Status of Women Committee on June 4th, 2009

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

I'm just looking for a yes or no--it's not that broad--and why.

[Prof. Margot Young]

I think my answer was a yes.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

(Inaudible--Editor)...justice in that area, is what you're saying.

And what about you, Joanna?

[Joanna Birenbaum]

I don't think there's any question that unions have played a very important role in protecting and advancing the rights of workers, but unions have been somewhat less successful in dealing with the inequities within the.... Unions are made up of people, and if you have the vast majority of a union made up of men in various positions, and then you have less powerful voices within the union, that comes into play in the collective bargaining process.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

It does with our salary and with our health benefits.

Susan, what do you think?

[Susan Russell]

As someone who's actually never had a union, there are times when I have wished that I had a union to help me out. I did not have the information. I did not have the backing. I did not know where to turn. So I am personally very much in favour of unions, and I would have them negotiate for me any day.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

I think that's what I was trying to say: we feel that if we have a union negotiating, then we can be pretty sure of our salary and our health.

My next question is why you feel pay equity does not belong in a union. When we are the first to say that our salary and our health benefits are very assured and we can be guaranteed the justice of these things, why then are we so hesitant to put pay equity in there and consider that an important part of what we are asking to have? Why do we not feel that we're going to get the justice and the...? I feel that when I sign a contract, my contract includes all that is beneficial to me, and I would feel that pay equity would be one of those things. So I feel that by taking pay equity out of our union and out of our negotiations, we are saying it is something that is not as important as the other things; therefore, I don't see it the same way as you do. By taking pay equity out, we have to fight, then, and we seem to be wanting to have this fight, whereas if we put it in our negotiations and left it there, the same way as we have all our other benefits, we could be guaranteed that they're there. So I don't understand why we're taking them out just to make an issue. We could put it i in our negotiations and leave it there, and only fight when it comes about that we're not getting it. That's what I see.

[Joanna Birenbaum]

It's a good question. There are a number of answers to that, and I'll give you two.

First of all, the model you're suggesting proposes a false dichotomy. You're suggesting that unless pay equity is constrained and confined to the collective bargaining process, the union isn't involved in pay equity. That's simply not the case, and that's not what is being suggested by, for example, the pay equity task force. What is being suggested is that in a separate process--which can possibly inform the collective bargaining process, but in a separate process--the union engages with the employer with respect to pay equity.

That's one response. The second concern, as various members of employers groups have represented to this committee--whether or not this is an accurate characteristic of collective bargaining, or for all workplaces--is that when they come to the table, they ultimately have a certain amount of money that they are able to devote to the collective bargaining process, and they see the union as playing a role in distributing those benefits.

That necessarily suggests, then, that the union has to make a decision between allocating zero funds to pay equity, or maybe 5% of what women are entitled to. It necessarily puts the union as having to make compromises in the process, or to trade off fundamental human rights. It also potentially pits workers within the bargaining units against each other in a way that's not respectful of human rights.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

But that's when we fight. That's when we stand up and fight.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you, Ms. O'Neill-Gordon, for your question.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank our three witnesses today. We very much appreciate the fact that you've been with us, two of you in person and one by video conference.

Actually, Ms. Young, we must tell you, you've been frozen in position for about the past half-hour or so. But we have heard your voice very clearly.

[Prof. Margot Young]

I hope it's a good position.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Again, thank you very much on behalf of the committee. We have certainly appreciated your testimony today.

At this time, we do have some further business that the committee needs to attend to. The first thing will be the motion presented by Ms. Hoeppner. Everybody has a copy of that motion. Once we have dealt with the motion, we'll be going in camera.

Ms. Hoeppner, would you like to present your motion and speak to it, please?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I've presented this motion because I do believe that this committee has an obligation--

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Would you read it into the record first, please?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Sure.

I so move the following:

That the Standing Committee on the Status of Women call on Parliament to support aboriginal women living on reserves. That in the event of a marriage or common law relationship breakdown, women living on reserve be afforded the same rights and protections as all other Canadian women currently enjoy.

I feel it's important that we as a committee bring this to Parliament so that we send a strong signal that we want to see this resolved, and we want to see this resolved quickly. I think it has to be done quickly.

I can tell you from personal experience about the cases of women in my riding who are living on reserves. We don't want to hear this, but the fact is that a woman who has a disagreement with an ex-partner who may have a relative in leadership is, at times, punished because they are not related to the right people.

I find it just atrocious that these women do not have the same rights as all other Canadian women enjoy. I think we have an obligation to speak up for these women, because they really have no voice.

I think it's important to recognize that not all official organizations speak for all women. When we have aboriginal women who are suffering under an absence of protection, we obviously know that they're not being protected. To use an analogy, it would be like making it legal to hit a woman on first nations reserves; we'd say that's preposterous and we have to stop it.

Yes, we want aboriginal people to find their solutions and to find culturally appropriate solutions, but at the base of it, we need to establish some clear rules that it's not right that women and men living on reserves do not have the same property rights when it comes to a relationship breakdown.

If we can move this motion forward, I think we will at least send a strong signal to Parliament that we want to see women have the same rights as the rest of Canadians. I think we will also send a message to Canadian women. A lot of Canadian women have other situations in which they're vulnerable, and I think we need to say that we're listening to them. The different groups and organizations are important, but we also have to listen to those who are maybe not represented by the groups and organizations.

Again, I'm hearing from the women who come to see me that they really feel they have no voice. They feel there's nobody they can go to. It is, unfortunately, the way that some of the systems are set up.

That is why I have brought this motion forward. I think it's important that we pass this motion and bring it forward.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Are there questions or comments?

Ms. Neville.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't think there is anybody on this committee who doesn't agree that it's important for first nations women living on reserve to have recourse to matrimonial real property rights.

I have significant concerns about this motion coming forward in this committee. I think it's an effort to do through the back door what can't be done through the front door.

I know the women in your riding who have had the problem. I've had them in my living room. I've bought them diapers. I've bought them a number of amenities that they needed, so I know their situation well.

But I can't support this motion. I don't believe it's incumbent upon us, as non-aboriginal people, to tell aboriginal communities how they should resolve their issues. Accordingly, Madam Chair, I am proposing an amendment, and I have copies of it here, and I will read it into the record:

That the Standing Committee on the Status of Women call on the government to support First Nations women living on reserve by conducting consultations as per its legal duty to consult with those affected by marital breakdown. This should include First Nations women and families, First Nations communities, Regional Aboriginal Associations, and National Aboriginal Organizations. The consultations should ensure that an appropriate resolution to the issue of matrimonial real property is found that meets the needs of all those who are affected.

And I will speak to it, Madam Chair--

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

First of all, I'm not sure that the amendment is in order. It sounds like a different motion. It's changing the intent, I think, of what this motion--

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

We checked it out and were advised that it did not. If you want to read it--

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

I just heard it when you read it, and as I have--

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

Okay, do you want to read it?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

I do, because as I've heard it, I don't think I can accept it as an amendment.

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

Okay. That's fine.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

It was a subamendment.

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

No, it's an amendment.