Status of Women Committee on Dec. 4th, 2007

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

It is my understanding that the administration of the court challenges program has been dominated by individuals who are also members of the equality-seeking organizations. Ms. Day, for instance, would be a prime example of that.

Am I correct in my understanding, and if so, what impact did that have on the impartiality of this program?

[Shelagh Day]

I'd appreciate a chance to answer that, particularly given Ms. Landolt's comments.

I should start by saying that neither “feminist” nor “lesbian” is a bad word in my lexicon, but I sense that they are in Ms. Landolt's. I'm very proud of being a lesbian and very proud of being a feminist. To me, being a feminist means that I believe in the equality of women. I have believed that all of my life, and I've spent a good part of my life working for it.

The record that I have, only part of which Ms. Landolt has given you, is very long in terms of equality rights law, human rights law, working with women's organizations, advancing the equality of women, and I am proud of that record.

I know that one criticism of the court challenges program is that there is somehow a close connection between the groups that have been funded by the program and the structure of the program, and I'd like to answer that, because I think that's the substantive point here.

There is nothing that should be criticized about this. In fact, this is the strength of the court challenges program. In its history, it has had various incarnations. It started out as a program inside government, but when the equality rights section came along and we added that to the program, it was clear that it could not be run by government. It had to be outside. It had to be done independently by a third party, because government couldn't be in the position of deciding who it would give funds to, to challenge its own laws and policies.

So it was clear that it needed to go outside. It went first to the Canadian Council on Social Development, then to the University of Ottawa, to the human rights centre. Then after it had been cancelled by the Conservatives and restored, it was clear that it actually needed to be an independent body of its own. At that time we had a consultation that was presided over by Price Waterhouse. There was a big consultation report. The recommendation made was that there be a collaborative relationship among the groups that need the funding for these challenges; the bar, represented by the Canadian Bar Association; and academia, represented by the council of law deans. That's the structure that was then set up.

It seems to me that, as with every other body we can look to, what you do in a circumstance like this, democratically, is put in charge of a program the people who really have expertise in the area. So you want to people such a program with the people who really know about equality rights law and who really understand what the problems are that need to be addressed. Essentially, that's what's happened with the court challenges program. It is fundamentally premised on a principle that we recognize that there are certain groups in Canada who are still suffering from inequalities of various kinds, and that therefore we need to help them in their advancement to equality, and that they understand best what those particular problems are. So we put in the structure itself the expertise and the knowledge, both legal and from the community perspective. I think it's an extraordinary strength of the program that it is constructed in that way. It is not something to be attacked.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Thank you, Ms. Day.

I know we want to hear from Ms. Landolt, Ms. Atcheson, and Ms. Hutchison, each for a very limited time, please.

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

I think a matter should be clarified here. All Canadian women want equality. There are different avenues and different ways to achieve it. But what we have here are the radical feminists deciding what equality is, using the taxpayers' money, and we all have to follow their definition. Ms. Day was the one who defined equality. She put it into one of the government reports. Every woman believes in equality. REAL Women has, as one of its articles of incorporation.... It's in our name--

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Thank you.

I would like to hear from Ms. Atcheson and Ms. Hutchison. There is very limited time.

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

Okay, sure.

I just want to make it clear that not only some people believe in equality. All women do.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Ms. Atcheson.

[Elizabeth Atcheson]

Just very briefly, I believe that under the order of reference that the committee has, it's possible for the committee to separate, perhaps, the principles--many of which we're talking about in terms of access, in terms of how we look at our democracy, how we build our democracy--from, in some ways, the details of the current design of the court challenges program. We are more than 15 years into life with our charter. There's often no harm in taking another look. I don't know whether Pandora was a radical lesbian feminist, and I don't want to open a Pandora's box, but it seems to me that it behooves us to look at the principles that this is intending to achieve. If we have better ways of doing it, if we've learned some things along the way, that's a good thing, and I would urge the committee to do that.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Thank you.

Ms. Hutchison, please.

[Carmela Hutchison]

Thank you.

I just want to say that the reason I got involved with DAWN Canada's board is because I have a Pentecostal friend who is quadriplegic, who begged me from a sickbed to please go. When I suggested to her that she might consider the possibility of running for the board, she indicated to me that she was too sick to travel safely because of all of the restrictions and barriers. I know that even my own safety is jeopardized by those restrictions and barriers.

I am a deeply Christian woman. I'm here on my 28th wedding anniversary, with my mother-in-law as my caregiver to assist me, because our family deeply believes very passionately that we must love all people and that it's not our place, but God's place, to make judgments. I'm here also to uphold the rights of a war bride who is currently fighting a hospital system that is trying to send her husband to an early demise. They feel he's going to die anyway, so if it's two weeks sooner, what's the point.

So these are the things.... And I also have served in this government's military. Currently, even though I'm on disability, I pay taxes, and I am the main income earner of my family. So I too am a self-reliant woman and a Christian one.

I would just like to say that you don't represent all the views of mainstream women necessarily.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Thank you very much.

Now I'm going to ask questions on behalf of the NDP caucus. I'll ask the clerk to keep a very close eye.

My first question is a general one, please, to anyone who would like to answer. Does cancellation of the court challenges program contradict our obligations under CEDAW?

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

REAL Women is an NGO with consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the UN. As such, we've attended over 35 UN meetings and we happen to know a great deal about CEDAW.

What happened is at Deep Cove, New York, in December 1996, it was decided by a group of feminists--one of them was from Canada, the University of Toronto--and the heads of the UN sections that they would use CEDAW and all the other reporting groups in order to interpret it according to a radical feminist agenda. And if anybody wants to dispute me, I have a copy of that document.

