Status of Women Committee on May 10th, 2007

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

What about the split income? Is the split income part going to help you? Is the policy for the split income going to help rural Canadians?

Pardon me, I meant the split pensions.

[Colleen Purdon]

Well, it will help some people, but not the people we're working with in this study. They don't have incomes. Many of them don't have pensions. If you're working in a minimum wage job, you don't have pensions or assets that are going to be of any help to you. It benefits people in a certain wage bracket, but not the people we were consulting with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We'll now go on to Ms. Mathyssen for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I must say we are truly fortunate to have your expertise, and I'm so glad you're here. I understand, Ms. Gabriel, this is your second committee today, so you are truly remarkable in your ability to keep plugging on.

My first question has to do with housing. It seems to me that this was addressed, and it's key in terms of women's economic security: the lack of affordable housing, the lack of decent housing, whether it's on reserve, off reserve, in rural areas. There is a real problem, and it hits low-income families, and particularly families headed by single women.

Do we need a national housing policy? Do we need an overview of global, federal policy in terms of housing so that we don't have the kind of housing shortage we see now?

[Ellen Gabriel]

Well, for on reserve and off reserve, the problem is that there's just no possibility for women, especially in matrimonial property. Because the Indian Act really favours the men, in the dissolution of marriage it's usually the man who gets the house. When women leave the communities to go to urban areas because of violence, they often have to live in very poor sections of cities where they experience racism and abuse by landlords.

I think it would help. I'm getting a sense—and this is why cultural sensitization is so important—that the problem aboriginal women face is very similar to that of poor women living on the farm. In my culture in particular, we were farmers, and because of the diminishing land base we cannot be farmers anymore, and because of pollution we cannot be farmers anymore.

So I think that housing is a very important part, or at least a step in the right direction for providing economic security for aboriginal women.

[Colleen Purdon]

I think for housing it is a really important thing, but one thing I'm concerned about is how often there is a split between provincial and federal policy-makers and politicians. The most disadvantaged people in our communities are caught by this. It's like they're political footballs almost.

A national housing strategy that had support at the provincial level would be a wonderful thing for rural communities, as would a transportation policy that would help people live in more isolated communities so they could still access service. There may be cheaper accommodation in smaller communities, but if you don't have a vehicle, then you can't get to services and employment. It's of no use to you.

It would be good to have a more national vision whereby people have the right to decent housing. It would be good to get the idea back on the table, federally and provincially, that women and children shouldn't be living in substandard, unsafe housing because they were abused. That shouldn't be the option--i.e., live with your abusive partner in your nice house or leave your abusive partner and live in a horrible, unsafe place that still isn't going to even protect you from the abusive partner when he comes and bashes the door down. Those are the alternatives that women in our community are faced with now. There isn't decent housing in rural communities that people can afford. If you're on welfare or any form of social assistance, you can't afford any decent housing. You can't. You can't even feed your children properly.

So that's where we are. What women in our community are saying to us is why, when you get sick or you have an abusive partner or you lose your job and there is no other job to go to, are you treated as though you don't count, as though you've failed and are not worth anything? The women we work with are very eager not to be poor, but they have more barriers in rural communities. They are staying poor longer, having more trouble getting out of poverty, and getting more discouraged. In the end, many of them leave because they can't get ahead.

In rural communities, that's a big problem. Why are we exporting women and children out of our rural communities because we don't have decent policies and supports in rural communities for women and children? It makes no sense to me--or to them. They don't want to leave their communities. They like their communities. But the federal and provincial policies now make it almost impossible for women to survive unless they have family or friends. Many women don't have family supports. The women who succeed are the women who have family and friends and supports that they can call on when things happen to them.

We had these workshops where we had women sitting there saying, “I never in my life thought I would be sitting in a workshop on poverty. This wasn't in my game plan. I can't believe it.” Teachers, nurses, farmers, all kinds of occupations--there they sat. They can't get out of poverty.

My question to you is why is that happening? We have lots of money in this country. Why is that happening? It wasn't happening 20 years ago. It probably wasn't even happening 10 years ago. But it's happening now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have one minute, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

I'd like to quickly ask you, Ms. Gabriel, about the consultations that are now happening in regard to matrimonial property rights. Have they been satisfactory?

[Ellen Gabriel]

No. The time limit has been extremely short. By the time the money was gotten to by all the different organizations, it was too short.

There was the fact as well that there wasn't even proper consultation. There was maybe three weeks, sometimes one month to do proper consultation, or what was viewed as consultation. I think the 500-page report by Wendy Grant-John is probably not meeting the satisfaction of the minister in charge of this portfolio, but we'd like this issue settled. And we'd like proper consultation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

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

Ten seconds, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I can't give you 10 seconds because then we'll get into another question.

I'll go to the five-minute round.

Ms. Neville.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank each and every one of you.

I have so many questions, because you've really challenged us as legislators or politicians.

I'm struck, Ms. Purdon, by your question just now about why we can't make a change. I was thinking of initiatives I'm aware of in different circumstances, which tri-level--municipal, provincial, and federal--governments have begun as pilot projects, and which sometimes they've carried into ongoing projects. It strikes me that you're in a community that perhaps is ripe for something of that sort.

I have a number of questions. You mentioned, Ms. Purdon, that you received your money from Status of Women. I'm curious to know if it's been affected at all.

