Tuesday, January 29, 2008

A Budget Geared Toward Reducing Poverty

A BUDGET GEARED TOWARDS REDUCING POVERTY

Presentation made to Honourable Victor Boudreau, Minister of Finance By Linda McCaustlin, Co-Chair of the N. B. Common Front for Social Justice

Riverview, January 28, 2008

We wish to thank the Minister of Finance for the opportunity to offer some input as part of his pre-budget consultation process. We will speak on behalf of those who unfortunately could not afford to be heard during the public meetings. I will speak on behalf of those who could not be here to be heard. It is unfortunate as they were probably the ones who had the most to say. The upcoming budget will affect their daily lives more than anyone else in the province.

During the last election campaign, we were given to understand that should your party be elected, the have-nots would not be falling behind in any way, but would gain a lot by having a caring government looking after them. This was stated in the Charter for Change platform, published in September 2006 by the Liberal Party. If we are here today, it is because this is not happening.

The Common Front is a coalition of about 40 different organizations, labor, religious and community groups. Our mission is to promote policies which respond better to the needs of the most vulnerable in society. Our strategy is focused mainly on the employment standards, income security, unemployment insurance and wage equity.

We believe that there should be a better distribution of wealth and the social security net should be strengthened so that they have a better protection. For that, however, there is a need to have a clear strategy aiming at the reduction of poverty in this province and the upcoming budget should reflect this objective.

There are 18% of the children in this province who live in poverty which is due, in our opinion, to the inequity which seems to be gaining ground. We ought to reverse this trend and ensure that public policies sustain the low earners, the most deprived and disadvantaged so that they may become first class citizens and live in dignity.

The present government strategy, at least as we see it, is to reduce taxes, ignore poverty issues, and deregulate. It also relies on corporate goodwill and communities to take over its responsibility with regard to the reduction of poverty. This approach is counter-productive and solely results in an increase in poverty. What we propose is a change in focus and a strategy which promotes equal opportunity for all, a vision which seems to have been set aside. Efficiency and cost effectiveness, competition and productivity, self-reliance and self-development seem to be the present values. They only create more poverty. They ought to be offset by social values such as state responsibility, social protection, and common good.

Poverty, as we see it, is a direct result of a problem with the economy. The economy needs periodic adjustments to maximize opportunities for everyone. Income Tax Credits are of no use to the low earners since they are usually exempted from paying taxes, their income being far less than the basic personal exemption.

There has been a 3 % reduction in the social assistance recipients over the past 10 years in this province. A reduction in the number of recipients is not indicative of a more prosperous economy. It simply means that the number of individuals living in poverty has increased by 3%.

There has been a major effort by government to re-enter people in the job market. This initiative, however, has not been successful due to the fact that many had various limitations preventing them from being employable. They are incapable of doing even light work. Those who could work were integrated into minimum wage jobs and they still needed a medical card and assistance for medical transportation as their income was insufficient. It should be pointed out that 24% of all the employed workers in the province earn less than $10 an hour. This is considered to be a low pay because a single individual working full-time all year would need at least this amount to reach the poverty line.

The main obstacles for many people in going back to work is lack of skills to do the work, health problems, the lack of child care. Working at minimum wage means getting further deep into debts.

Finding a job does not mean getting out of poverty. In Canada, 41% of the children living in poverty come from families where the parents work full time all year. Working does not guarantee a decent family income.

