Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Yukon.
I am indeed pleased to speak on the motion that the opposition has put forward today on equality and opportunity for women in this country. While there are many different aspects to speak to on this motion, I am choosing to speak on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the concerns expressed by women there and what it meant to them, on advocacy, and, because I know the program well and because it is located in Winnipeg, the court challenges program.
Many in this House will know that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women was struck in the fall of 2004. It came about on the initiative of three of the parties in the House and the concurrence of four parties. As an aside, I think it is important to note in the discussion that there was a request by members opposite to eliminate this committee this year, which gives me great cause for concern.
I was pleased to serve as the first chair of this committee. In order to establish its work plan, the committee heard from women from across Canada as to their priorities. Many appeared before the committee. We heard from 38 witnesses representing a wide spectrum of views and priorities. They included the YWCA, the Quebec Native Women, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, REAL Women, and the list goes on.
The committee heard that there was a concern over the lack of attention given by the government to women's issues and to substantive equality. We were urged to look at systemic barriers to women, most particularly those for women of colour, immigrant women and aboriginal women. We heard about racial discrimination. We were challenged to address a number of ways of improving the well-being of women.
Some organizations felt that the interests of women were best served by addressing women in the family unit. Other groups focused on a rights based approach to equality.
We heard much about the concerns of aboriginal women. We heard about the legal and jurisdictional mazes they had to wend their way through. We heard about the issues of particular concern to Métis women.
Four major themes arose from the six weeks of public consultation.
The first overriding theme was the matter of federal funding to women's organizations and the equality-seeking organizations, and their ability to provide service and advocate for equality.
The second theme dealt with poverty, with the incidence of poverty, the lack of access to pension benefits, social assistance, the wage gap, and affordable housing, and the list again goes on.
The third theme was the critical need to increase the capacity of the federal government to deal with the whole issue of gender based analysis, the analysis of policies, programs and budgets put out through federal programs.
Finally, the overriding theme was the issue that we heard about, violence against women, a significant factor in the lives of women from coast to coast to coast.
These women came to the committee in good faith. They spoke in good faith. They commented on the importance of being heard by government. They commented on the fact that all four parties were at the table listening. They spoke of being treated respectfully by government. They spoke of the value of having access to government.
As a consequence, the committee responded and put out several reports recommending an increase in funding to the department for the Status of Women, recommending an increase in funding and core funding. The committee did a report on pay equity. It spoke about parental benefits. Most important, the committee did a major report on gender based analysis, which women's organizations across the country called a landmark document.
Now what do these women have? The budget of the branch of government that responded to them has been slashed by 39% of the operating dollars. Now they have name-calling and are described as marginal by those groups that have access to government.
We hear from members opposite that only the operating dollars have been cut. How do programs come about if there are no operating dollars to make them come about?
Two days ago on a television panel I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board say that the government had no interest in supporting , “lobbyists, lawyers, interest groups and advocates”.
My understanding of advocacy includes actively supporting an ideal or a cause, speaking out on an issue of concern and arguing in favour of an idea or a policy. It also includes meeting with one's member of Parliament to change a law or policy, or simply telling a neighbour or friend about the impact of a law. It is often a clear expression of support for the rights of the individual, whether it is a person with disabilities and their families, an aboriginal woman or a child denied education. Those are the characteristics of the Canada I know.
However, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board say that his government was out to get those people.
With the cuts proposed to the Status of Women program, we will see an inability to articulate for a whole host of people and a whole host of groups, including women with disabilities, women dealing with spousal violence, Métis and Inuit women, first nations women, immigrant women, migrant sex workers and the list goes on.
Who will speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, either because of lack of means, lack of knowledge, lack of power and often because of a fear of the system, which, in my mind, this week's decision gives them greater fear of the system?
I want to speak to the court challenges program because I know it well. It is located in Winnipeg and it is very much part of the landscape of human rights activity and discussion in my community. Many have and many more will speak to the court challenges program. With an operating budget of less than $1 million, it was designed to provide the opportunity for groups, members of language minorities, disabled Canadian women and aboriginal peoples, to challenge federal laws, programs or policies that were discriminatory under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Is this program being slashed again because the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, or perhaps the president himself, said that we do not fund programs that we do not believe in?
Is it because REAL Women, who have the ear of the government, point to this program as being made up of “radical leftists, homosexual and feminist groups funding their own activities”, or is it because the court challenges program supported Democracy Watch, which intervened when the Prime Minister was head of the National Citizens Coalition when a challenge was made to the constitutionality of third party spending limits?
Let me tell the House about Mary. Some members may have read about Mary in the newspaper. Mary is a severely disabled young woman for whom the court challenges program made a huge difference in her life and the life of her family. Mary, her sister, Sarah, and her parents live in my riding. I have met with them often and I see them in the community at a whole host of various events.
Mary was born with multiple disabilities and was hospitalized for over a year. When it was time for one of Mary's parents to access the employment insurance program, the parent was denied employment insurance on the basis that the parent could not access it because of time limits. The court challenges program provided the opportunity for Mary and her family to benefit by this program.
For many, the court challenges program has been critical. The case of Lesiuk v. Canada and the EI system; R v. Darrach, the rape shield system; and the case of Doreen Demas, aboriginal women and their concerns.
The court challenges program is important. It provides opportunity for those who cannot otherwise speak out and it is being chastised by the government and being cut off. It is one of the tools of government that allows people to seek redress to the real challenges of equality.
I submit that the decisions of the government are draconian, mean-spirited and deliberately directed at the 60% to 65% of Canadians who do not endorse its agenda.
