Topic
Remember all he's done to thwart hard-won progress.
Reversing gains for Canadian women.
Child care policies pit women against each other.
When Harper plays the family card, he cheats.
After three decades of (admittedly uneven) progress towards full human rights, women now must contend with the agenda of Stephen Harper. The prime minister's disdain for women's equality is one of the most dramatic examples of his wider assault on democracy.
Democracy is not just political parties, voting and Parliament -- it is a whole panoply of institutions, practices and traditions of the country and the evolution of norms in society. Specifically, it encompasses human rights and civil liberties. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is relatively new institution in Canada, but when it was enacted in 1982, it both reflected -- and helped establish in law -- the changes that Canadian society was already going through. One of the most critical areas of change was that of women's rights and equality. The Charter merely recognized that Canadian society had moved on from the period where women were treated as second-class citizens with impunity and discriminated against as a matter of course.
Like the earlier struggle of women just to get the right to vote, this was a classic example of how society changes through the influence of powerful democratic movements and how the law is then obliged to catch up. Indeed, in 1981, even before the Charter became law, the federal government ratified the United Nations Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women -- a convention that itself reflected the strength of the global women's movement.
In the very first year that Stephen Harper was prime minister he moved in many ways to halt the course of progress for women. His government summarily cancelled the multi-billion dollar national child care program that the previous Liberal government had spent years negotiating with the provinces (and women's groups had fought to have for decades). It also had the support of the vast majority of Canadians.
This program was hardly a radical proposal. Canada is one of the most backward countries among Western developed nations regarding early childhood education. This program would simply have begun to close the gap.
According to Sharon Gregson of the Coalition of Childcare Advocates of B.C., "Other countries are able to provide childcare for up to 100 percent of children between the age of three and six. Other countries, like Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Sweden, England and the United States invest more per capita in early childhood development services than Canada does."
The universal program was "replaced" by a taxable $100 a month payment to parents of kids under six -- a pittance compared to the cost of professional child care (but an approach recommended by the right-wing group REAL Women).
Shutting shelters, stifling advocacy
Other cuts were part of a one billion dollar assault on things that the Harper government didn't like -- cuts that were implemented in spite of the fact that his government had inherited a $13 billion surplus. Amongst the programs eliminated was the Court Challenges Program (CCP), one of the most effective and innovative programs in the world promoting and facilitating human rights. The CCP had, since 1978, provided funding for individuals challenging government legislation that was discriminatory. In short, it made constitutional rights, and rights under the Charter, accessible to ordinary people. Women were amongst its major beneficiaries. To ensure that it would not have to accept any outside, citizen-based advice on changing the law, Harper also eliminated the $4 million in funding for the Law Commission of Canada, formerly the Law Reform Commission.
The government also closed 12 out of 16 regional offices of Status of Women Canada across the country, as well as eliminating the $1 million Status of Women Independent Research Fund. Changes were imposed to the criteria for funding for the Status of Women Canada's Women's Programme which precluded support for advocacy or lobbying for law reform. That meant that dozens of women-run NGOs would no longer receive funding because virtually all of them combined advocacy with the provision of services -- such as women's shelters advocating for an end to violence against women.
One of the most cynical efforts by the Harper government to turn back the clock was its decision -- again, with no reference to Parliament and no consultation with women or women's organizations -- to simply refuse to take the issue of pay equity any further than the law already allowed. Harper, breaking a promise made in the 2006 election, simply rejected recommendations from a federal task force to move toward a "proactive pay-equity system." Shelagh Day, one of Canada's foremost feminists and a human rights scholar, told a Vancouver forum on Dec. 2006, "The Harper government has come forward a few months ago and simply said they're not going to do anything on pay equity. The law will stay the way it is."
In 2009 the Harper government took pay equity backwards when it introduced the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. According to human rights advocates, the bill emptied 'the right to pay equity of its meaning. The new legislated criteria for evaluating 'equitable compensation' will reintroduce sex discrimination into pay practices, rather than eliminate it." The law (passed by stealth by placing it in the 2009 budget where it could not be voted down) introduced additional criteria that would allow public sector employers to consider "market demand" in determining compensation -- in effect ensuring higher pay for men even if the work was of equal value.
What REAL women say real women want
While women's groups organized forums across the country to draw attention to this deliberate social engineering from the right, Harper has not been listening to them. He was, however, listening to a group that had demonstrated its full support for Harper and the Conservatives during the election: REAL Women.
Responding to the $5 million in cuts to the Status of Women, REAL Women stated, "This is a good start, and we hope that the Status of Women will eventually be eliminated entirely since it does not represent 'women,' but only represents the ideology of feminists."
