On behalf of the membership of the Canadian Federation of University Women and the National Association of Women and the Law, we thank you for this opportunity to present today.
CFUW is a non-partisan, self-funded organization with over 10,000 women graduates and students in 118 clubs in across Canada. We work to further women's human rights and education globally. The National Association of Women and the Law is a national non-profit women's organization that promotes the equality rights of women through legal education, research, and law reform advocacy.
Our concern today over the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act begins with its introduction as part of the 2009 budget package. Parliament was not able to evaluate the legislation independently of the budget. Given that the law aims to change existing legislation on pay equity for the federal public service in a manner that is not endorsed by labour unions or women's groups, this is cause for alarm.
I will list some points of particular concern with regard to the legislation itself.
First, the act suggests that “equitable compensation” should replace “pay equity”. These are not equivalent terms. Pay equity is a fundamental human right enshrined in such things as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Equitable compensation is not defined in the act. As a legal concept, equitable compensation is also untested by domestic and international human rights law.
Further, the act seeks to change the generally accepted criteria used to evaluate whether or not a female job is of equal value to a male job by inserting the words “market forces” into evaluations. When it is these same market forces that create wage inequity in the first place, it is ill-advised to include them in legislation claiming to create equitable compensation.
The act represents a deliberate marginalization of the 2004 pay equity task force report. In 2001 a federal pay equity task force was established. After thorough review and consultation with the stakeholders, this task force made recommendations for a new proactive pay equity system that included a pay equity commission and tribunal. These recommendations were widely supported by unions, women's advocates, and employers. It is dismaying to see the work and consensus built up through that process being pushed aside in favour of the regressive provisions of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.
This act leads to confusion between negotiated equitable compensation and proactive pay equity legislation. For example, on February 25, 2009, the Honourable Vic Toews, President of the Treasury Board, responded to a question in the House by stating, “We are simply following the recommendations of the Liberal task force in 2004 that said proactive pay equity legislation was needed.” This is a misleading statement.
The new legislation was compared to the actual recommendations in the task force itself. The task force report explicitly recommended that the process for achieving pay equity be separated from the process for negotiating collective agreements. The new legislation makes unions and employers jointly responsible for negotiating equitable compensation despite the fact that unions have no control over whether federal money is spent fairly on compensating women working in the public service.
Likewise, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act sets out equitable compensation as one issue to be discussed along with all other collective bargaining issues, rather than something to be treated separately, as it is in Manitoba. This means that the right to be free from sex discrimination in pay could be bargained away, because other issues are of more importance to the employer or to the union.
The act contains a clause that removes the right of public sector workers to file complaints on pay equity with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, thereby effectively removing pay equity as a human right of federal government employees. The act imposes a $50,000 fine on any union that would encourage or assist a member in filing a complaint, despite the fact that under Canadian labour law, unions are legally required to represent all of their members, including women. The individualistic approach taken by the act is deeply problematic because, by definition, pay equity complaints are group complaints reflecting systemic discrimination. Moreover, preventing unions from assisting in complaints means that both non-unionized and unionized women will lack the resources and information about pay rates and job descriptions needed to make a viable complaint to the Public Service Labour Relations Board.
The act defines a female-dominated group as one in which 70% of the workers are women. Only those groups can seek equitable compensation. This is a rigid definition that does nothing for job groups whose membership is 51% to 69% women. The legislation also restricts comparisons of male and female job groups so narrowly that comparisons can only be made within defined segments of the federal public service, or within federal agencies, and not across the public service as a whole.
CFUW and NAWL agree there are problems with the current pay equity regime. It is long, complex, and often unresponsive to the needs of women. However, this act does not address these problems.
Pay equity is a fundamental human right to be protected, affirmed, and championed by Parliament, as it is in legislation such as the Canadian Human Rights Act, which has recognized pay equity as a right since 1977. The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act is a dangerous move backward that effectively removes pay equity from the realm of guaranteed human rights.
