Status of Women Committee on Feb. 14th, 2007

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

I hope you will apply, because the research and the advocacy piece can be incorporated within the application itself. I know we've had numerous applications come in, and there are very good things happening right on the ground to help those women and support those organizations. I hope this helps you a little bit.

We've heard from many women that there has been study after study—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Smith, you must wrap it up. You have 20 seconds.

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

Sorry.

Would you not agree that the action is important to take? We know what the problems are; we need to find solutions to those problems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have 10 seconds.

[Ardith Toogood]

I don't think anybody would disagree that we should be finding solutions to the problem. We're here to try to find solutions, but the solutions aren't just taking x amount of dollars and putting them into a specific group.

Getting at the systemic, underlying causes, the root causes, requires ongoing research. It doesn't require that there's a cutoff at some point.

Yes, the programs need to be there, but the research needs to accompany the programs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our presenters. I appreciate the expertise that you bring to our committee.

I'm going to ask a direct question, and I wonder if all three of you could answer. It seems to me that women's organizations, women's programs, are being deliberately shut out, that the changes, which have been made, are an effort to silence women, to stop them doing the work they do. Am I cynical? Is that a possibility? I wonder what your reaction to that is.

[Nathalie Goulet]

That is certainly a possibility. As far as we are concerned, the changes to the Women's Program mandate are really budget cuts, and nothing less. We are working not only to ensure that we can play a greater role within society—which is the new Program objective—but also to achieve equality between men and women. That is the very reason why our groups are working in the field and providing services directly to women. The CIAFT cannot provide direct services. That is the work carried out by our members and we cannot replace them. They have an organization with engages in policy work. As far as I know—at least, this is what I've been told by officers in Quebec—we are no longer eligible under the current Program.

[Ardith Toogood]

It definitely seems as if women's voices are being silenced. CFUW is upset that that is happening. At our urging, one of our presidents, Laura Sabia, formed the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. From that, of course, the Status of Women was born to provide and look after equality. To remove equality from the mandate of the Status of Women is really to destroy the organization as it was intended to be.

[Brenda Murphy]

I would say that women's voices will be silenced, because organizations like ours will no longer be able to speak for them.

There is an example in New Brunswick. Two years ago, then Premier Bernard Lord held provincial consultations to talk about social programs in New Brunswick. We were one of only two community-based groups invited to that provincial consultation, because of the credibility we have, because we've been recognized as having the reality of women who live in poverty at our table, because we know their stories, and because we can speak with and on behalf of these women. We're not going to have the ability to do that, even though Ms. Smith indicated we might.

Certainly the application form I've looked at says that we are not allowed to be advocates at the municipal, provincial, or federal government levels, so that effectively silences us and also the women living in poverty in our community.

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

Thank you.

I want to ask about the task force on pay equity. I read that 580-page report and found it very comprehensive. I don't think we need to continue studying pay equity; we simply need proactive pay equity.

We've heard that the Conservative government is looking at the possibility of bringing in some changes, that they like the complaints-based legislation, but are willing to tinker with it.

Is the complaints-based, pro pay equity legislation adequate? Should we be looking at proactive pay equity?

[Nathalie Goulet]

Quite recently, the Quebec Pay Equity Commission published its report, some 10 years after the legislation was passed. I invite you to read it, because it is extremely interesting. It is surely available in English. It includes observations regarding the effects of proactive pay equity legislation. Businesses were surveyed on that point and the vast majority — I don't remember the exact figure — stated that without that proactive pay equity legislation, they would never have taken such measures.

The current federal government is proposing business inspections, even though pay equity can never be achieved by inspecting pay systems. That involves a process with concrete steps. However, proactive legislation is needed to achieve that. In Quebec, we are now demanding that pay equity be maintained. It is absolutely essential for there to be an independent organization, such as the Quebec Pay Equity Commission, to closely monitor enforcement. Just because pay equity is applied once doesn't mean that it will be applied permanently. We are currently demanding that pay equity be maintained. We are also encouraging half the businesses in Quebec who have not enforced it to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We'll now go to the second round.

Mr. Bagnell, you have five minutes.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you for coming.

I'm going to ask three questions. If you could write them down, then I'd like to get an answer from each of you on any of the questions you'd like to answer.

