Pay Equity Law Needed in 2008

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Pay equity law needed in 2008

Published Thursday December 13th, 2007
Appeared on page B7
Daily Gleaner

The year 2007 marked the 40th anniversary of the adoption of the New Brunswick Human Rights Act. I would like to remind your government of a few things.
The New Brunswick Human Rights Act states that recognition of the fundamental principle that all persons are equal in dignity and human rights without regard to race, colour, religion, national origin, ancestry, place of origin, age, physical disability, mental disability, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, social condition, political belief or activity, is a governing principle sanctioned by the laws of New Brunswick.

If, in fact, the government of this province recognizes the fundamental principle that all persons are equal in dignity and human rights without regard to sex, as stated in this law, why is it that 40 years after its adoption, it still tolerates the discrimination so many women face in the workplace in New Brunswick?

In 2007, it is unacceptable that New Brunswick women are still victims of pay inequity simply because they are women. Women are pillars of New Brunswick communities, just as much as men. They are full citizens who vote, study, raise children, take care of their home, work hard and contribute to the economic development of this province. They deserve equal pay for work of equal value.

Yet jobs traditionally or predominantly held by women are often paid less than jobs, of the same value, traditionally held by men.

I urge the government of New Brunswick to pass a law on pay equity in 2008 to rectify this injustice which has lasted far too long in the public and private sectors.

Louise Aucoin
Law professor
L'Université de Moncton
Moncton, N.B.
------------------------

N.B. must rectify pay equity issue
Published Tuesday December 11th, 2007 Telegraph Journal, page A4

A letter to Minister Ed Doherty, edited for length:
Monday was International Human Rights Day. Because this marked the 40th anniversary of the adoption of the New Brunswick Human Rights Act, I would like to remind your government of a few things.

The New Brunswick Human Rights Act states that "recognition of the fundamental principle that all persons are equal in dignity and human rights without regard to race, colour, religion, national origin, ancestry, place of origin, age, physical disability, mental disability, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, social condition, political belief or activity."

If, in fact, the government recognizes the fundamental principle that all persons are equal in dignity and human rights without regard to sex, why is it that 40 years after its adoption, it still tolerates the discrimination so many women face in the workplace in New Brunswick?

In 2007, it is unacceptable that New Brunswick women are still victims of pay inequity simply because they are women. Women are pillars of New Brunswick communities, just as much as men. They are full citizens, who vote, study, raise children, take care of their home, work hard and contribute to the economic development of this province. They deserve equal pay for work of equal value.

Yet jobs traditionally or predominantly held by women still are often paid less than male jobs of the same value. I urge the government to pass a law on pay equity to rectify this injustice which has lasted far too long.

LOUISE AUCOIN
Law professor, l'Université de Moncton

-------------------

New Brunswick needs human rights champions

Deck head
Ginette Pettipas-Taylor
Commentary
Telegraph Journal

Published Monday December 10th, 2007
Appeared on page A7


If your last name begins with a letter between A and M, you are given homework. The other students never get extra work at night.

All the students in your school have recess except your class. Day in and day out, your class has to work while other students are outside playing.

How would you feel if you were treated unfairly? These are exercises used to teach children about fairness, empathy and human rights.

A new book on human rights history released this year makes a case for the idea that human rights and the modern push for their protection came not from philosophers or revolutions or great leaders but from the popular novels of 300 years ago that made people identify with vulnerable characters - often women - fighting against oppression. By identifying with them, the public understood that all humans - servants, slaves and foreigners, even women - have the same feelings and should be treated fairly.

Whatever their origin, we now instinctively value human rights, especially when we see in international news, daily examples of human rights violations - girls who are forbidden to attend school, ethnic groups who are persecuted, people imprisoned for their ideas, prisoners who are tortured, women who do not have the right to vote.

In comparison, violations of human rights in New Brunswick are limited, though they can still be life-changing. As our law says, "ignorance, forgetfulness, or contempt of the rights of others" are the causes of public miseries and social disadvantage.

Human rights violations here are often against persons with handicaps who are prevented from getting employment, housing or other important services, because we are not making reasonable accommodations.

Violations are also against families with children, who are routinely refused housing in this province. Or workers who are underpaid because they happen to be in a traditionally female job, whose salary level was established at a time when laws allowed for lower wages for women's work. We revoked those laws but never adjusted those pay scales.

