Status of Women Committee on Dec. 4th, 2007

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, my question is for Ms. Day.

I was a firefighter for 30 years before I retired to come on to this job a year ago. We fought very hard about 11 or 12 years ago to try to remove the barriers to women becoming firefighters. It was hugely difficult and finally successful.

I also direct a food bank in London and work with other Ontario food banks trying to deal with the barriers to women who are suffering some pretty acute cases of poverty, especially in aboriginal circles, in what they're trying to do. I am very much aware that at all various levels of government, this is a real issue.

I would like to ask you, Ms. Day--because when you were speaking you spoke about provinces and working with the government--could you maybe fill us in a bit on just what some of the provinces are trying to do, how they are seeking to maybe handle some of this if there is a gap because of the lack of the court challenges funding?

[Shelagh Day]

I'd say there's a huge gap at the provincial level because of the lack of court challenges funding, and I don't think there's anything that fills it. It has been a concern of everyone in the community. You can go back in the records from the beginning of the court challenges program. Groups and all of us were saying we have to have this applied to provincial laws and policies as well.

One of the reasons we've been saying that is that provincial laws of course deal with social assistance, housing, employment, education, and so many things that are just fundamental. We have the charter rights there, but we actually have no access to using them.

It would be nice if we could say that legal aid somehow has provided a route for people to do that, but in fact when we look across the country it has not, so it hasn't been an alternative route for people at the provincial level. I would say we still have that big gap, and we need not only to have the court challenges program restored but also to have it expanded to provincial jurisdiction, as we have been saying for the last 22 years.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

All right. Thank you.

[Martha Jackman]

Ontario is one of the few provinces in which the legal aid system has a test case litigation fund, and it's actually increased the pressure on that fund unbearably, because suddenly they have applicants who formerly might have gone to the court challenges program.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Madame Boucher, you have five minutes.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I would like to thank our witnesses for coming to discuss this topic, which can accurately be described as a burning issue, in light of the circumstances. That is the message being heard around the table.

I would to remind you that this government gave an unprecedented amount of $15.3 million to the Women's Program, as well as $29.9 million a year to Status of Women Canada, which is a record.

Ms. Buss, to your knowledge, have other countries, had a program like the Court Challenges Program? If so, were they effective and did they produce concrete results?

[Doris Buss]

I'm not in a very good position to answer that question. Is there anyone else?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Can anyone answer?

[Elizabeth Atcheson]

I can't answer the status part, but I think I can speak to the international part.

Virtually every country that has emerged from whatever kind of government into a democracy--China, eastern Europe, African countries--has come to Canada; they are looking to us for our models and our leadership. So it's not that there are other examples so much as they see us as a model. Many countries have vast constitutional protections but no means to enforce them. They come here to talk to us.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

All right.

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

I'd like to make a comment with regard to the question of equality under the UN treaties. It's how you define it. Obviously there are different definitions. And as I say, the CEDAW document requires an interpretation. That may be their interpretation, but every time the court challenges program has been mentioned in a report to CEDAW, you will note a Liberal government reported it, and they founded that court challenge, not the Conservatives.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

That does not answer my question. I would like to ask other questions, please.

Ms. Day, aside from governments, do you have any other sources of funding? Do you carry out any fundraising activities for your respective organizations?

[Martha Jackman]

I would like to answer, Madam Chair. That is a very good question. The National Association of Women and Law lost its funding for promoting women's equality. The association is not eligible to receive new funding from Status of Women, because the criterion was eliminated. The funding was increased but overall, organizations that promote women's equality are no longer eligible.

We are always trying to fund-raise, but, as we have explained, it is not easy to collect funds to promote equality for women and girls. If some think we can solicit charitable donations for this cause on an equal footing with other groups, they misunderstand the importance of the goals of these organizations within Canadian parliamentary democracy.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Before becoming an MP, I worked in the community sector, and we were able to collect money in other ways, for example, through fund-raising campaigns.

Ms. Day, are you able to raise funds other than from governments?

[Shelagh Day]

Let me say first of all about the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action, yes, we do get money from other sources. It's not a lot. We're trying to figure out ways to get more money from other sources. As far as I'm concerned, I'm in complete agreement with Professor Jackman. This is not a substitute for money from government to support women's activities.

Part of the understanding we have had with governments is that because women are so under-represented in the formal places of government, we should be able to have some support from the taxpayers to allow us to participate better. And that's what this funding has been about.

But let me say something about this kind of funding in particular. The charitable tax laws currently say that litigation is not a charitable activity. That means under our current tax laws you cannot raise money to support a piece of litigation. So you cannot get a tax receipt if you're raising money for a particular piece of litigation that is not a charitable activity.

When we lose the court challenges program, we cannot go directly, under our current tax laws, to raise money privately with any advantage.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Madame Thi Lac, please.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you very much.

I'm very pleased to meet you today. I've heard many touching things, but I've also heard things that I find terribly shocking.

