Status of Women Committee on May 26th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

You can elaborate as we move on, but I have to keep to the timing. I'm sorry, Ms. Phillips. Maybe you can say what you have to say in the next question you get a chance at.

For the NDP, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much for being here. I appreciate the fact that you have come. I'm going to ask very short questions because I don't like to take up a lot of time with excessive preambles. I'm here to hear what you have to say.

The first question is this. There's been a suggestion from some groups--and they call my office from time to time--that if they're critical of the government, this is a very vindictive government and they fear for their funding. I believe that is a real concern for many. This brings me to the question, why are you here today?

[Shannon Phillips]

We are here because we were asked, but not just that. I think we were asked because we've spoken out. We are here to talk about the very real impact that this seemingly extremely arbitrary decision has made in our small community. That is why we are here today.

We honestly felt we had nothing to lose. Status of Women is our primary source of funding, and when we don't have that, we have to scramble to try to meet the needs in our community. We don't have anything to lose by at least pointing out that this was perhaps not a very well thought out decision and that it could potentially be revisited. That's why we're here.

We owe it to the women that we speak up for, that we serve; we owe it to the women's movement in Alberta, which is increasingly small. We don't have a status of women ministry in Alberta; we don't have an advisory council. We are the only province for whom that is the case, so we owe it to the people we represent, to our constituency, just like you have constituencies, to speak out and to stand up. It is our duty in a democracy, and if there is fear of criticism or retribution, well then I guess we'll have to wait for that to come. But I should hope that we rise a little bit above that if we purport to call ourselves a democracy.

[Jane Stinson]

Could I answer the question as well?

We're here because our organization's future is at stake, and so are the futures of other feminist organizations in Canada. We want to speak up and speak out and call for a change before feminist organizations are eliminated from any government support in this country.

[Jennifer Beeman]

We have the same reasons.

We have the luxury of speaking out; Status of Women is not our primary funding. We are so distressed to see the other groups around us going down. I can't tell you how distressed I am about Action travail des femmes, and other incredibly important women's groups have closed their doors or are on the edge of closing their doors. They work with very vulnerable populations, and they do very important work, simultaneously giving services and providing a lot of policy reflection as well. What's going on is really distressing.

[Johanne Perron]

We are in the same situation. Status of Women Canada is our main source of funding. We have worked hard for 12 years to promote pay equity. A lot of people support us. But we need resources in order for our work to continue. We considered it important to come and talk about our situation and the need to change the funding criteria so that we can do the type of work that reaches a lot of people.

I understand the concern about wanting to reach women in the trenches, but I would like to remind you that our work in defending rights reaches women in the trenches too. Let me give you an example. The work we have done in our province caused the provincial government to begin to set up pay equity programs affecting five groups of women who deliver government-mandated services. These are daycare workers, home care workers, those who work in seniors' homes, group homes or shelters for victims of domestic violence. So this is a pay equity program that will provide more economic stability for about 10,000 women in the province. That is a lot of women, after all. We are not in a position to provide them with higher salaries. But we have succeeded in convincing our government to do what is necessary for salaries to be fairer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have about a minute and a half.

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

When the field was broadened in terms of allowing for-profit groups and private sector groups to access the funding, I was very concerned. Do any of you have similar concerns?

[Jane Stinson]

I think someone else said it so well. It was broadened in the sense that more money was provided, but it was restricted in terms of feminist groups' access to it. Broadening the groups that could apply didn't help us; it provides more competition, I suppose, to feminist groups that are trying to get their money.

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

And by consequence to the promotion of women's equality.

[Jane Stinson]

Absolutely. It takes a back seat.

[Johanne Perron]

It is also important to remember that groups like ours cannot knock on a number of doors to get funding. Some groups can access funding from several departments, but for others, it is much more difficult. In fact, it conflicts with our mandate.

[Shannon Phillips]

For us it was very alarming that private sector groups and other for-profit organizations were receiving funding when an organization that pays its staff less than a living wage for the hours that we put in to serve low-income women did not get funded.

As far as I know, we had a multi-billion-dollar economic stimulus package in this country for private business; I'm not sure why they also have to knock on the door of Status of Women Canada. It makes very little sense to me, and I know it makes very little sense to the low-income women with whom we work that we can no longer help them with their various issues having to do with financial independence and asset-building, while private sector organizations have gotten funding instead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Phillips.

I'm going to move into the second round. The second round is a five-minute round, similar to the first one but five minutes instead.

I will begin with Ms. Simson for the Liberals.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses. It's been very interesting listening to what has transpired.

I'd like to quickly ask all of you if you were alarmed or in any way tentative.... Was that a recent event? Or was it the fact that three to four years ago the regional offices basically were shut down for Status of Women and then we saw a new mandate change in terms of the actual ministry? Did that set off alarm bells back then, before your funding was actually cut?

[Jennifer Beeman]

Yes. In 2006, women's groups starting mobilizing, and that's when groups started going down. The National Association of Women and the Law was one of the first groups. This group was such an important group for analysis of the impact of laws on women. There was nothing like it, and there is nothing like it now. It doesn't exist anymore because of the decisions, so we would--

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

You could maybe see a change in ideology.

[Jennifer Beeman]

Yes, absolutely.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Absolutely, okay.

We heard from my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, that the shift--and you alluded to this--was that they were looking for direct service, that type of thing. My colleague, Ms. Boucher, said they wanted to help women directly.

I wonder if you have a comment on something that I found ironic. I'm new to the committee, in the past few months, and one of our first orders of business was to approve the estimates for the actual ministry. What I found bizarre, and I think this flies in the face of what's being sold to your groups, is that $317,000 was carved out of the Status of Women to fund a ballet production. I guess I'm wondering what kind of a service that provides. They said the ballet is going to be on the issue of violence against women, but I fail to see that as a service; it may be an education or awareness issue.

I wonder if any of you would care to comment on that.

Shannon.

[Shannon Phillips]

Well, $317,000 is almost precisely what we asked for, for phase two of our project. We would have served thousands of women with that in southern Alberta. For us, that is alarming,

What I really want to make sure people take home today is that these decisions have consequences, and they have very serious consequences in southern Alberta for the thousands of women we serve.

We did change our focus to service when the mandate was changed. The reason we did that is because we don't have any alternatives in Alberta. There are very significant problems with women's economic inequality in Alberta. We have some of the highest pay gaps, for example. We have some of the highest levels of poverty among families headed by female lone parents, with 24% of those families living in poverty in Alberta as opposed to 16% nationally. As a result of the recession, our income support caseloads have gone from 27,000 to over 40,000 in a year and a half in Alberta as people exhaust their EI benefits. The recession has hit people hard.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

So your assessment could be that we could actually be looking at a penny-wise, pound foolish decision, because there are economic ramifications for a lot of the women you provide for and advocate for.

[Shannon Phillips]

Absolutely. The work of equality is not done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 45 seconds in which to ask this question.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Okay. This one is for Ms. Perron.

At the time the economic action plan was announced and it became clear that pay equity was a bargaining chip in a union contract, did your organization become vocal with respect to that particular insert into this action plan?

[Johanne Perron]

We did take a position against that particular act because we felt it was weakening the right to pay equity for women. We spoke about it. We would have spoken out no matter what government would have done that.