New Brunswick was among the first provinces to adopt human rights legislation in 1967. Though the law was incomplete - discrimination on the basis of sex was only added a few years later, and sexual harassment many years later, for example - it was admired at the time.

That was then. Today, International Human Rights Day 2007, New Brunswick needs human rights champions. New Brunswick has flaws in its system to protect human rights - and "a right without a remedy is no right," says the legal principle.

More than 15 years ago, a report commissioned by the provincial government made excellent recommendations for changes to our human rights system, to conform with the then-new Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and ensure our Human Rights Commission had the means to fulfill its mandate. Only a few of those recommendations have been implemented.
If we want a Commission with clout to execute its mandate, our Human Rights Commission should not be subject to ministerial control but should report directly to the legislature, like the Office of the Ombudsman.

That is especially important now that an increasing number of complaints deal with government services and people who have been discriminated against because of their political belief and activity may lay complaints.

The Commission itself rarely advocates publicly on its behalf, but recently it said that its credibility and ability to function depend on it being seen as independent from government. It should report directly to the Legislature.

New Brunswick also needs a broad-based Charter of Rights to replace our Human Rights Act. It should include the economic, social and cultural rights that are needed to give everyone barrier-free access to the other rights.

The Commission should be able to initiate its own investigations. Many of the rights violations that people experience are situations where systemic discrimination or unintentional discrimination when a practice affects mostly a disadvantaged group.

There is a high price to pay for inadequate rights protection. We lose faith in the system, people feel disempowered. Even delays in redress can aggravate the original violation: the violator has time to retaliate for the complaint and the financial consequences for the complainant pile up.
We need human rights champions so that the government commits to reform, and so that we see violations when they happen.

Ginette Petitpas-Taylor, of Moncton, is Chairperson of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women. She may be reached via e-mail at acswcccf@gnb.ca
--------------------

L'Acadie NouvelleActualités,
mardi, 18 décembre 2007, p. 6
Contestation judiciaire: une coalition se joint à la résistance
La Presse Canadienne

Toronto - Une coalition de défenseurs des femmes, des minorités et des personnes handicapées demande à se joindre à une contestation, devant un tribunal, de la décision du gouvernement conservateur d'abolir un programme qui permettait de financer des causes types en matière de droit à l'égalité.

Dans une requête devant être déposée aujourd'hui en Cour fédérale, la coalition fait valoir que la disparition du Programme de contestation judiciaire nuira aux efforts visant à s'assurer que les droits constitutionnels sont respectés.

Cette cause soulève des questions juridiques cruciales, d'importance nationale concernant l'accès à la justice de groupes historiquement défavorisés, a fait valoir Laurie Beachell, du Conseil des Canadiens avec des déficiences.

Dans une des premières mesures prises après son arrivée au pouvoir, le gouvernement conservateur minoritaire du premier ministre Stephen Harper avait aboli le programme, en septembre de l'an dernier, en affirmant qu'il ne relevait pas d'une saine gestion des fonds publics, et que le gouvernement économiserait ainsi près de 3 millions $ par an. La décision avait été vivement critiquée.

Selon David Baker, un avocat représentant la coalition, le Programme de contestation judiciaire offrait "un mécanisme par lequel des gens dépourvus de grands moyens financiers pouvaient quand même exercer leurs droits en vertu de la charte. Il donnait une voix et un accès à la justice à des groupes qui, autrement, n'auraient pas pu faire valoir leurs causes".

Ce programme à but non lucratif avait été institué en 1978 dans le but d'aider les groupes linguistiques minoritaires, puis il avait été élargi pour inclure ceux qui souhaitaient faire valoir leurs droits à l'égalité en vertu de la Charte des droits et libertés.

Au fil des ans, ces groupes ont remporté de nombreuses batailles clés, comme celle du Conseil des Canadiens avec des déficiences, qui demandait à Via Rail d'assurer une plus grande accessibilité à ses trains de passagers. Le programme a aussi aidé des femmes à remporter des causes d'équité salariale.

Les partisans de son abolition avaient applaudi la décision de M. Harper en disant que le gouvernement se trouvait à financer des groupes d'intérêt de gauche qui s'en prenaient aux valeurs conservatrices fondamentales.

