Status of Women Committee on April 17th, 2007

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

The only party that has a political agenda here is you, madam.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Order, order!

Ms. Minna.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have to say I'm having trouble. I can't support the motion, but I'll have to explain and go beyond that.

Madam Smith talks about her support and her passion for women and about breaking down the barriers, and she says that women are equal. Do you know what? I speak to a lot of immigrant women and a lot of women in my riding too. Yes, they're equal; it says so in a piece of paper. But they're not equal in everyday life. The only way to change that is to allow for the research that has been eliminated and cut, to allow for advocacy, which is not allowed—and we'll get into that report later, and here it says nothing about restating any of that—and yes, projects.

But I'll tell you, Ms. Smith, I've been working on projects with immigrant women for 35 to 40 years. Projects will help the individual woman who happens to be lucky enough to have a project in her community that she can assist. It does not change the conditions under which she lives, or the core problems that are causing the condition, at all. It does not break down barriers. Barriers don't break down for all women. They may break down for one woman who happens to be in that program.

When I was dealing with women and English as a second language, it didn't break for all of those women. We had to go to court to break the barrier for all those women.

I'll put this on the record; this is important for people to understand, since we're on this discussion today.

When I went to the Status of Women Canada, as an immigrant woman with a group of visible minority women, to ask them to please fund programs for immigrant women as well as mainstream women.... There are still systemic problems in our systems that happen today. When organizations like mine, which was an ethnic organization, applied for money, we were told to go to Multiculturalism and were ghettoized in that section. I met with the minister, who agreed about and understood our problems, and after I left that minister's office, the director of the women's program came up to me in a very angry tone and said, “How dare you ask for this money? You have no business demanding that money. That money was fought for by mainstream Canadian women.”

I'm telling you that was a major barrier. There are many other barriers that cannot be broken down by providing single projects to single programs.

Programs and projects for violence against women are necessary. What you said earlier about the women you talked about--fantastic, no trouble at all. But the condition that causes that and the core issues have to be addressed. The societal thinking has to be addressed.

The police in Toronto were ordered to charge when they went into a situation of violence in a home, regardless of whether the wife was charging or not. That wasn't the case before. That had to be lobbied, had to be worked, had to be researched.

So with respect, all this does is reinforce what the government has already done, which I obviously do not support. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Ms. Minna.

Ms. Neville is next, and then you, Ms. Smith.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm having a lot of difficulty with this motion. I read it in my office and had much difficulty understanding where it was coming from and where it was going. There's no question that the issue of violence against women and young girls has to be addressed. But the piece that I'm having the most difficulty with—and I don't understand its meaning or what the implementation would be—is when we talk about supporting the full participation of women in Canadian society.

When we encourage Status of Women and various other government agencies to do this, are we talking about implementing national child care programs, so that women can go to work, so that women can go to school? Are we talking about reintroducing the court challenges program, so that women can argue for their full participation in society? I'm not sure. Are we talking about reopening the Status of Women offices that were closed, so that women across the country can have appropriate access to Status of Women programs?

To me, this is somewhat meaningless. I don't understand what it means or how it would be implemented. It's words without substance. As I said at the outset, I'll do anything to support the reduction of violence against women. But we have to put forward motions and resolutions that have meaning, that have teeth, and that have some relevance and substance to what's going on or not going on in government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Ms. Neville.

Ms. Smith.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's shocking to think that Status of Women cannot get together to pass a motion that supports women, because the political differences are so different. In terms of the word “equality”, as a Canadian citizen and as a daughter of a veteran, I personally find it embarrassing that people would come into our country, and as soon as it's a woman, be told that they're not equal, when in fact our Constitution says that all citizens are equal under the law.

We have agreed there are huge barriers, and I would agree those barriers need to be addressed. There are many challenges. Today, when I listened to the Honourable Ms. Minna and Ms. Neville....

With all due respect, your government had 13 years to address these problems, and with all due respect, now you're putting barriers in front of us. There's nothing in this motion that should offend you in any way. I'm asking for your support.

With all due respect, I think this motion sends a message that is loud and clear. We should be doing this as a committee and saying yes.

