Ms. Deschamps, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome. It's always a pleasure to have you here and be able to check in with your organizations with respect to all the work you have accomplished thus far. It's sort of along those lines that I would be interested in having you comment.

In your testimony, Ms. Goulet, you talked about all the advancements and gains you have made, as well as the many different committees and commissions you have been part of.

I would like to know what the impact of these cuts will be on your organization.

You also talked about regional development. As you know, of the 16 offices, 12 will be closed. What do these office closures mean to you?

[Nathalie Goulet]

The regional offices are extremely important because WP program officers would follow up on our files, both in terms of developing our applications and throughout the follow-up process. It was an extremely important relationship.

As well, there were people at SWC with expertise in women's issues that will no longer be there now. These departmental cuts send a very negative message. We need a strong department to ensure that, within the federal system, women's issues are indeed cross-cutting.

Just as there is a Status of Women Secretariat in Quebec, we need a similar body at the federal level. There also needs to be an independent research program at the federal level. In the same way that we have the Quebec Council on the Status of Women, there needs to be the same kind of organization federally. So, we really need for the entire structure to be maintained, because this is long-term work. All of us here can bear witness to that.

So, this will have a disastrous effect. We have been told that an office will remain open in Montreal, with a director who will not even be a regional director, but rather, a program coordinator or officer whose job will be to receive the applications of hundreds of groups in Quebec. It's absolutely unbelievable.

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

Could I ask Ms. Murphy to comment on this?

[Brenda Murphy]

As I said in my presentation, we're a very small organization. I'm the one staff person and the rest are volunteers--quite a diverse group around our table.

Our project officer has been so helpful in meeting with us when we're trying to think through what our next step might be and what our project might be, clarifying our goals and making sure we're not all over the map. I think sometimes, even as a small group, we think we can change the world. They've been very good in helping us to be very focused and clear, and also in giving us some very good technical advice around evaluation. Those are not things we have expertise in.

What I understand now, even though the office will be located in Moncton, which is very useful for us, is that one staff person is not going to have the time to give to our organization, to provide us with any of that kind of assistance we've had in the past. His or her role is strictly going to be to review the applications, score them, and send them on to Ottawa. I don't think that person even gets to have much of a say in terms of supporting or not supporting that particular proposal. It has quite an impact on us.

[Ardith Toogood]

CFUW is a self-funded organization, as I mentioned. But we have 122 clubs in that many cities and towns across the country. Our members work and liaise with women who are in the offices.

I'm getting messages, for example, from Vancouver that the Young Wolves Lodge program is due to be cut on March 31. The program helps aboriginal women, ages 17 to 24, with alcohol and drug recovery.

Those kinds of things impact the CFUW community because the kind of work we do is broad-reaching. When women, young women or older women, work with the staff members--who, by the way, provide excellent services--they form a connection. And you have to have that connection to really reach them, particularly these kinds of young people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Your time is up.

Ms. Smith.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the presenters for coming today and giving us their information. It's an honour to have you here. This dialogue is extremely important for everyone around the table.

There are many questions I would like to ask, but I'll start first with pay equity. It's something that this committee and I have long been involved in and concerned about. I have a letter here from 2005 addressed to Ms. Anita Neville, who is still on the committee. She's not present today because I'm sure she has another commitment. Sometimes we have people substitute because we have other commitments.

She was the chair in 2005, and we did a study here on pay equity. The then government said quite clearly:

The Government recognizes the contribution of the Report of the Task Force but after careful review the Government feels that the Report does not provide an adequate blueprint for implementation of pay equity in a broad range of federally-regulated workplaces.

I don't have time to read the whole letter, but I can give you a copy of it. Basically they said they support pay equity, but it needs to be studied again.

Coming to Status of Women, we were very frustrated because we wanted action taken. So when our side of the government came into power we looked at the pay equity issue and thought we could work with the existing legislation, rather than dragging it out for two or three years. The minister put into practice very stringent procedures in workplaces all across this nation to look at pay equity. We're waiting to see what he found out. We're trying to move that forward, because I agree that pay equity definitely needs to be addressed. Certainly the entire Status of Women committee has agreed to that as well.

Looking at the new part of Status of Women, no women's programs have been cut at all. The $10.8 million is still there, and the $5 million has been targeted directly for women's programs. I would encourage people to apply for the programs you're talking about, because that money is readily available to you. That $5 million will be used only for women's issues. The ministers in all portfolios, including Justice, are working in collaboration to ensure that women's issues are addressed.

Have any of you applied for any of the programs that are available right now?

Mrs. Murphy, you were talking about some very interesting programs in your area. Has there been any move to apply for some of that money to assist the women you're working with?

[Brenda Murphy]

We're in the process of doing that right now, because funding for the most recent project we're working on ends on Friday. We're not sure if we're going to qualify, because we're not technically providing a direct service.

I just want to reiterate that the change in not being allowed to advocate still has a very significant impact on people in our community--women's voices that have not been heard but have been heard through us. I don't know whether we're going to be eligible. That's our concern.