La coalition demande le statut d'intervenant dans une contestation entreprise à l'instigation de la Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, qui doit être entendue en février à Moncton.
__________________
Published Monday December 10th, 2007
Appeared on page D8

Pay equity is essential to N.B.

Times and Transcript
To The Editor:

While we hear much about the supposed cost associated with pay equity, little is said about its potential economic benefits. In fact, pay equity would make an important contribution to the provincial self-sufficiency agenda.

The government's Self-Sufficiency Task Force has acknowledged that higher wages and salaries are essential to attracting and retaining workers. Since the mass exodus of workers from New Brunswick is of particular interest to provincial leaders, they should look into policies that will help maintain our dwindling workforce.

Pay equity would ensure that employees in traditionally or predominantly female jobs would be paid the same as those in male jobs of the same value, rather than being under-paid due to systemic discrimination.

The ensuing salary adjustments would lead to increased earnings, giving New Brunswick women an incentive to stay in the province.

It has been proven that increased earnings lead to increased spending power. Statistics Canada, in its July 24, 2007 edition of The Daily, stated that "the Quebec public service pay equity settlement was a key factor in May's retail sales. Sales in this province surged 4.9 per cent in May, the strongest monthly sales growth since February 1998." Excluding Quebec, national retail sales rose 2.2 per cent.

A better salary not only means more money to spend, it also means more money in the public treasury. A 2004 study by economist Ather Akbari estimated that removing gender wage discrimination in New Brunswick would bring about an 11 per cent increase in personal income tax collection, resulting in a $105 million gain. His results also show that total tax receipts would increase by $226 million. Additionally, in the health care sector, the government could save up to $60 million, since income is a major determinant of health.

In a 2003 study by the World Economic Forum, it was stated "the more equality there is in a country, the more competitive its economy is." Likewise, in 2006, The Economist asserted that during the last few decades women have been "the driving force of growth" in industrialized countries. The journal stated that female employment has had a greater impact on the global economy than new technology, or the arrival of China or India in the global economy. It also went on to insist that women "are the world's most under-utilized resource".

In New Brunswick this important resource is not being used to its full potential. As it is, women's work is still under-valued and under-paid. Recent government consultations, such as the Child Care Consultation and the Premier's Task Force on the Community Non-Profit Sector, called attention to the low wages in the female-dominated sectors. Clearly, the government is aware of this. The problem is that the Graham government is not taking a firm approach in implementing Pay Equity Legislation as was stated in their election platform of 2005.

Why are they so reluctant to keep their promise, when pay equity would help the province achieve self-sufficiency?

Anne-Marie Gammon,
Chair,
N.B. Coalition for Pay Equity, Moncton

-----------------

SI LES GENS ONT FAIM, CE N’EST PAS PAR MANQUE DE NOURRITURE
Ginette Petitpas-Taylor

Ma carte de vœux du temps des fêtes aux lectrices serait celle que distribue cette année un groupe de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard. L’illustration est une orange dans la main d’un enfant, et le message est : « Si les gens ont faim, ce n’est pas par manque de nourriture, mais de justice. »

Les fêtes nous rendent généreux. Nous voulons que chacun ait un Noël joyeux. Nous voulons que ce soit une journée de l’année où les gens qui vivent dans la pauvreté, surtout les enfants, ne se sentent pas démunis. Il y aura toujours des cyniques pour dire que nous sommes généreux à Noël afin de pouvoir mieux jouir de notre abondance.

L’un des cadeaux des fêtes que l’on peut acheter d’Oxfam Canada cette année est un programme de 60 $ qui s’appelle Former 10 promoteurs du changement. Si vous achetez ce cadeau pour quelqu’un sur votre liste, Oxfam fournira à 10 leaders communautaires de pays en voie de développement une formation et du matériel pour apporter dans leur collectivité des changements qui feront reculer la pauvreté.

Si de tels cadeaux étaient offerts au Canada, c’est peut-être de la justice plutôt que de la charité que nous offririons à Noël.

Personne ou presque ne doute qu’il serait possible d’éradiquer la pauvreté au Canada si nous nous y mettions. Nous avons réduit la pauvreté chez les personnes âgées de façon spectaculaire au cours des dernières décennies. Certains pays ont fait de même pour tous les groupes vulnérables, que ce soit les mères monoparentales, les petits salariés ou les enfants.