If you feel very strongly, as Ms. Demers does, introduce another motion, and we can have a discussion, But this is my motion, I think it's very strong, and I ask for your support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes, Ms. Minna.

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

I'm sorry, but I need to clarify, because there was misinformation here.

Our government established the Status of Women. The equality provisions were there. All of the things that have been removed were there. So with respect, that's what we're discussing: the total stripping of the advocacy research and equality provisions that were there.

What Madam Smith just suggested is that these were not there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

As the chair, I'd like to bring the temperature down.

You have proposed a motion. Questions were asked about the mechanism, the how's and where's, and you have not responded to their questions. I'm trying to bring the temperature down, because I need to understand—

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

It doesn't bring the temperature down. I have responded very clearly, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Smith, it's my turn to speak, so I will speak, and you will get an opportunity to speak.

You have not responded.... I'm listening to both sides. There is a question. In my mind, you haven't responded. If you can respond to the questions, perhaps there will be a meeting of the minds—perhaps. From a technical perspective, I want to see something tangible.

Yes, you say address the crucial, pressing issues of violence towards women and girls. Yes, money was given to the RCMP. So what is it that you're trying to tell the government to do? If you could just explain that, clarify something that we don't know, it would help.

But if that is not going to happen, I will let Mr. Stanton speak, then Ms. Neville, and then I'll let you wrap up.

Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually had a question of procedure here, more than anything.

Madame Demers has put an amendment, so in fact should we be having discussion on the amendment? Does that not take precedence?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

We can.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Okay, good. I have a question for Madame Demers.

Madame, in the second change on your amendment, where we've added the words, “and support groups working to that end, and human rights groups in particular”, when we just use a general term like “groups” and we put that in a motion, are specific groups contemplated here? What would they be, specific advocacy groups? Some examples perhaps would be a help.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

There are definitely women's rights advocacy groups.

I think this amendment was moved because I didn't believe this motion was objective. I don't believe that's the case. I find it unfortunate, because it's toying with people; it's manipulative. I find it unfortunate that we have come to this point on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We should be working together.

We've made recommendations, this motion for example, in various reports. In the report on human trafficking, we talk about violence against women and children. There were very specific recommendations on these points in various reports.

The motion introduced today must be amended to give women more equality. I am the daughter of a veteran who is now dead. However, that doesn't mean that we have more equality today; that's not true. Yes, it's written in the Charter, but pay equity hasn't yet been achieved. So equality and parity haven't yet been achieved. It's false to claim the contrary. Those visiting Canada aren't tricked because the word “equality” has been removed from the documents presented. I'm sorry, but they aren't tricked by that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Do you have your response, Mr. Stanton?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Yes, because I just asked the question, and I appreciate that.

To follow up on that, I don't know about the appropriateness of going in a different direction. I think Madame Demers has given some backdrop as to why she wants human rights groups to be part of that, but with all respect to the various speakers on this question, I think there aren't agendas here; it's just that there are differences of opinion in terms of how one would perceive the changes, for example, in the terms and conditions, how that plays out, what are the practical implications of that. There are differing views on that, and I think we should be able to have a civil discussion about those issues without having to elevate it into discussions about who has a political agenda and who doesn't.

I think what we have here in the committee is a presentation in front of us, and Madame Demers has added some different context to the motion. From a practical point of view, I assume this type of amendment is in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes, it is in order. Once you present a motion, the motion does not belong to you, it belongs to the committee.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

And when an amendment comes, it belongs to the committee. First, therefore, we deal with the amendment or any subamendment, and then whatever gets carried or defeated, or whatever happens.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Okay. So to clarify, we have the amendment that is currently on the floor and we should be discussing the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

It is on the floor, and it should be discussed.

Madame Demers was saying that there is a problem with translation, so I'd like her to speak first. Perhaps what we got was not properly translated.

Thank you, madame.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

It is not human rights groups in particular; it's advocacy.

In French, it's clearly written: “[...] notamment les groupes de défense des droits”. The translation of “défense des droits” is “advocacy groups”.

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

Advocacy?