A THREEFOLD STRATEGY

It is not possible to overcome poverty unless government comes up with an objective, a plan of action, and a strategy. We recommend that the strategy be threefold:

A. More financial security

1. Give more assistance to those in need by raising the rates (so they be at par with the average in the Atlantic Provinces). 2. Provide assistance to help those on a fixed income, at minimum wage or on social assistance to pay their fuel costs during winter (the heating supplements of $110 per month allowed to those on social assistance are insufficient; the present government broke a promise made by the previous government to exempt the GST on fuel costs and replaced it with an allowance of $100 per year). 3. Raise the minimum wage to make it a "decent living wage" (the minimum wage in the province is $7.25 per hour while the Canadian average rate is $7.60). 4. Index the social assistance rates and minimum wage to the cost of living (the cost of food, housing, heating, electricity and personal needs cost about $20,000 a year for a family of 4 while social assistance is about $10,000). 5. Provide emergency assistance (special items) to families in critical situations. 6. Improve the social assistance policies to take away the disincentives and repressive components. 7. Provide pay equity in all activity sectors, both private and public

B. Proactive services to families and individuals

1. Make a commitment, as elected government leaders, to end the erosion of public services. 2. Provide assistance for transportation for medical reasons (in rural areas those who do not have any means of transportation cannot access services). 3. Give direct, personal services to families in need of support (not through Internet!). 4. Offer a comprehensive home care program. 5. Ensure universal access to child care services services by subsiding the child care centres adequately rather than by granting partial support to some parents. 6. Offer more preventative services (they cost 10 times less than correcting the unresolved problems).

C. A more balanced taxation system

1. Redistribute public funds so that the low earners and social assistance recipients receive their due share. 2. Allow a fair distribution of public funds not only on health and education, but also on transportation, social assistance, job creation, housing, social services and home care. 3. Impose less taxes on essential goods and services and demand higher income taxes for the richer citizens as well as increased taxes for the corporations which are now getting away with less than they should pay. 4. Reduce the income tax for the low-income earners

CONCLUSION

Basically, we are recommending that more direct financial assistance and personal services be provided and that they be financed through a balanced taxation system. Government should thus focus its upcoming budget on improving the lot of the economically disadvantaged while correcting the fiscal inequalities which are at the root of the impoverishment.

Equality for nurses about respect, not cash

Equality for nurses about respect, not cash

Landmark decision a positive sign, but nurses still need to receive full recognition for the work they do

ANDRE PICARD
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
January 17, 2008 at 9:36 AM EST

Last month, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a landmark ruling in the case of Ruth Walden and 430 of her fellow registered nurses employed by Social Development Canada, a department of the federal government.

Since 1972, the nurses have worked as "medical adjudicators," their job to determine if people applying for disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan are eligible for support.

Physicians who carried out essentially the same duties were called "medical advisers."

The doctors and nurses got along well, as they do in most workplaces. They worked together in a common enterprise, using their medical knowledge to understand and assess documentation about complex cases of physical and mental disability.
(Neither the doctors nor the nurses provided claimants with hands-on patient care or conducted physical examinations, but their educational backgrounds were essential in properly assessing patient files.)

The medical adjudicators - the nurses - were paid salaries in the $50,000 to $60,000 range.

The medical advisers - the doctors - were paid about twice as much. They also received retention bonuses and more holidays, and had their professional fees paid by their employer.

This disparity persisted for decades despite the fact that they were doing more or less the same job, it must be stressed.

Clearly this is discriminatory.

It is also, according to the ruling by Karen Jensen of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, a violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

About 95 per cent of the nurses are women; about 80 per cent of the doctors are men. As the ruling states, the nurses'

"inferior working conditions are a function of the gender predominance of their occupational group."

The ruling has attracted media attention, in large part, because of its financial repercussions.

Settling with the nurses could cost the treasury about $200-million. That astounding figure is based on a crude calculation - paying the nurses the equivalent of the doctors' salaries stretching back to 1978 (the year the Canadian Human Rights Act took effect.)

The final settlement will probably be much less. Ms. Jensen has told the two parties to come up with an agreed-upon figure by March or she will impose a settlement.

The irony of the situation is that, for nurses, the issue was never money, but respect.

The fight was not about nurses wanting to be doctors, or about wanting to get the same pay as doctors.
Rather, it was nurses fighting to be recognized as nurses.