En 1989, une Chambre des Communes unanime – et oui, c’était à l’approche de Noël – avait résolu d’abolir la pauvreté au Canada au plus tard en 2000. Aujourd’hui, la pauvreté parmi les enfants est au même point qu’en 1989, à quelque 12 % à l’échelle nationale, alors que, dans l’intervalle, le Canada a connu de faibles taux de chômage et, récemment, des excédents budgétaires soutenus et considérables.

Un tel manque de progrès ne devrait surprendre personne. Une résolution unanime, même si elle est sincère, ne changera rien en soi, pas plus que la distribution de paniers de Noël. Un souhait n’est pas un plan. Si nous voulons mettre fin à la pauvreté, il nous faut un plan.

Depuis 1989, les politiques ont mentionné des centaines de fois que la pauvreté les préoccupe et que le Canada doit faire davantage.

Allons-nous laisser les gouvernements prétendre qu’ils partagent nos préoccupations au sujet de la pauvreté s’ils n’ont même pas au moins un plan pour y remédier? Quand un gouvernement veut réellement atteindre un objectif, il adopte un plan d’action établi avec plusieurs ministères, avec les gens qui vivent dans la pauvreté, les groupes communautaires et d’autres.

Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador a un plan qui devrait bientôt en faire la province ayant le taux de pauvreté le moins élevé au pays, et le Québec a adopté de solides mesures législatives pour combattre la pauvreté.

Aujourd’hui, il est clair que la seule croissance économique ne suffit pas pour sortir de la pauvreté : 41 % des enfants de milieux à faible revenu au Canada vivent dans une famille où au moins l’un des parents travaille à temps plein toute l’année. Au Nouveau-Brunswick, 28 % des enfants pauvres vivent dans une famille où au moins un des parents travaille à temps plein toute l’année.

Alors, que faisons-nous? La charité et les banques alimentaires ne règlent rien. De fait, la charité peut parfois perpétuer le statu quo. Les actes charitables peuvent atténuer les besoins les plus pressants – les raisons les plus impérieuses qui pousseront la société à s’attaquer aux causes fondamentales.

Les stratégies les plus efficaces pour combattre la pauvreté ne se limitent pas à des réductions d’impôt ou à l’ajout de prestations ni à l’augmentation de l’aide sociale et du salaire minimum, mais elles fournissent plutôt un soutien global à toutes les personnes à faible revenu. Elles démêlent l’écheveau de règles qui finissent par donner plus de raisons aux gens de rester pauvres que de tenter d’améliorer leur sort. Elles s’attaquent aux attitudes envers les gens démunis qui finissent par enlever aux enfants, notamment, la possibilité de se sortir de la pauvreté.

Lorsque le maire de Toronto, David Miller, s’est frotté récemment à cet écheveau de règles, sa rage devant la situation a mené à un rapport fascinant. Il travaillait avec des entreprises qui étaient prêtes à investir pour aider de jeunes démunis à acquérir de l’expérience et une formation. Il a cependant découvert que les parents disaient à leurs enfants de refuser les possibilités offertes, sinon les prestations de la famille s’en trouveraient réduites. De nombreuses familles vivaient dans des logements publics, et le loyer de la famille aurait augmenté en fonction du nouveau revenu. Si l’enfant quittait le logement familial pour protéger la famille, la famille était susceptible de recevoir un avis d’expulsion. Une bourse peut réduire le montant d’autres programmes d’aide aux étudiants, et de nombreuses prestations versées à ces familles seraient coupées si les enfants recevaient de l’aide.

Les jeunes que tous voulaient aider étaient pris dans un étau qui ne cessait de se resserrer pour eux et leurs parents s’ils profitaient des possibilités offertes.

Dans notre société, il n’est pas rare que les enfants demeurent chez leurs parents passé 18 ans pendant qu’ils étudient, acquièrent une expérience de travail à temps plein ou remboursent leurs prêts étudiants. Or, quand les enfants des familles qui reçoivent de l’aide sociale atteignent l’âge de 18 ans, ils ne sont plus pris en compte dans le calcul des prestations versées à la famille et peuvent uniquement faire une demande d’aide sociale en leur propre nom s’ils quittent le foyer familial.