We urge the committee to adopt recommendations that reflect the urgency of protecting Canadian women workers from the fundamental injustices enshrined within this law.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
:
Good morning. Thank you very much for this opportunity.
The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, LEAF, is a national, not-for-profit organization dedicated to promoting substantive equality for women and girls in Canada through legal action, research, and public education. LEAF has intervened in over 150 cases on substantive equality at the Supreme Court and at other levels and is recognized for its expertise on the inequality experienced by women in Canada.
Central to LEAF's commitment to substantive equality is addressing the inequalities suffered by women who experience discrimination on multiple and intersecting grounds, such as on the basis of aboriginal identity, race, poverty, disability, sexual orientation, and religion.
LEAF is very concerned by the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, or PSECA. The act constitutes regressive legislation that substantially erodes the fundamental human right of women who work in the federal public sector to equal pay for work of equal value.
Before discussing LEAF's concerns with the legislation, I wish briefly to emphasize the significance of pay equity for women in terms of achieving substantive equality for women in Canada.
The gender pay gap remains a pervasive reality for women across Canada. On average, women working full time earn 71% of what men earn. Women of colour earn 68% and aboriginal women earn a startling 46% of what men are paid. Sex-based wage discrimination devalues women and their work and is integrally related to other forms of employment discrimination against women, including occupational segregation, barriers to advancement, sexual harassment, and involuntary part-time employment, such that women's participation in the labour force is characterized by inequality.
Pay inequity also exacerbates women's vulnerability in ways that include increasing their financial dependence on men, even in situations where they are at risk of abuse or violence.
Discriminatory wages result in discriminatory pensions and discriminatory disability benefits. Pay equity is important for aboriginal women, younger and older women, immigrant women, women with disabilities, and women who experience racialized gender discrimination, because they are often segregated into the lowest-paid jobs, where wages are most affected by stereotyping.
As Susan Russell has already said, the right of women to pay equity has been enshrined in the Canadian Human Rights Act for 32 years. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly confirmed that statutory human rights have quasi-constitutional status in Canada. The rights of women to be free from wage discrimination in the workplace and to equal pay for work of equal value are also guaranteed by section 15 of the charter, the equality rights guarantee.
In the NAPE case in 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the cancellation of pay equity adjustments to government employees violated their section 15 equality rights, but in the specific circumstances of that case upheld the violation. Numerous international instruments ratified by Canada also recognize pay equity—and we emphasize “pay equity”, for the words “equitable compensation” are new—as a fundamental human right. These include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Conventions 100 on equal remuneration and 111 on non-discrimination of the International Labour Organization. These ILO conventions were ratified by Canada in 1951 and 1958 respectively.
In LEAF'S view, the PSECA is not consistent with Canada's statutory, constitutional, and international commitments and obligations to women's substantive equality. Prior to today, and also today, this committee has heard numerous submissions from unions and experts who have detailed the ways in which the PSECA takes away, rather than advances, the right of equality, the right of pay equity for federal public sector workers.
LEAF also refers the committee to the February 26, 2009, open letter to Stephen Harper by, among others, twelve recipients of the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case. That letter was also signed by the witness Margot Young. I provided copies to the clerk, although not translated, so you don't have them in front of you today.
LEAF supports the analyses submitted to this committee to date indicating that the act is inconsistent with women's statutory and constitutional equality rights for reasons that include: one, the act makes pay equity a matter of labour relations in collective bargaining, as opposed to an independent human right; two, the act makes the assessment of equitable compensation contingent on market forces, which are deeply influenced by the very gender biases and undervaluing of women's work that pay equity legislation is designed to challenge and overcome; three, the act narrows the right of pay equity, by limiting the scope of the right and by restricting comparisons of male and female job groups; and four, by making pay equity a joint responsibility of the union and employer, the act ignores the government's ultimate control over the purse strings in setting wage rates and it relieves the government of independent and ultimate responsibility for creating a workplace free from wage and other discrimination.