At Social Development Canada, the medical advisers (the physicians) were, under the public-service classification scheme, deemed to be health professionals.

The medical adjudicators (the nurses), on the other hand, were classified as administrators.

To its credit, Social Development Canada recognized a few years back that this was wrong, but the Treasury Board prevented the department from reclassifying the nurses as health professionals, fearing it would cost money. (It would have cost a little then, but now it's going to cost a lot.) But the issue here is principle, not money.

The classification of the registered nurses as administrators was based on the belief that nursing consists solely of hands-on care. This is an outmoded, narrow-minded and sexist notion.
Just as physicians can undertake more cerebral administrative pursuits and still be considered health professionals, so can nurses.

Modern nurses work in diverse settings: They toil not only in hospitals and nursing homes, but on inner-city streets, battlefields in Afghanistan, refugee camps in Sudan, and in schools, public health units, northern nursing stations and myriad other locales, including insurance companies and various government agencies, doing everything from program development to running the show.

They are no less nurses.

The real story in this ruling is not the money. Rather, it is that the contemptuous attitude displayed by the federal government is all too common.

Nurses' pay is not paltry, but nor is it commensurate with the skills and training required.

The work environment of many nurses is disgraceful and the rate of physical and mental injury, from chronic back problems to burnout, is distressing.

None of this is coincidental to the fact that 96 per cent of nurses are women. A small group of nurses at Social Development Canada has pushed back and they have triumphed. Good on them.

But their victory will not be complete until the recognition and respect they have earned - albeit grudgingly - is universal.
Governments cannot content themselves with muttered excuses and cash payouts. They need to see nurses for what they are: health professionals who are the backbone of the health system.

When the human rights of nurses are fully respected, we will all be richer for it.

--------

Voting system penalizes women

Gretchen Kelbaugh
Commentary
Telegraph Journal
Published Thursday January 24th, 2008
Appeared on page A5

I read Max Wolfe's commentary (Jan. 19) in which he questions whether "equal representation on the basis of sex or colour is a supreme value."

You bet it is. If a city has 30 per cent Chinese immigrants but only 5 per cent of city councilors are Chinese Canadians, then being of Chinese descent is an important quality in some candidates for city council. Likewise, in a country that's more than 50 per cent female but whose government is only 21 per cent female, being a woman is an important quality to consider when voting. Not the only quality, but an important one.

"Democracy" means "rule by the people." Canada, the United Kingdom (20 per cent women elected) and the USA (16 per cent) share democracies that are based on an outdated voting system and several other gendered factors. These result in "rule by men." Usually it's wealthy white businessmen or lawyers. This makes our government members sharp on matters of white-collar crime, corporate tax and penile dysfunction. It leaves them deficient, however, on matters such as living with poverty, racial discrimination, violence against women, reproductive rights, childcare, pay equity and health concerns of women.
It's really kind of shocking when you think about how narrow the pool of experience is in our elected representatives.

Studies in Canada and the UK show conclusively that women, including women politicians, put more emphasis than men do on issues of social welfare, such as education and healthcare, and that men are more interested than women are in economics, the military and foreign policy. We need both perspectives among our lawmakers.

It's time we had more women's points of view sitting at cabinet meetings where the big decisions are made. Not that women share one opinion. Far from it. But on many issues - from the environment to childcare - they tend to see things a bit differently from men. In general, women MPs of all parties have opinions that are a bit left of the opinions of the men in their parties. If women were fairly represented in Canada, policy debate would shift noticeably.

The quickest way to increase the representation of women in Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. is to change our 200-year-old voting system.

First-past-the-post with regional representation worked well in the past when voters were all male and mostly white. What distinguished a voter's needs was most apt to be the region where he lived, be it rural or city, mountainous or by the sea.

Now voters have many concerns beyond the regional, concerns often shared by others of our gender, racial or ethnic group.