Comme le montre le rapport de la fondation Metcalf, une personne recevant de l’aide sociale qui commence à travailler voit chacun des programmes qui lui versent des prestations réduire ses montants – aide sociale, logement public, prestations pour enfants, etc. Pour chaque dollar gagné, les programmes peuvent réduire les montants accordés de plus de 100 cents : un programme peut reprendre 50 cents, un autre 30 cents, et un autre encore, 25 cents.

Une taxe de 100 % ou plus n’est certainement pas un moyen d’inciter les gens à s’en sortir.

Les personnes qui donnent aux pauvres, que ce soit à Noël ou toute l’année, méritent d’être remerciées. Mais la justice est un cadeau qui dure davantage. Les gens qui prennent la défense des intérêts des démunis et qui attendent des gouvernements qu’ils s’attaquent aux causes fondamentales de la pauvreté et de l’injustice sont aussi des héros.


Ginette Petitpas‑Taylor, de Moncton, est présidente du Conseil consultatif sur la condition de la femme du Nouveau-Brunswick. On peut la joindre par courrier électronique à l’adresse suivante : acswcccf@gnb.ca.


*******

WHERE THERE IS HUNGER, IT’S NOT FOOD THAT IS LACKING
Ginette Petitpas Taylor

My holiday greeting card to readers would be the one being distributed this year by a group in Prince Edward Island. It has an image of an orange in a child’s hand with the message: "Where there is hunger, it’s not food that is lacking, but justice."

The holidays bring out our generosity. We want everyone to enjoy Christmas. We want it to be one day out of the year when people living in poverty, especially children, don’t feel deprived. Some cynics might say we are generous so that we can better enjoy our plenty on that day.

One of the holiday gifts offered for sale by Oxfam Canada this year is a $60 package called Train 10 Change Promoters. If you buy this gift for someone on your list, Oxfam provides 10 community leaders in developing countries with training and materials to make changes in their communities that reduce poverty.

Were such gifts offered in Canada too, we might give justice, not just charity, for Christmas.

Practically no one doubts that we could end poverty within Canada, if we decided to do so. We’ve drastically reduced the level of poverty among elderly Canadians in the last decades. Some countries have done the same for all vulnerable groups, such as female lone parents, minimum wage earners, and so, children.

In 1989, a unanimous House of Commons – yes, it was close to the Christmas season – resolved to abolish child poverty in Canada by 2000. Today, child poverty is at the same level it was in 1989, about 12% nationally, even though the intervening years were good for Canada, with low unemployment and recently, consistently large budget surpluses.

That lack of progress should not be a surprise. A unanimous even heartfelt resolution will not change anything by itself, no more than Christmas hampers will. A wish is not a plan. If we are to end poverty, we must have a plan.

Since 1989, politicians have made hundreds of references to their concern about poverty and how Canada must do better.

Do we allow governments to pretend to share our concern about poverty, if there is not at least a plan to end poverty? When a government really expects to reach a goal, it puts a plan into action, a plan that is the result of the collaboration of several government departments, people living in poverty, community groups and others.

Newfoundland/Labrador has a plan that is expected to soon make it the province with the least poverty in the country and Quebec has solid anti-poverty legislation.

Today it is clear that economic growth alone is not providing a way out of poverty: 41% of low-income children in Canada live in families where at least one parent works full-time all year. In New Brunswick 28% of our poor children live in families where at least one person worked full-time all year.

So what do we do? Charity and food banks will not do it. In fact, charities sometimes perpetuate the status quo. They may only remove the most urgent need - the most compelling reason for society to get at the root cause.

The most successful anti-poverty strategies don’t just add new tax cuts or benefits, they don’t just increase welfare and minimum wage rates, but rather they provide support for all people with low income in a comprehensive way. They untangle the mess of rules that end up giving people more reason to stay poor than to try to improve their lot. They confront attitudes towards people in need that end up costing children, for one, the opportunity to get out of poverty.

When Toronto Mayor David Miller recently came in contact with this tangle of rules, he erupted in a rage that has led to a fascinating report. He had been working with some companies that were prepared to invest in helping disadvantaged youth get experience and training. He had discovered that parents were telling their children to turn down these opportunities - the families' benefits would be reduced. Many families lived in public housing and the family's rent would have gone up based on any new income. If the child moved out to protect the family, the family might get an eviction notice. A bursary might reduce the amount of other student aid and many benefits provided to these families would be cut if the children received aid.