I am in full agreement with my colleague for Beauport—Limoilou when she talked about the need to promote women. But this is useless if women's groups do not have the funds to defend themselves. There is a serious problem from the outset.

With respect to the specific cases, I know that a number of them were lost individually, but they also became very important cases for the entire community. Thank you.

My question is addressed mainly to Ms. Landolt. When you talk about equality, you must bear in mind that more often than not, women are the victims. We cannot talk about equality when we come to the rescue of victims. And women are victims more often than other social groups.

In addition, when I hear you talk about taxpayers' money, never forget that women make up 52% of the population. They are taxpayers too.

The first question I have for you is the following: Which cases argued under the program do you disagree with? Are they cases involving rape? Are they cases pertaining to promoting the rights of the disabled? What is your definition of feminism?

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

First of all, my definition is what the dictionary says: equality for women socially, economically, and politically. That is understood, and I think most women in Canada would agree with it. But you have a different interpretation from the special interest groups of feminists.

For example, you mentioned the rape shield law. We do not agree with that. We believe that when a man is accused, he should be treated as fairly before the courts as a women would be. That means that if his sexual history is part of the evidence, why is hers not?

We do not agree with them with regard to third-party records. Why? Because the sexual assault centres are not necessarily accurate about what happened. They should be allowed to disclose their material, in fairness, to a court so there can be a balanced judgment.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I am sorry, I would ask that you make your answers brief, as I have several questions to ask.

When you talk about the law, what do you think about protecting women, who are often victims? These programs are there to help women who have been victimized. I've heard you talk about the legal aspect, I would now like to hear you talk about protection. This is another issue that must be discussed regarding the program.

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

Well, number one, not all women are victims. Some women are, whether they're aboriginal women, or whatever. There are exceptions. But the vast majority of women are not victims of the so-called patriarchal society.

Look at the universities. There are more women there than there are men. Fifty-nine percent of the medical school graduates now are women. In law school it is fifty-five percent.

I am a lawyer, and I know that women are not necessarily victims. Some are, and I gave you two examples of them. We do believe that women should be protected from rape. But we object to the sexual assault law because it does not give balance. You have to be fair. You have to be fair in the courts of law and not give the upper hand to one side that is before the court. And that's what's happened with the rape shield law. A woman's sexual history is never disclosed, but the man's is.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I would also like to hear the other panellists talk about protection. What does the program do to protect women?

[Shelagh Day]

I think the things that are being mentioned here.... In fact, women made very important interventions to say that what we call rape shield laws were absolutely essential to women being equal in this society.

One of the key cases along this line, which was mentioned very briefly this morning, was the case against Bishop O'Connor. You'll remember Bishop O'Connor in British Columbia, who in fact was a bishop who had been in charge of a residential school. He had sexually abused the girls who were in the residential school. When they made complaints of rape and sexual abuse against him, he wanted to get their records, which, as the person in control of the school, he had controlled.

Women intervened to say that this was not a fair circumstance for the girls who were making the complaints against this very high official who had all his power. They said that if in fact you wanted to protect women properly, you could not allow him, in this circumstance, to have access to the records he was actually involved in creating in the first place and now wanted to use to defend himself. Those were extraordinarily important principles. They still are.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Thank you very much. I'm sorry, we have to move on.

Ms. McIvor, I want to ask you a question. We've heard today that fundraising is the solution to financing these cases. Could you explain why it wasn't an option in your case? And could you elaborate in terms of the fact that you don't seem to be able to proceed? What is your current situation?

[Sharon McIvor]

I am a single working mother. I earn a decent living to provide for my family. I have no disposable income whatsoever. I don't belong to an organization that has the capacity to raise money. I come from a background of poverty.

Ms. Landolt, if your organization would like to help me, I would much appreciate it. I'm one of the women in Canada the organizations speak for, but when I went looking for support and for financing, these radical feminists were there and helped out.

It's appalling. I'm sitting here listening to dialogue as if those rights enshrined in the charter mean nothing. You've got a Canadian system that says if there are violations, you can go to court. You can have your day in court, right? What happens if in order to get your day in court you've got to hand over $50,000? Who has $50,000? Which Indian woman has $50,000 that's not spent...? If she had it, she probably wouldn't need that kind of protection.

We have so many women in poverty, who don't have access to money. Our women don't even have access to proper housing, proper medical care, or anything. You're saying the program is gone.

And I see Ms. Landolt aligning herself with our Conservative people, and that's why I'm in tears to think my government will turn its back and say you've got money; you can raise your own money; you don't have to look to the government.

The government put the restrictions in place. It's legislation they've put into place. The government put the charter in place for us to use, but it's useless if we can't get there. It's useless if we don't have the money to get there. Make it free. Provide me with some free legal counsel. Provide me with some free research.

But you can't do that. You're saying we should go and raise our own money.