The act also ignores the systemic, relative powerlessness of women-dominated job groups in the collective bargaining process. While some unions have effectively achieved pay equity gains for their members, women's pay equity rights are highly susceptible to being traded away at the bargaining table.
LEAF wishes to use the remainder of its time to focus on three further issues.
First, LEAF is very concerned by the act's removal of any effective mechanism to enforce pay equity rights. If pay equity is not achieved through the collective bargaining process, women workers are left only with the option of making an individual complaint to the Public Service Labour Relations Board, which is not a specialized pay equity body. Claims that categories of jobs are subject to pay inequity are complex and technical and require significant information on job descriptions and pay rates. Yet under the act complainants receive no institutional or other support to investigate and advance such claims. Unions are fined $50,000 for assisting or encouraging their members. Accordingly, for public sector workers, pay equity is for all practical purposes a radically diminished right without a remedy.
Second, LEAF is concerned about the broader implications of the legislation. The federal government should be taking a leadership role in advancing women's human rights. Instead, this legislation would seem to be one in a series of regressive measures that have included funding cuts to Status of Women Canada and the elimination of the court challenges program. These measures all detrimentally affect women's access to justice and the ability to advocate for and enforce their statutory and constitutional equality rights.
Third, the PSECA applies to the approximately 278,000 workers in the federal public service. It does not cover the approximately 840,000 workers in the federal private service, who remain under the Canadian Human Rights Act complaints-based regime. While the CHRA regime is preferable to the PSECA, in that it accords pay equity its proper status as an independent and enforceable right, the problems of the complaints-based regime are well known to this committee.
Since 2004, equality advocates, including LEAF, have pushed for the implementation of the recommendations of the pay equity task force for a proactive pay equity regime. With the PSECA legislation, we now have two federal regimes, neither of which is proactive and neither of which is designed to efficiently and effectively achieve pay equity for women. The federal government has stated that it is committed to achieving pay equity. If this is in fact the intention—and we very much assume that it is—the way to do so is to adopt a single, proactive federal pay equity regime in accordance with the recommendations of the pay equity task force.
We similarly request this committee to make recommendations that are consistent with that.
Thank you very much.
I'm an associate professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of British Columbia, where I teach in research, primarily in the area of constitutional law, with a focus on women's equality issues, social justice, and law and poverty.
I want to begin today by providing what I think is an unavoidable conclusion about this new statute; namely, that at a practical level, the statute is contradictory. It doesn't set out to accomplish what the government has used in its promotion and characterization of it. It is not an improvement on the existing, already flawed system of pay equity enforcement. Rather, it is a step backward, and not a step forward, in terms of proactivity or more effective enforcement.
I do also think that the act is ideologically very clear. It is clearly about a minimization of a key equality right for women, a right that is internationally recognized and that decades have been spent trying to advance. It is also clearly an enshrinement of a marketization of the issues. This comes at a time when we know already very clearly that the neo-liberal market capitalism that this kind of policy and statutory change represents has indisputably been profoundly problematic for economic and social governance issues and for economic and social justice.
This statute individualizes a problem that is systemic in origin. The result is that it quite clearly mocks and denies decades of hard work done to achieve labour market equality for women. I would note as well the key importance of equality in the labour market to women's general economic and social and civil equality in Canadian society.
With those introductory comments, I want to begin by talking about some more specific issues that the statute raises, but I want to do so against a backdrop of three broad observations.
The first observation pertains to women's ongoing and persistent economic inequality and marginalization, particularly the marginalization of key groups of women, as the other witnesses have spoken about—racialized women, women with disabilities, aboriginal women--in Canadian society. The role the government ought to play in addressing that inequality is also an important backdrop to consideration of the specifics of the federal government's legislation on pay equity in the public sector.
The second observation I want to have function as a backdrop to my more precise comments consists of reference to Canada's international and domestic obligations to women's equality, and in particular the importance of pay equity to substantive equality for women as various legal and quasi-legal documents at the international and domestic levels establish that equality.
