Status of Women Committee on May 30th, 2006

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

So how do you come to this?

[Colin Lindsay]

To simplify it, basically what Stats Canada has done in using averages is look at a family with a certain income level and evaluate what percentage of its income is spent on basics, such as housing, food, and clothing. If they spend a very significant proportion of their income on those variables, meaning that there's almost nothing left over, then that qualifies them as having a low income. It's not individual families that you'd measure, and it's also done by urban areas. So for a family of three in Toronto, the low-income cut-off would be based on what the average family in Toronto would spend on basics. If a family is spending all, or almost all, of its income on basics, such as housing, clothing, and food, then it's classified as having a low income.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

Then I have a question for Karen as well. The rates of spousal violence against women have declined, and that's wonderful news, but we've gone from 12% to 8% to 7% for women, and we've gone from 7% to 6% for males.

Then we go to the next chart, which talks about the serious violence against women and against male victims as well, and the male victims experience a lot less serious violence compared with the female victims. What makes up the figure 6 on the previous slide? What is the nature of the violence against the men?

[Karen Mihorean]

In order to measure spousal violence, we use a scale of 10 questions. It ranges from everything such as threatening to hit you with their fists or throwing something at you that could hurt you, to being choked, beaten, sexually assaulted, etc. There are 10 items.

I should say the reason we don't have 1993 figures for men is that in 1993 we conducted a national violence against women survey that was funded by the then Health Canada. It was in 1999, when we adapted this module of spousal violence and put it onto our national victims survey—and that survey includes both male and female respondents—that we for the first time got figures for men.

There is no statistical difference between the 7% and the 6%. We know men experience violence, but we know the impact of that violence isn't as severe. For instance, they're not as likely to be beaten, choked, threatened with a weapon, or have a weapon used against them as women. It's those serious types of violence that result in the more serious outcomes of the violence. That's why you're seeing more women are being injured and having to receive medical attention and fearing for their lives as a result of the violence.

So men are experiencing some types of violence, but it's not as serious, when you look at that scale of 10, as women are experiencing. There are some, obviously, who experience serious violence, but on a scale looking at both men and women, women overall suffer much more serious, injurious, and repeated violence than do men.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I was just referring on page 5 to your chart regarding the low rates of reporting. It looks as though for female victims the rate's coming down and for males it's going up. Am I reading that correctly?

[Karen Mihorean]

There is no statistical difference between the 37% and 36% for women, or the 15% and 17% for men. Although they look different, when you do a statistical test those numbers aren't different. I think the reason you're seeing fewer men reporting than women is that they're less likely to experience serious violence, and we know that seriousness is the number one predictor for turning to the police.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I had asked you to stay until 10:45 so that we could have the last 15 minutes to look after some of our committee business. Unfortunately, there won't be any time for further questions, but I clearly think, as you can see from the results here, that we may want to have you come back in the future on specific parts of the report.

Thank you very much for coming. If you could supply the committee with the previous Stats Canada reports you mentioned that Ms. Mathyssen had asked about—perhaps you could supply them to the clerk, who will supply them to all the committee members—it might be helpful.

Thank you very much.

Okay, colleagues, we have a variety of items still to finish in a short amount of time.

I would first bring your attention to the issue of our work plan that's been distributed and the possible changes to it.

We've been trying to get confirmation of a joint meeting with aboriginal affairs. At our next meeting, we have officials from the Status of Women Canada. If we can't have the joint meeting with aboriginal affairs on June 6, I'm suggesting that we get someone from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada or the Native Women's Association to come and present.

I will submit possible calendar changes to the committee. We are trying to get our joint meetings. Part of the problem for the meeting with the aboriginal affairs committee is that we're meeting at very similar times, and we haven't been able to get everybody to agree.

The specific issue that we wanted to discuss with the aboriginal affairs committee was on matrimonial real property rights. I want to reconfirm that, so we can narrow down the agenda.