Most major democracies threw out the old voting system years ago in favour of proportional representation, or some compromise between the two systems, to reflect this diversity of voters. If Canada were to switch to, say, the Mixed Member Proportional system used in Germany and New Zealand, the number of women members and minorities would jump by at least 10 per cent in the first election. MMP, as it's called, was recommended three years ago in the report of the N.B. Legislative Democracy commission, a report that's been ignored by two male-dominated governments.

There are many other reasons why we don't have more women elected. It's not because Canadians don't vote for them. We do. There are enough barriers to women trying to run for office that usually those who make it as candidates are highly qualified by any standard. Women win elections at almost the same rate as men do.

The hard part in our system is for women to become candidates. Several reasons for this are: the high cost of running a campaign (women working full-time still make only 70 per cent as much as men do); the power of local party constituencies to choose whoever they want, and they usually want the incumbent, and he's usually male; and the mindset, of both men and women, that politics is still the domain of men. Party leaders have to start thinking outside the box when they look for possible candidates.

Our parliamentary system was set up my men and so it tends to be adversarial and hierarchical in nature (if in doubt, watch the Parliamentary Channel). Many men don't go into politics for this reason, but even more women do not. Women are more apt to want to work in organizations that value consensus and teamwork. (Ask backbenchers how often their opinions are sought by their party leader.)

There are further barriers to women. Recent studies (conducted in part by UNBSJ's Dr. Joanna Everitt) show that the media treats women politicians by a subtle sexist standard. Also, most provincial legislatures still don't provide daycare or regular working hours, which affects more women politicians than men. These shortcomings are slowly improving as more women do join government.

There's the word: slowly. Max Wolf says "slower might be better" when it comes to minorities fighting for "their place in the sun." Easy for him to say. If he wasn't a middle-class white man, I wonder whether he'd be as patient?

What if things were reversed and we had a woman Prime Minister, 13 women premiers and mainly women cabinet members? Would men notice and care? Would men care if it were mainly women passing laws about child support and sexual assault or budgets about economic support for single-parent families (mainly mothers), the poor (mainly women) and research into better birth control?
In 1993, following the second big push for women's rights, Canada's government had grown to 18 per cent women; now, fifteen years later, we're at 21 per cent. Hallelujah. At the current rates of change in Canada, the U.S. and U.K., it will take 100-200 years before our 'democracies' include a fair number of women.

Personally, my patience is Max'ed out.

Gretchen Kelbaugh is a writer and filmmaker. She lives in Quispamsis.

***


Number of women in decision-making roles outrageous -- professor

By ROB LINKE
Daily Gleaner
Canadaeast News Service
Published Tuesday January 8th, 2008
Appeared on page A4

OTTAWA - Are women the Liberal government's most ignored supporters?

And could leaving them out of key roles undermine the transformation of the economy that Premier Shawn Graham is seeking?
These questions arise in part from the appointments made by Graham and his ministers.

But they also emerge from some surprises which suggest women have been passed over as potential contributors to the province's goals.

Women weren't members of either of the two most influential task forces the premier appointed: the two-man panel who recommended sweeping reforms to post-secondary education and the two-man panel who envisioned how New Brunswick could boost the economy and population so it becomes a self-sufficient province by 2026.

In the provincial cabinet, there are 19 male ministers and two women. Among the seven new deputy ministers appointed since Graham took office, two are women.

Such noticeable numbers would be unthinkable if, instead of women, the under-represented group was anglophones or francophones.

The attention given to linguistic balance often leads to significant political panels -- such as the post-secondary or self-sufficiency task forces -- having co-chairs: one French, one English.

Similarly, it would have spelled trouble had Graham's government failed to look to rural residents or Moncton residents or Saint John residents or to the north -- all-important political sub-groups -- as it formally sought advice or offered senior posts.

But women, who are nearly 52 per cent of the population, haven't figured as prominently as that in provincial appointments.
The Liberals have made 174 appointments, a tally compiled from government news releases, of which 131 went to men and 43 to women.