Since 1996 CEDAW has been promoting an agenda that is not accepted worldwide, and certainly is not accepted by many Canadian women. So anything CEDAW says is not to be taken seriously, because you know, they're reinterpreting all the seven human rights treaties according to their feminist agenda. I wouldn't pay attention to what CEDAW says.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Thank you. Could you forward that document?

Ms. Day.

[Shelagh Day]

Article 3 of the convention says that signatories to the convention are to take all appropriate measures to advance the equality of women. That essentially puts an obligation on the Canadian government as a signatory to take proactive measures, to take steps to ensure that women advance to equality. The court challenges program is one of those steps it has taken. Now it has de-funded the program. It's required, under article 2, to have legal measures and mechanisms in place to ensure that women can exercise their rights to equality. Again, the court challenges program is clearly one such measure. The de-funding of the program, then, would contravene that obligation.

I will be most interested when Canada is reviewed again to see what the CCR committee has to say if the de-funding is still in place. I hope it is not.

I'd like to remind the committee, so I'm turning to the Conservative members of the committee to ask them very sincerely to reconsider this de-funding. It's essential to women in Canada that we have access to the exercise of those rights. I want to remind the members that when the program was cancelled before, in 1992 by Kim Campbell, she then reconsidered and changed her mind. She said in 1993 that if the Conservatives were elected they would reinstate the program.

I think that's extraordinarily important, because I think it's fundamental to the exercise of rights in this country.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Thank you.

It's my sense that the court challenges program is unique. Canada was a pioneer in that regard. How is this program viewed by the international community, and have we lost our international reputation in cancelling it?

I'm going to go to Ms. McIvor to answer.

[Sharon McIvor]

I just wanted to say that if you read Canada's report to the CEDAW committee, they've always put the court challenges program forward as one of the measures they have taken to help comply with the obligations they've undertaken.

I know that Canada does hold up the court challenges program as one of the significant measures. If you're looking at the outside community, there have been other countries that have looked at our program to see if it would be suitable for them. So it is a program that is internationally recognized as a very forward step Canada has taken.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Thank you.

Professor Buss.

[Doris Buss]

I think it's important to remember that something like the court challenges program fits in with a larger profile that Canada historically has in terms of its role in the international community. I make these comments as a professor of international human rights law, and I say the evidence we have, to date, is that Canada's role in the international community has seriously eroded over the last several years, and it's an important step. When we start to de-fund programs like that, we are feeding into a larger degeneration of our authority to speak and act on the global stage.

I also want to make a comment about the discussion we've had so far. The remit of this committee is to consider how the de-funding of this program has impacted on minority women and aboriginal women, in particular. I want to keep them front and centre because it's the rights of those ordinary Canadians that are very much at stake here.

When we're talking about what are the gains of the CCP, I think we also need to think about what some of the potential losses are that we're going to experience in the future. Some of the major gains we've achieved have been in the areas of sexual violence against women, an area which Canada has been a world leader in combatting.

What we're seeing now is there have been several cases coming up to the lower levels of the court that are attacking the gains we've made in protecting women who are victims of sexual violence from defendants who are seeking to have access to their records, in protecting them from onerous cross-examination. Those gains are very much under attack and we no longer have the funding to protect them.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Professor Jackman, less than a minute, I'm sorry.

[Martha Jackman]

I just wanted to make the point that in addition to the CEDAW committee, the UN committees reviewing the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the UN committee reviewing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, have also commented favourably on the existence of the court challenges program. So even if you believe that CEDAW is a feminist conspiracy, I don't know if we could tarnish all international human rights with that brush.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Thank you very much.

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

I would like to say that in fact all of the committees were involved in that meeting in Deep Cove.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

No, I'm sorry, we have to go on to Ms. Minna for five minutes.

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

I'll split with Mr. Pearson, that's fine.

First of all, thank you for coming.

The cases like “no means no”.... I do not want us to lose our way here on the most important things we're addressing today, to some degree, because there are some very fundamental cases. “No means no” is something that went to the Supreme Court. It would not have happened had it not been there, I don't think.

The aboriginal women having to pay into CPP but could not collect went to the Supreme Court. So for them to get their rights, it had to go there.

Even mothers and fathers, in terms of being able to declare their children who were born abroad as citizens.... Fathers could, mothers couldn't. Let's be realistic about some of the fundamental things we've been talking about here.

Having been a minister at the international level, I can tell you that Canada at all international meetings around the world has a tremendous amount of reputation because of this piece. The CEDAW is a major piece of that. That is supported by many countries.

I just want to know what kinds of cases from LEAF are now in the pipeline that you think will be jeopardized as a result of having lost this.

Very quickly, Ms. Buss, from LEAF, and then maybe Ms. Day, so we can go on to my colleague.

[Doris Buss]

I probably pre-empted your question a little, but I thought we were running out of time.

We have had some gains in terms of protecting access to third-party records in sexual violence cases. We now find that there are cases coming up through the system in which defendants are challenging and wanting very broad, very unrestrained access to third-party records. That would take us right back to where we were in the 1980s, before we had all of these gains. That's a lot of money spent for not very much.

We could stop those cases now. We could provide the court with effective information to make a reasoned and balanced decision, to have a full and fair hearing, but we're prevented from doing so. There are cases that are very difficult to access. There are cases that are very difficult to research. We can't keep tabs on them all, and very slowly, piece by piece, they're eroding those gains that are so important for protecting anyone who is a victim of violence. That would be one area.

I think another area we're starting to see in Canada is the impact of things like third-country agreements and the position of agricultural workers. All of those are cases in which we are being restricted in our ability to give the court the information it needs to make an authoritative decision.