On justice, they've asked us exactly what issues we wanted to have a joint discussion on. I believe, Ms. Mourani, it was violence against women specifically that you wanted to have a joint meeting on.

We're going to continue to move forward on that. We haven't been able to confirm the dates with them yet. We may have to end up with an extra meeting, over and above our two meetings, in order to be able to get a time together with them.

Minister Oda has indicated her great interest to come before the committee. We have tentatively booked June 22 with the minister. If necessary, we may have to try to find another time that accommodates the minister, because I think it's very important that she come to see us before we rise for the summer. We'll send out tentative changes to what might be on the schedule for everybody's consideration, if that's all right.

We have several motions on the table, which were distributed last week. We also have two operational budget requests that tie into the study on matrimonial property rights, as well as the study on economic security of women, which would need approval from the committee. We can do that next week or on Thursday, if you want to have a look at these. We can deal with them on Thursday when you've had a chance to go over them a little further.

We have three motions as well: one each from Ms. Mourani, Ms. Minna, and Ms. Mathyssen. But we have one more item of housekeeping business before we deal with the motions.

We have a couple of routine motions. I think they've all been distributed, including adding “and the government”, regarding a quorum to hold meetings to review and publish evidence. There need to be at least three members present, including a member of the opposition and the government.

We need a mover for that motion.

Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Let me read it out, and then we'll give you a copy of it, but you should always have a copy in front of you: That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least 3 members are present, including a member of the opposition and a member of the government party.

Is everybody in agreement with that? Mr. Stanton moved it. It was a technicality that we had to make sure we corrected.

Ms. Mourani and Ms. Bourgeois, I'm going to ask the clerk to read it in French.

Do you now have it in front of you?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Michelle Tittley]

The motion reads as follows:

That the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided at least three members are present, including one member of the official opposition and one government member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It was something we talked about at length when we had our initial meeting. We just wanted to make sure it was very clear that it included someone from the government as well.

Can we have a mover for that motion? I need a mover.

Yes, Ms. Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

: We have some questions to ask, Madam chair.

If I recall correctly, these motions were part and parcel of the motions adopted at our first organizational meeting. Does motion 2 indirectly mean that when we schedule meetings to hear witnesses, everybody will be automatically notified, and that regardless of whether or not there is a quorum, what is scheduled will simply go ahead, even if we are absent? Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Definitely.

Yes, Ms. Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam chair, who moved that motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

These were standard motions that we had been dealing with previously.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Fine, but who moved that motion this morning? We've never seen it before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It came from the clerk. It just needed to be clarified from when we dealt with our initial motions at our second meeting. The clerk brought it forward as a housekeeping item just to make sure they were very clear on this.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Fine. I can understand that she wants to clarify the situation. Then, that would mean that this motion amends another. I don't have any problem with having three members of the committee present, but why must there absolutely be one member from the opposition and one government member?

We must hold a meeting on the condition that three members of the committee be present, period. If, at some point, someone wants to boycott a meeting, government members simply have to stay away, and we will not be able to hold a meeting. Why not specify: « that three members be present », and leave it at that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I believe this has had quite lengthy discussions. If there's disagreement, may I suggest that we hold this over and put it on the agenda for next week.

We had suggested that we leave the last 15 minutes of our meeting so that we have time to do some business, even when we have presenters. May I suggest that maybe we should have that at 10:30 so it leaves us sufficient time to do some committee business as well. So rather than 10:45, we'll make that 10:30. We'll have an hour and a half of witnesses and then a half an hour to discuss business. We'll hold this over.

Are you okay, Ms. Bourgeois and Ms. Mourani, with motion 1 concerning the presence of members' staff at in camera meetings, or should we hold that one off until next week as well?

I'm going to suggest we hold motions 1 and 2 until next Thursday, and we'll deal with them then. All right?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

There are several other motions on the table. Does someone want these to be dealt with today or at a later time? We have five minutes of our meeting left.

Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

If we are looking at passing motions to amend a previous motion, may I suggest that we have a copy of the previous motion so we know what the amendment actually does.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.