That means 25 per cent of Graham government appointees are women.

Perhaps the highest profile female appointee was the chair of the task force on the non-profit sector, former MP Claudette Bradshaw.

There were, however, several significant firsts for women: the workplace health, safety and compensation commission got its first female chairwoman, and the province's inaugural public trustee is a woman.

But for the most part, the provincial government is keeping to well-established ways in which women are under-represented.
In 2004, when Progressive Conservative premier Bernard Lord was in power, 30 per cent of the 1,115 members of provincially appointed boards and commissions were women, according to government figures cited by the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

In 1996, it was also 30 per cent. It was 18 per cent in 1982.

The numbers are outrageous, said Wendy Robbins, the University of New Brunswick professor honoured last fall by Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean for her work advancing the cause of women.

"But sadly, we've set the bar so low for so long that it begins to look normal," she said.

The problem with low numbers of women, particularly in key advisory roles, is that it's women who, by and large, are more aware of and sensitive to the fact that many economic and social policies affect men and women differently, Robbins said.
"Things that seem to be gender-neutral often are not," she said. "It's important that we make decisions with all New Brunswickers in mind, and that we have decision-makers aware of gender differences and committed to changing them."
That brings us to the outcomes that may be linked to the absence of women on key advisory panels or other documents.
For one, the 33-page self-sufficiency action plan doesn't use the words "women,-gender" or "female."

The final report of the premier's task force on self-sufficiency pays insightful but spotty attention to women.
It recommends quality day care to improve women's access to the workforce and speaks of the particular gains to be made from improving women's literacy rates.

But it shows no thorough awareness of the solid evidence -- mostly from developing countries -- that jurisdictions looking to make great leaps in education, incomes, skills and economic growth -- such as New Brunswick -- do best if they target their efforts toward women.

That's because women often lag in the relevant areas where their incomes are lower, their unemployment rate higher and so on.
The task force on post-secondary education's final report mentions women and gender briefly, but does so in important contexts.

It recognizes that "women are still under-represented in certain occupational areas" and that their access to education, such as the access of aboriginals, must be improved.

And one of its recommendations is for all public post-secondary institutions to have performance contracts that demand special efforts to increase the numbers of under-represented groups, such as women, aboriginals and the disabled.

But Robbins argues the post-secondary panel was oblivious of the damage its key recommendation could do to young women's educational prospects.

Robbins is among the female academics in the province who have expressed concerns about the impact the province's interest in moving towards more technical programs in post-secondary education will have on young women in New Brunswick.

A case can be made that promoting technical courses and eventual careers would boost female enrolment, but she's seen figures that indicate young women aren't interested in the offerings at Canada's existing polytechnic schools.

If New Brunswick pours scarce resources into creating those kinds of programs, women and their aspirations will be shortchanged, Robbins said.

To be fair, women do not have to be appointed to a panel or specifically mentioned in a report to actually benefit. The best example of that is the third increase in the minimum wage, to $7.75 an hour by March 2008, which represents a 16-per-cent jump since the Graham government took office.

The change will benefit proportionately more women than men, since it is women who dominate entry-level, casual and low-wage work.

And the wage increases were recommended by the male task force on self-sufficiency.

There are also efforts targeted at young women to address their under-representation in certain fields.

Earlier this month, the government funded the sixth annual conference to help increase the ranks of young women entering information technology careers, for example.

There is also the issue of pay equity. The Liberal government is committed to legislating it in the public sector, while taking flak from the Coalition for Pay Equity for leaving women in the private sector to the mercies of the market.
But as Robbins puts it, "surely if we're serious about the province pulling itself up by its bootstraps, the more you can do for the people at the bottom, the greater the progress will be. Those are the people who can go up exponentially."
Social Development Minister Mary Schryer, the minister responsible for the status of women in New Brunswick, could not be reached for comment through the holidays.