The youth that everyone wanted to help were caught in a maze that made it worse for them and their parents were they to take advantage of opportunities.

In our society, children often stay at home past 18 while they study, get full-time work experience or pay off student loans. But when children in welfare families reach 18, they stop receiving social assistance as part of the family and can only apply in their own right if they move out.

As the Metcalf Foundation report shows, when a person receiving welfare starts to work, each of the programs from which they receive benefits takes money back - welfare, public housing, child benefits, etc. For every dollar earned, they may be cut back by more than 100 cents: one program might take 50 cents, the next 30 cents and the next 25 cents.

A tax of 100% or more is not how we encourage anyone to do something.

Those who give to the poor, at Christmas or all year, deserve thanks. But the gift that lasts is justice. Those who advocate with disadvantaged people and expect governments to get to the root causes of poverty and injustice are also heroes.

Ginette Petitpas-Taylor, of Moncton, is Chairperson of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status Of Women. She may be reached via e-mail at acswcccf@gnb.ca

--------------
WHY DECEMBER 6TH STILL MATTERS

Pamela Cross, Director of Advocacy and Public Policy, YWCA Canada

As each year passes since the murders of 14 women at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique in 1989, I struggle with the best way to commemorate those deaths and to place them in the historic context of the violence that continues to be experienced by women across Canada and around the world.

And, each year, I become angrier.

Why? Because the killing of women – something that should be treated with outrage every time it happens -- is commonplace; in fact, it is almost no news at all.

Why? Because any reaction other than anger to the ongoing abuse, torture and slaughter of women at the hands of men is just not appropriate. It means you are not paying attention.

Why? Because in a world that has conquered so many serious problems and challenges, that has figured out how to travel in space, to put thousands of songs on a piece of equipment about as big as my thumb, that can create human life in a test tube, there is no excuse for not figuring out how to end violence against women.

Why? Because anger motivates action, and we need action.

Why? Because in the 7 years between 2000 and 2006, the number of women killed by their partners and former partners was 500 – more than 70 a year and 5 times as many as the total number of Canadian frontline military (including those in Afghanistan) and law enforcement deaths in the same period of time.


December 6th still matters because women in Canada still experience violence in appalling numbers. Not only are women killed in shocking numbers but tens of thousands more are battered and beaten, emotionally abused and sexually assaulted – 100,000 women and their children use battered women’s shelters every year in this country.


Violence against women is rooted in women’s inequality, and until we end that inequality we are not going to end violence against women.

Because women are not equal, women are poor. When women are poor, they are more vulnerable to violence – it is harder to leave an abusive partner, it is harder to live in safe housing, in safe parts of the city; it is harder to find safe work.

Because women are not equal, we are under-represented politically. We see the impact of the lack of representation by women in the kinds of policy decisions being made in areas such as child care, maternity/parental benefits and pay equity, all of which have an impact on women’s ability to live lives free from violence.

Because women are not equal, Canadian laws – both criminal and family -- related to violence against women do not reflect the reality of women’s lives and vulnerability to violence.

And yet -- a little over a year ago, the federal government declared that women in Canada had achieved equality and put an end to funding for women’s equality research and advocacy work. This, in a country that likes to brag about its fair treatment of all, its Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its commitment to international covenants like the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the UN Convention to End Violence Against Women.

This, in a country where more than 70 women a year are murdered by men, where women earn 73 cents for every dollar earned by men, where there is no national child care strategy, where women are not safe in their homes, their schools, their workplaces or on the streets.

If this is equality, I would hate to see inequality.

December 6th is an annual opportunity to remember the 14 women murdered at L’Ecole Polytechnique. But it is also a time to commit to another year of activism to end violence against women.

70 dead women and 100,00 women and children living in shelters every year is simply too many. Let’s make 2008 the year we end women’s inequality and tale a giant step towards ending violence against women in Canada.

_______________________________
Johanne Perron Executive Director / Directrice généraleNB Coalition for Pay EquityCoalition pour l'équité salariale du N.-B. Tel / Tél.: (506) 855-0002 Fax / Téléc.: (506) 854-9728 51 Williams Street, Moncton, NB E1C 2G6 51, rue Williams, Moncton, N.-B. E1C 2G6 coalitio@nb.sympatico.ca http://www.equite-equity.com/