The last broad point I wish to make is that pay equity has long and uncontroversially been recognized as a right. Recognizing a claim or an issue as a right means that certain characteristics require specific legislative and governmental responses. Indeed, as I go through my specific issues, I hope to point out the way in which the formal characterization of pay equity as a right is belied by the practical details of this new piece of legislation.
Let me begin, then, just by situating this moment in the history of pay equity or in the history of equality in employment in Canada specifically. I want to begin my comments by reminding us all of the 1984 Rosalie Abella report, the equality in employment royal commission. The terms of reference for this report required the commission to explore the most efficient, effective, and equitable means of promoting equality in employment for four groups: women, native peoples, disabled persons, and visible minorities.
In this report, Abella observes early on that equality in employment for women means a number of things. On page 4 of this report, she notes that it means taking women “seriously as workers and not assuming that their primary interests lie away from the workplace”. She goes on to say that “this means the active recruitment of women into the fullest range of employment opportunities”, including equal pay for work of equal value, fair consideration for promotions, participation in policy-making, accessible child care, paid parental leaves, and equal pension and benefits. You'll see that in this list that Abella generates, pay equity occupies a central place.
I want to remind us that an important piece of what's required for equality employment is the guarantee of pay equity for women. I also want to say that pay equity, of course, is not the only element that's required and that we should situate our concern about pay equity in the broader context of other issues that are also important to women in achieving equality in employment. I would emphasize the child care issue, which I know your committee has looked at already.
When Abella wrote her report, she noted that at the time of writing, the situation with respect to pay equity was distressing and that “a massive policy response” to achieve equal pay for work of equal value was required. She noted that the federal Human Rights Act applies to only 11% of the Canadian workforce and that provincial coverage and also coverage for the private sector at the federal level were limited.
When we fast-forward to today, we see that the situation with respect to equal pay for work of equal value is not that different from the one described by Abella in her report. Across both federal and provincial governments, we see a distressing lack of proactive government attention to meeting this important requirement for women's equality in the labour market.
That brings me, of course, to the most recent development at the federal level, the Equitable Compensation Act. I have several observations that I want to make in relation to it, specific features of the legislative changes that are particularly disturbing and that cast a shadow over the status of pay equity as a right for Canadian women.
I want to begin by noting what the two other witnesses have also noted, that the changed legislative criteria for equitable compensation adopt the criteria set out in section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, but importantly add to it the fact that market conditions will also be looked to in terms of establishing whether or not there is pay equity. The adoption of criteria of employers, recruitment needs, and other sorts of market considerations completely, I think, undermine the commitment to equal pay for work of equal value. As other witnesses today--and I am sure throughout your hearings--have pointed out, taking into the evaluation precisely the features that resulted in the discriminatory situation that needs to be remedied in the first place is so obviously problematic as to indicate a really clear intention to undermine the achievement of pay equity for women. The individuals who occupy job groups with pay inequity are among the more vulnerable in the market and the most vulnerable to the market forces. Indeed, reference to the market in this manner will serve simply to entrench sex discrimination, not to correct it.
I would just point out to the committee an interesting parallel development in human rights law in British Columbia--
:
Welcome to our witnesses. Thank you for your comments.
I have so many questions that I almost do not know where to begin. You all stated that work on pay equity for women has been going on for decades. According to the statistics, even after decades of work in this area, women still earn between 48% and 71% of what men earn. That is cause for some concern.
Ms. Young talked about our international responsibility. Canada is often viewed as a model to emulate in light of its Constitution which is studied around the world. We should continue to set an example.
However, Ms. Young, you did observe that Canada was in fact not setting an example, given the changes to the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. You were also wondering if, based in Ms. Abella's 1984 report, women are taken seriously in the workforce.
I'd like you to elaborate on that statement. Do you seriously believe that women are considered to be men's equals in the workforce?
[English]
I heard you say they're not taken as serious workers.
:
I'll start, and I'm sure, Margot, you'll have additional comments.
In some ways it's a difficult question, because what do we mean by responsibility and power? At the broadest level, we all have some role and responsibility. Unions have a role, the government has a role, employers have a role, but the question is, how does that role get shaped and framed?