Senator Joe Day, a Hampton lawyer, has become a convert to making special efforts to develop policy with women in mind.
He was persuaded of its value from chairing the Senate finance committee, which monitors the functioning of federal government departments. Federal Treasury Board rules, like the provincial cabinet's rules, ensure the social and economic differences between the sexes are integrated into planning and decision-making.

In New Brunswick, staff in the women's issues branch, perform "gender-based analysis" of cabinet proposals. Looking at how policies affect women "has become a healthy preoccupation for us when deputy ministers or officers of Parliament appear before us," said Day, who said he has the impression too much lip service is still being paid to gender in Ottawa's policy-making.

After having his eyes opened in the nation's capital, Day argues New Brunswick cannot afford to overlook women as it tries to address challenges, such as the shortage of skilled labour that threatens to put the brakes on economic growth.
Like the country turning to women to run assembly lines when a million Canadian men were overseas during the Second World War, Day said the province has to recognize the untapped contributions women can make.
"We have to be thinking in terms of all the human potential we have," Day said.


**********


Is Liberal government an old boys' club?

Equality: Women have been largely ignored in posts, recommendations and policy, both the critics and data suggest
ROB LINKE


TELEGRAPH-JOURNAL
Published Saturday January 5th, 2008
Appeared on page A1

OTTAWA - Are women the Liberal government's most ignored supporters?

And could leaving them out of key roles undermine the transformation of the economy that Premier Shawn Graham is seeking?
These important questions arise in part from the appointments made by Graham and his ministers. But they also emerge from some surprising data which suggest women have been passed over as potential contributors to the province's goals.
First, the numbers.

Just one-quarter of all the appointments announced by the provincial government, for positions both powerful and obscure, from deputy ministers to members of the used Tire Stewardship Board, have gone to women.

Women were not members of either of the two most influential task forces the premier appointed - the two-man panel that recommended sweeping reforms to post-secondary education and the two-man panel that envisioned how New Brunswick could boost the economy and population so it becomes a self-sufficient province by 2026.

In the provincial cabinet, there are 19 male ministers and only two women. Among the seven new deputy ministers appointed since Graham took office, there are just two women.

Such noticeable numbers would be unthinkable if, instead of women, the under-represented group was anglophones or francophones.

The scrupulous attention given to linguistic balance often leads to significant political panels - such as the post-secondary or self-sufficiency task forces - having co-chairs: one French, one English.

New Brunswick governments learned decades ago that to overlook either linguistic group to the extent women have been is not only unjust, but political suicide.

Similarly, it would have spelled trouble had Graham's government demonstrably failed to look to rural residents or Moncton residents or Saint John residents or to the north - all important political sub-groups - as it formally sought advice or offered senior posts.

But women, who are nearly 52 per cent of the population, have not figured anywhere near as prominently as that in provincial appointments.

The Liberals have made 174 appointments, a tally compiled from government news releases, of which 131 went to men and 43 to women.

That means only 25 per cent of Graham government appointees are women.

But women are far from entirely shut out.

Perhaps the highest-profile female appointee was the chair of the task force on the non-profit sector, former MP Claudette Bradshaw.

And there were several significant "firsts" for women: the workplace health, safety and compensation commission got its first female chairperson, and the province's inaugral public trustee is a woman.
But for the most part, the provincial government is keeping to well-established ways in which women are woefully under-represented.

In 2004, when Conservative Bernard Lord was in power, 30 per cent of the 1,115 members of provincially-appointed boards and commissions were women, according to government figures cited by the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
In 1996, it was also 30 per cent. It was 18 per cent in 1982.

The numbers are "outrageous," said Wendy Robbins, the University of New Brunswick professor honoured this fall by Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean for her work advancing the cause of women, "but sadly, we've set the bar so low for so long that it begins to look normal."