Ms. Martz, you're with the Prairie Centre of Excellence. I've received some information in the last day or two about some programs that are not getting funding through that. Are you being affected in your funding? I'll ask for your replies in a minute.

Ms. Gabriel, we met in committee earlier today, and of the solutions that you put out in your brief, many are macro-solutions. They are not solutions that are going to come about overnight. We know the issues of self-government, funding, housing, etc.

Also in your brief, you spoke to the issue of the importance of women's participation in a number of educational and labour market initiatives. You separated those out. I'd be interested to know why you separated those out. Do you believe there's something you can get a handle on as women to make a difference? How can we, as government, respond to that?

I'll put that out for the moment. Perhaps I'll ask for the rural responses first and then come back to Ms. Gabriel.

[Colleen Purdon]

Our funding was from Status of Women before the changes in Status of Women had taken place. We haven't felt any impact because we're working with funding from before the changes. I'm not sure if there was a project like ours happening now whether it would be considered by Status of Women Canada, the way it's being structured now.

One thing that was very clear is that the staff person in the London regional office worked very closely with our grassroots group to help us develop the project. When we did the first research piece, they helped us develop the next phase, which was trying to take action on the research and the ideas. The third phase is the project we're doing now to address community attitudes.

I want to just point out something about the way the funding world works. Governments have ideas of what they want to do, and there's a window, and if you can get your community needs pushed through that window, you'll get some funding. If your community needs don't fit in the window of the day, or the month, or the year--whatever the flavour of the month is--you don't get funding. The only place we could get funding to do what the community wanted was through what Status of Women was offering, through which they worked with you around what communities wanted to do.

It has worked very well for us. That's why I said I regret that office isn't there, because it was a real resource. When we talk about rural communities not having resources and infrastructure, having an office like that with a person who is very knowledgeable to help the community we found very helpful. I don't know what the new reality will be like. We'll see. We have lots of work to do, and it's not going to end when this project is over. It was very valuable, and I wanted to make a point on that, just to acknowledge it.

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

I'm interested in hearing from the others as well.

[Diane Martz]

I've been funded a number of times through Status of Women Canada, both through the policy research funding pool and in the more regular research funding pool for community projects. I found it excellent. It allowed us to do work on rural women in Canada that hadn't been done, and so little work has been done on rural women. I was sad to see that go.

In terms of projects, we have an ongoing project similar to Colleen's, which is still working with money that came before the change. I think some of the stuff I've done wouldn't be funded under this current regime, in that advocacy seems not to be possible. I think advocacy is important, because how do you make better decisions if you don't get a critique of the decisions that are there?

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

Thank you.

Ms. Gabriel, you probably don't have much time left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Can you answer in 30 seconds?

[Ellen Gabriel]

Good governance is a very hard issue to tackle overnight. We've made a lot of gains with many women's groups. In the region we work well with some of the provincial departments, so it's easier to make those kinds of gains in people who are open. With good governance we have to deal with our own people who have become colonized in their way of thinking and have a big resistance to aboriginal women becoming chiefs or being part of the decision-making process. That's why I think the macro solution is definitely ideal for us, but not the smaller steps where we have an open door already to enter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Ms. Smith for five minutes.

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

I'm deferring to Ms. Davidson. She and I are sharing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Sure.

Ms. Davidson.

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

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank each of the presenters. I think we've heard some excellent comments today. I don't think it's anything we haven't heard; it's the same issue coming forward.

I am particularly interested in the rural aspect of things. I have been highly involved in rural issues. I come from a rural riding and have been in municipal politics at the local level for 26 years. You can't be involved in municipal politics without being involved in the pulse of the community. We're fortunate because we've always had women involved in politics in Lambton County, so maybe we're a different dynamic.

We had a pilot project for the best start program for the child care program in Lambton County--the rural pilot project. I was warden of the county when that took place, so I was very involved in initiating that program and getting it up and running. I watched it very closely. Although it was funded by federal money, it was negotiated with the province. The program was put together by the province and the county, not the federal government.

In checking with the director of that program last week, all of those spaces are still being created, and it is certainly going ahead. They were very proactive and renegotiated with the province, because the dollars are still going to the province. That project is still happening. So it can happen, but it takes collaboration and cooperation.

I know that things like isolation, lack of services, lack of transportation and job opportunities, and the welfare payment levels are all particular challenges in a rural community. They're challenges that you don't see in other communities. I don't have the answers for them. I was involved in trying to set up a transportation network in a rural community, and it's a huge challenge. So I really commend you, Colleen, on what you're doing, because it's a huge issue. We've had some success in my community, but you need to have a lot of cooperation. It requires cooperation and collaboration from all of the groups involved. So I have a bit of interest and background in that, and I know how hard you're working.

Do you have any particular suggestions about how we can do better down the road for women who are living in poverty in rural areas? Is there something we can put in place to give them some type of security when they become seniors? They won't have pensions because they don't have income. How can we start addressing that?

I know we need to address it at a younger level so they have some security once they become seniors, so where do we start with that? Is it follow-the-child funding, if they have children? Is it a payment or reimbursement for staying home and working at home on the farm and raising a family?

[Colleen Purdon]

I think the recommendation we had was for some kind of guaranteed income.

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

What does that mean, though?