The government's role is to enact appropriately rights-based legislation with, in LEAF's view, a specialized pay equity body that would be appropriately resourced with the powers to both investigate complaints or issues, and to assist in the resolution of issues and the development of pay equity plans, and so on.
The employer and employees, whether it's the employees or the union, have a role and responsibility to work in good faith and collaboratively to create pay equity plans, but within the legislative framework similar to the pay equity regime—
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much for coming here today.
Ms. Russell, you are still with the National Association of Women and the Law, even though this association had to shut down its operations further to the cuts to Status of Women Canada. Congratulations on continuing your work on a volunteer basis. That is a remarkable accomplishment. We need women like you to defend women's rights.
Ms. Birenbaum, is LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, funded by Status of Women Canada?
You spoke of the erosion of the right to equal pay for work of equal value. One thing concerns me greatly, Ms. Birenbaum, and that is the $50,000 fine that unions will have to pay if they want to defend an employee who challenges the current legislation. That employee has no recourse to assert her rights. Because of the demise of the Court Challenges Program, that individual is all alone and without help if she wants to assert her rights. What is the point of collective bargaining if the union cannot defend the individuals on whose behalf it is bargaining?
One other things also concerns me a great deal. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal used the same language and the same policies in its recent decision. For example, I read in today's Ottawa Citizen that for the past 30 years, the government has been discriminating against a group of women nurses who were in fact more like medical advisers than nurses. Eighteen months after the federal government was found guilty of discriminating against these women, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal informed this group of women that while it believed them and knew they were right, it would have to ask the government to create a nurses subgroup, a medical advisors group, within 60 days, with the salaries to be determined through collective bargaining.
I was completely floored by this. How is it that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is using the same language as the government with regard to the new legislation?
In all, 840,000 people do not fall within the scope of this act and their cases will also have to be reviewed by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. How long will that process take? I find the situation quite worrisome.
What is your take on everything that is happening—and not just on recent events? We are seeing an erosion, not only from the standpoint of salary, but in every respect. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Before I ask you a question, I do think it's important that we just clarify a few things that you mentioned. This government has in fact increased funding to Status of Women by approximately 42%. We have redirected it somewhat. We want to make sure that it has a direct impact on women.
I'll give you an example that we just learned of. We just completed a study on EI benefits, and we found out that back in 2000 there was some research done on whether women would benefit from having self-employed individuals be able to receive paternity and maternity benefits. That study and that research were done in 2000, but absolutely nothing was done under the then government. We were elected in 2006. We immediately looked at this issue, brought a task force together, and we are going to be addressing the issue.
The other area that we have really acted on is matrimonial real property rights for aboriginal women. I think it needs to be clarified that we have increased funding, but we don't want to see it tied up in a lot of studies. As much as we respect and admire academic groups, our purpose and our goal are not to fund or make sure that jobs are created in academic groups. Our goal is to make sure that funding gets directly to women and to helping women on the ground. I think it's important that issue be clarified.
My question is for you, Ms. Birenbaum. Under the court challenges program, we were told by some of the groups that it actually took 18 years. We had some women sitting in court for years and years and years, being asked questions and going through really tremendous hardships. Can you just tell me as a lawyer, how much time legal counsel would be able to bill? How many hours would legal counsel be able to bill if under the court challenges program something dragged on for 18 years?
:
I'm delighted to join in this debate; I guess it's more than just questions and answers.
You'll forgive me if I insinuate a quasi-ideological question inasmuch as it follows up on what one of the members of the government side asked with respect to the role of unions.
As my colleague Ms. Neville indicated, of course, if there is already a challenge before the courts on the legislation, it would appear that we are moving away from holding responsible the unions and other public and private organizations for any shortcomings in parity, in equality, whether it's in conditions or whether it's in salary or just, generally speaking, in law.