The problem with low numbers of women, particularly in the key advisory roles, is that it is women who by and large are more aware of and sensitive to the fact that many economic and social policies affect men and women differently, Robbins argues.

"Things that seem to be gender-neutral often are not," she said. "It's important that we make decisions with all New Brunswickers in mind, and that we have decision-makers aware of gender differences and committed to changing them."
That brings us to the surprising outcomes that may be linked to the absence of women on key advisory panels or other documents.

For one, the breezy, 33-page self-sufficiency action plan does not use the words "women,-gender" or "female".
The final report of the premier's task force on self-sufficiency pays insightful but spotty attention to women. It recommends quality daycare to improve women's access to the workforce, and speaks of the particular gains to be made from improving women's literacy rates.

But it shows no thorough awareness of the solid evidence - mostly from developing countries - that jurisdictions looking to make great leaps in education, incomes, skills and economic growth - just like New Brunswick - do best if they target their efforts on women, because women often lag in the relevant areas, like they do in New Brunswick, where their incomes are lower, their unemployment rate higher and so on.

The task force on post-secondary education's final report mentions women and gender briefly, but at least it goes so in important contexts.

It recognizes that "women are still under-represented in certain occupational areas" and that their access to education, like the access of aboriginals, must be improved.

And one of its recommendations is for all public post-secondary institutions to have performance contracts that demand special efforts to increase the numbers of under-represented groups, such as women, aboriginals and the disabled.

But Robbins argues the post-secondary panel was oblivious of the damage its key recommendation could do to young women's educational prospects.

Robbins is among the female academics in the province who have expressed concerns about the impact the province's interest in moving toward more technical programs in post-secondary education will have on young women in New Brunswick.

A case can be made that promoting technical courses and eventual careers would boost female enrolment, but she's seen figures that indicate young women are not interested in the offerings at Canada's existing polytechnical schools.

If New Brunswick pours scarce resources into creating those kinds of programs, women and their aspirations will be shortchanged, Robbins fears.

To be fair, women do not have to be appointed to a panel or specifically mentioned in a report to actually benefit.
The best example of that is the third increase in the minimum wage, to $7.75 an hour by March 2008, which represents a 16-per-cent jump since the Graham government took office.

The change will benefit proportionately more women than men, since it is women who predominate in entry-level, casual and low-wage work.

And the wage increases were recommended by the male task force on self-sufficiency.

There are also efforts targeted at young women to address their under-representation in certain fields. Earlier this month, the government funded the sixth annual conference to help increase the ranks of young women entering information technology careers, for example.

There is also the issue of pay equity. The Graham government is committed to legislating it in the public sector, while taking flak from the Coalition for Pay Equity for leaving women in the private sector to the mercies of the market.
But as Robbins puts it, "surely if we're serious about the province pulling itself up by its bootstraps, the more you can do for the people at the bottom, the greater the progress will be.

"Those are the people who can go up exponentially."

Social Development Minister Mary Schryer, the minister responsible for the status of women in New Brunswick, could not be reached for comment through the holidays.

Senator Joe Day, the Hampton lawyer, has become a convert to making special efforts to develop policy with women in mind.
He became persuaded of its value from chairing the Senate finance committee, which monitors the functioning of federal government departments.

Federal Treasury Board rules, like the provincial cabinet's rules, ensure the social and economic differences between the sexes are integrated into planning and decision-making. In New Brunswick, staff in the women's issues branch, perform "gender-based analysis" of cabinet proposals.

Looking at how policies affect women "has become a healthy preoccupation for us when deputy ministers or officers of Parliament appear before us," said Day, who said he has the impression too much lip service is still being paid to gender in Ottawa's policy-making.

After having his eyes opened in the nation's capital, Day argues New Brunswick can not afford to overlook women as it tries to address challenges such as the shortage of skilled labour that threatens to put the brakes on economic growth.
Like the country turning to women to run assembly lines when a million Canadian men were overseas during the Second World War, Day said the province has to recognize the untapped contributions women can make.
"We have to be thinking in terms of all the human potential we have," Day said.