Regarding the first question, we've been fighting for months to get this put back. It's motherhood; obviously you should have equality, but that message isn't getting across. So I'm wondering if you could help us with any examples.

Your example of Joanne was perfect. But examples of how the money that's being cut really affects particular women...the government is saying it's just administrative and not having a real effect.

Regarding the second question, a lot of your organizations involve volunteers, and as you said, with this tiny cut of money, we're actually losing a lot more money because of the value of volunteers. They contribute $2 billion annually to the GDP in this country. Could you please comment on the fact that with this tiny bit of money, a lot more value is lost with the volunteers we're losing? In fact, they cut volunteerism too, but we won't get into that.

Regarding my third question, in this centuries-long struggle that women have had for equality, your champion in Parliament was the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women. I'd like to know if she's been helpful in your struggle.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Murphy, do you want to go first?

[Brenda Murphy]

I can speak to the first two questions.

In terms of the real effect this change will have on women, I can share another story about Sally, who is currently living in second-stage housing. She's been there for more than a year, which is more than what's typically allowed, because she receives $490 a month in income assistance. That's the total income for the month in New Brunswick. She has to find subsidized housing, but she hasn't been able to find it. In looking at her limited options right now, one of them is to go back to her abusive partner, because there just isn't enough housing.

Something else we've done in our community is try to advocate for more subsidized housing and bring these stories to people, so they understand the situation that women such as Sally face, in thinking about going back to the abuse because her options are so limited.

In terms of volunteers, on our last 18-month project, we estimated that volunteer time—I don't have the exact number with me—was somewhere in the vicinity of $70,000 or $80,000.

You're right, this makes a difference that's also lost if our organization has to close its doors.

[Ardith Toogood]

We first met with the minister on October 3. Ten organizations were invited. Our organization of 10,000 women had to be represented by somebody who was also representing the National Council of Women—so two self-funded groups. At that meeting, the minister said that women already have equality. We beg to differ.

Since then, we have not really had contact with her. I've had one letter in response to a letter I wrote.

As far as the Prime Minister is concerned, my response from him was deleted without being read, and the hard copy version has received no acknowledgement whatsoever—and that was on the court challenges program.

Our organization is made up of almost 10,000 volunteers. We've been working for so long; we're upset about all the cuts—not just those about equality, but there are so many cuts affecting the equality of women that it's really quite astonishing. The amount of advocacy that our organization has had to do this fall has been absolutely unprecedented.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Goulet, you have the floor.

[Nathalie Goulet]

I talked about direct budget cuts representing 66 per cent of our organization's core funding.

We received about $75,000 annually, per initiative, under the Women's Program. I could table with the Committee a list of what we have done in the last two years.

We spearheaded a campaign, as part of the tenth anniversary of the Quebec Pay Equity Act. Furthermore, we developed a feminist platform on balancing family and work, as well as three tools—one for women's groups, one for workers, and one for businesses—based on that platform. Through our pay equity campaign, we reached some 1,000 community groups all across Quebec. All of these activities were funded under the Women's Program, but we will no longer be in a position to do that, since this is policy work.

Indeed, I would just like to add that even equality rights are evolving. Ten years ago, there was no proactive legislation on pay equity in Quebec. Our laws are also changing. Women's equality rights are evolving and have steadily improved through the work of groups such as ours.

Legal experts now don't even talk about equality in law. They talk about equality in fact. Indeed, the name of the new policy on the status of women that was just passed in Quebec is: “Making equality in law equality in fact”. So, equality must be substantive, it must be real, and we must be able to measure it. As a result, legal experts who follow women's issues no longer even refer to equality in law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Merci.

Mr. Stanton, five minutes.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our panellists for coming in here to share your insights and represent your organizations this afternoon.

I have a couple of questions, and I'll try to ask them as quickly as I can. If you could keep your answers relatively succinct, I would appreciate it.

Ms. Toogood, with regard to your organization, you say you're self-funded. Does the federation currently receive funds...or did it prior to this time receive funds from Status of Women Canada for advocacy?

[Ardith Toogood]

No, it did not. We applied in the eighties, I think around 1986, for a grant. It was a one-time project grant for a workshop and a manual. I have to say that we've updated and are still using the manual.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

It was a program, or a project....

[Ardith Toogood]

It was a project, yes. We've been totally self-funded since our founding in 1919.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

So your advocacy efforts effectively are supported by your members and—