But can this be achieved? Can we work towards a system of remuneration that takes into consideration the entire package of disbursements for the public--in this case, not only women but also those who truly do believe in equality--without having a federal role through a court challenges program that sustains any challenges in the courts through legislation that would violate those principles, irrespective of the origin of the violation?
I'm asking that of Madam Birenbaum first, I guess, and then either Ms. Young or Ms. Russell, whichever of the two.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think I need to start, as I probably have in each hearing we've had on this particular issue, with the very sincere comment that I think everyone is trying to achieve the same goal. We perhaps have a different world lens, in terms of how we can achieve it. I would really like to put on the table that this is the sincere interest of the government.
I know that democracy is not always efficient, but I also believe in a pragmatic approach to getting things done. I also believe that to truly embed equity, we have to start to make it widespread and embed it everywhere. We can't count on the expertise of a panel that has to spend years. We have to develop skills and expertise throughout Canada, in terms of doing the job and in terms of the pay equity issues. I actually believe that we can develop skills and expertise throughout.
I want to focus in on two particular issues, and I have one quick question to Ms. Birenbaum.
You mentioned aboriginal women as compared to men. I know aboriginals, period, have real challenges with employment. Do you have the statistics for aboriginal women compared to aboriginal men, in terms of that statistic that you talked about earlier? If not, that would really be appreciated.
:
No, no, but it would just be of interest.
I've worked at the coal face with aboriginal communities in health care, etc., so I'm going to use an example, in terms of market forces, and perhaps you could share with me why you think this is wrong.
The nursing profession is typically female-dominated. We have nurses in our federal government system. Perhaps we're doing a classification process. Let's say they decide they will go through the whole process, and physiotherapists, who, let's say, are 50-50 male to female, end up in the same category—this is a little bit hypothetical—so here you have physiotherapists and nurses in the same category. But the nurses are in short supply. Nurses are being drained off to the United States or are being drained off throughout the world, and physiotherapists are not in such short supply. In this case, you look at women and a predominantly female profession. Are they not going to be unduly harmed by not taking into account market forces?
Market forces make some sense to me, and again I'll use that example of nurses. In this case, nurses who would actually be putting market forces into the formula would perhaps benefit from it. I open that up for some comments.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
When I first set eyes on this bill, my jaw dropped. It is unquestionably a major step backward for women who have fought for decades to build a Canadian and Quebec culture in which women's basic rights are respected.
I negotiated collective agreements for over 27 years, at a time when there was no pay equity legislation and where a power relationship prevailed during the negotiation of wages for plant workers. Often, there were gaps and injustices. When the legislation was enacted in Quebec and at the federal level, it meant employers, employees and unions could truly work to implement the legislation's provisions and reduce any inequities. Hundreds of collective agreements were successfully negotiated and the provisions of the Pay Equity Act implemented without having to pay lawyers. This was a major accomplishment and a radical shift in culture.
In your opinion, what impact will this legislation have on women? The right to equality is threatened, along with other rights. You mentioned employment insurance. If the gaps widen, women will have less than men.
Do you anticipate that the legislation will have any kind of impact on pension plans? I'd like to know if you think the legislation will have a negative impact on women in many areas of society.
:
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.
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.
:
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--
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to say that I think part of the problem here is that the current members from the government party, except for yourself, Madam Chair, were not here when the committee had an extensive investigation into matrimonial real property rights. We invited in first nations groups and individuals and actually came up with quite a thorough report.
What was very clear from that report, from those consultations, was that first nations women and men were asking that the model not be based on provincial legislation, the provincial model that is currently part of the legislation that we see in front of the House of Commons. By virtue of the fact that we've heard--I know that a number of us have heard--from the AFN, the Chiefs of Ontario, and the Native Women's Association of Canada, we know they are very concerned by what is currently in front of the House. We should be supporting them and respecting what they said in regard to the kind of process they want.
The process that was presented to first nations people was rushed. Unfortunately, Chief Grant-John only had about three months to consult with 643 communities. There is a rhythm to consultations, and if they are to be respectful, they have to take time and they have to be done on the basis of respect for how a community functions.