---------


L'Acadie Nouvelle
Forum public, lundi, 31 d?cembre 2007, p. 12

Mon opinion

Corriger une injustice

M. le Ministre de l'?ducation postsecondaire, de la Formation et du Travail du Nouveau-Brunswick, Ed Doherty, le 10 d?cembre a eu lieu la Journ?e internationale des droits de la personne. En cette ann?e 2007, o? la province du Nouveau-Brunswick a c?l?br? le 40e anniversaire de l'adoption de sa Loi sur les droits de la personne, j'aimerais rappeler certains faits ? votre gouvernement.

La Loi sur les droits de la personne du Nouveau-Brunswick statue "que la reconnaissance du principe fondamental de l'?galit? de tous les ?tres humains en dignit? et en droits, sans distinction de race, de couleur, de croyance, d'origine nationale, d'ascendance, de lieu d'origine, d'?ge, d'incapacit? physique, d'incapacit? mentale, d'?tat matrimonial, d'orientation sexuelle, de sexe, de condition sociale ou de convictions ou d'activit? politiques, est un principe directeur sanctionn? par les lois du Nouveau-Brunswick".

Si, effectivement, le gouvernement de cette province adh?re au principe fondamental de l'?galit? de tous les ?tres humains en dignit? et en droit, sans distinction de sexe, tel qu'?nonc? dans cette loi, comment se fait-il que 40 ans apr?s son adoption, il tol?re encore la discrimination dont sont victimes plusieurs femmes dans le march? du travail au Nouveau-Brunswick?

En 2007, il est inacceptable que des femmes n?o-brunswickoises fassent encore l'objet de discrimination salariale tout simplement parce qu'elles sont des femmes. Les femmes, autant que les hommes, sont des piliers des communaut?s du Nouveau-Brunswick. Elles sont des citoyennes ? part enti?re, qui votent, qui font des ?tudes, ?l?vent des enfants, s'occupent de leur foyer, travaillent fort et contribuent au d?veloppement ?conomique de cette province. Elles m?ritent un salaire ?gal pour un travail de valeur ?gale.

Pourtant, les emplois traditionnellement ou majoritairement occup?s par des femmes sont encore souvent moins pay?s que les emplois masculins de m?me valeur.

J'exhorte le gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick ? adopter, d?s 2008, une loi sur l'?quit? salariale afin de corriger cette injustice qui perdure depuis bien trop longtemps dans les secteurs public et priv?.

ME LOUISE AUCOIN
Professeure de droit, Universit? de Moncton
Moncton
_______________________________
Johanne Perron
Executive Director / Directrice g?n?rale
NB Coalition for Pay Equity
Coalition pour l'?quit? salariale du N.-B.
Tel / T?l.: (506) 855-0002
Fax / T?l?c.: (506) 854-9728
51 Williams Street, Moncton, NB E1C 2G6
51, rue Williams, Moncton, N.-B. E1C 2G6
coalitio@nb.sympatico.ca
www.equite-equity.com

Fill in the Minister of Finance’s on-line questionnaire - Deadline 31st January

Bonjour!

Les femmes sont sous-représentées au gouvernement... Mais faites-lui connaître VOS priorités ! Répondez au questionnaire en ligne du Ministre des finances du Nouveau-Brunswick : www.gnb.ca/finances. Et n’oubliez pas de demander une loi sur l’équité salariale à la question 26 (commentaires). DATE LIMITE : 31 JANVIER 2008.

Johanne
*************

Greetings!

Women are under-represented in government… But let the government know YOUR priorities! Fill in the Minister of Finance’s on-line questionnaire: www.gnb.ca/finance . And don’t forget to ask for pay equity legislation at question 26 (comments)! DEADLINE: 31 JANVIER 2008.

Johanne
_______________________________
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/

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/