In that light, I would support the amended motion from Ms. Neville, because I think it does indeed attempt to do precisely what should be done, and that is to meet first nations on their ground in a respectful way.
:
I have to be careful that I don't get too emotional on this one, because I am meeting and dealing with women daily. I'm sorry, but if this is not an example of playing politics on the backs of women, I don't know what is.
Ms. Demers, maybe I missed it, or maybe it was lost in translation, but when you say that aboriginal women don't need the same rights that we do, I disagree, and I think we're playing politics on the backs of aboriginal women. There's a reason that maybe some of the chiefs don't like this: it's absolutely taking the power out of their hands and putting it into the hands of grassroots women.
And you know what, folks--friends--you can say the government has an obligation to do this.... It's Parliament; we all have an obligation to take care of this issue.
Anita, you see it as well. You said that you see the women who are suffering. At a minimum, I know what our legislation.... We don't want to debate the actual legislation. But what we need to do is support this so that then aboriginals can develop some programs that work within and that are culturally appropriate. I absolutely agree with that.
I lived on a first nations reserve for over three years. My kids went to school on a first nations reserve. I went to church with women living on first nations reserves. They're still my friends. They are suffering, and if you think these groups are speaking on their behalf, you are wrong.
We are here to stand up for those who don't have a voice, so if at a minimum we put through something just so there's some basic law so that they can have real property rights, we need to do that. Is it a perfect solution? No, because we want to make sure it's culturally appropriate, but we need to put something in place. That's why my motion said that I'm calling on Parliament, because I'm looking to all of us to work together. I will leave it at that.
Thank you.
:
Madam Chair, I think everyone should take a deep breath.
Last week, when it came time to vote and when the matter was debated in the House, I also agreed that the issue should be referred to a committee for further consideration.
I subsequently received a telephone call from Ms. Beverley Jacobs and another one from Ms. Gabriel. They could not understand why we would support legislation like this when they had not even been consulted. These women speak for thousands of aboriginal women. It's incorrect to say that they do not represent thousands of aboriginal women, because they represents groups of...
I attend their meeting or their general assembly every year. The women in attendance represent many different aboriginal peoples and together they talk about their needs.
If they are here today telling us that they want to be consulted and that it's not enough for them to have a botched piece of legislation, then it has to mean that this bill fails to take their specific needs into account. Therein lies the problem. It is not that we do not want aboriginal women to have rights. We want these rights to take into account their specific needs.
The bill as drafted failed to do that. That was the biggest stumbling block, namely the fact that it did not take into account their specific needs.
We were supposed to have a briefing with the minister, Mr. Strahl, and twice that briefing was cancelled. I also think that there is a lack of good will somewhere.
:
Madam Chair, I want to compliment all the members around the table. It's evident to anybody who's new that there's a passion about the issue.
For Ms. Hoeppner to make an impassioned plea to get support for this is commendable, but you'll forgive me if I say that this is really a procedural question that someone is proposing. In the House, the government proposes and Parliament disposes. Parliament has considered a proposal of the government and said no.
I think in terms of committees, and perhaps you will get the clerk to research this position, what happens is that a committee can make a recommendation in its report, but I'm not sure it can, with a motion, compel Parliament, the House, to do anything.
So while it's a commendable expression of position and viewpoint, I think you will find that it is procedurally impossible to do. Unless someone wants to say that we want to have this as a recommendation as part of a report--that's not what this says--and the report in its entirety will be recommended to the House for the House to respond to within the usual 120 days, I don't think the committee procedurally can usurp the authority of the government by going to Parliament to impose, on itself, a decision that the government will then have to effect.
As I said, while I commend the principle behind the concept, it really might have great difficulty, procedurally, in passing anything. It eventually, I think, would be ruled out of order in the House itself.
It's better to accomplish the passing of an amendment--however it is subamended--to the motion that still conveys the principle and tells government and the House to come up with a different solution, or at least to address the procedural impediments that the debate in the House has put forward on the initial legislation.
That's my view.