REAL Women also congratulated the government for cancelling the "troublesome" Court Challenges Program, declaring that "the Court Challenges Program was a profoundly undemocratic use of taxpayers' money to restructure society... The elimination of the Court Challenges Program will go a long way to promote democracy in Canada."
If there was any doubt that it was Stephen Harper's personal determination to set back women's equality, Garth Turner, a Conservative MP who eventually left the caucus, left none. He told the Georgia Straight, "[Harper] said, 'We have determined a series of cuts... which will be announced... They are our position. Anyone [who] has got any problem with that -- who says anything about it -- is going to have a short political career.' He said that in caucus."
Remember. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
21
Login or register to post comments
jwstewart
3 years ago
Drivel
Child Care is not a women's issue, it is a children's issue. Co-opting it to demonize a political opponent like Mr. Dobbin has done is a weak form of attack.
So too is the Court Challenges program. Was the court challenges program available only to women? If not, then how is abolishing it solely a women's issue?
As for direct funding for women's groups, they appear now to be equal to direct funding for men's groups. I guess it's not enough for the government to treat citizens equally.
onthebay
3 years ago
Fundamental Change
It would be enough for the government to treat citizens equally if society in general treated every person equally, but that is not the case. Historically, society has undervalued work done by women, and issues with personal implications for women have often been left poorly addressed or un-addressed.
From what I understand, the change with how equitable compensation, formerly know as pay equity, is dealt with under the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act (PSECA) is a very fundamental change. Instead of dealing with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), equitable compensation is to be dealt with under PSECA guidelines via the employer and unions during negotiations for collective agreements.
Flaws involved with going through the CHRC are very lengthy delays, very costly processes and compensation, and very adversarial procedures. Flaws involved with PSECA, while yet to completely unfold, could be the potential for using equitable compensation as a bargaining chip (which can depend a lot on the strength of one’s union), and from what I understand, once a collective agreement with equitable compensation language is in place, a person is prohibited from going to the union to address specific equitable compensation concerns. There is also a clause that allows market forces to influence equitable compensation, which leaves the same old societal can of worms that perpetuates the undervaluing of women’s work wide open.
poltourist
3 years ago
Drivel?
"Child Care is not a women's issue, its a children's issue". Are you serious? In two parents families, many a time, women take the lead role in childcare. For single moms, who outnumber single dads, women are doing the child caring. Childcare as an issue impacts women far more than men. And while it could be labeled a "children's issue" I have yet to see or hear of children checking themselves into child care facilities, or for that matter campaigning for a national child care program. Parents are guardians, and women are more the carers more often than not. By eliminating a child care program, and instead giving $100/month to parents, the government is hardly promoting women's rights. One could even go so far as to say the government is attacking women's rights.
The courts challenges program - fair point, but the author does not state that its a women's only issue, and men's groups... well our society is pretty male-centric, or am I wrong?
G West
3 years ago
jw
Child care is predominantly a women's issue and, until men start having children, will always be a women's issue.
The rest of our society, if it cares about the future (which, these days hardly seems a given) ought to be concerned about child care as well.
In fact, the prime illustration of the bankruptcy of Pee Wee's government on this issue was Harper's recent speech in Davos addressing infant and maternal mortality and morbidity in the third world.
Instead of making hypocritical comments on the world stage, the Prime Minister should be addressing the third world conditions for mothers and children of Canada's First Nations - a job and a responsibility which rests entirely upon the shoulders of the government he leads right here in Canada.
The man has NO SHAME...
Bob Watts
3 years ago
That giving feeling...
Haiti is a worthy cause and Harper is matching dollar for dollar donations to Haiti. This means a doubling of money to their poor. Our poor are not worthy!
Harper when he had that $60 billion surplus, voted to not end poverty in Canada. He gave the money to businesses that already had a lower tax rate than the USA.
Sad Harper won't match Seniors pensions or Disability benifits Provincial or Federal.
Companies took over $680 billion out of Canada last year, now there is a crime blessed by Harper and Campbell. Think these two need clild care...
morechatter
3 years ago
It takes a community to raise a child
Children have no rights and issues like mommy or daddy I'm hungry or mommy I'm cold,or mommy daddy is playing with my privates etc its parents that take up these issues along with advocates who promote equality and fairness with governments. Mom works all week long and has no money left after paying daycare as the assistance that isn't avaiable leaves them in crisis as welfare rates are used to decide if client is eligible for subsidy. I guess what moms and tots need is a reality check as politicians ensure moms and tots are left in dire straights and good for the streets. Where mom and tot can make their contribution by working the streets and saving all the doe ray me for government and big business. As communities are left in need as big business and government have decided they got to get their kicks for nothing and their chicks for free even if its just little kids.
Fiat lux
3 years ago
Feminist economics
No wonder Stevie doesn't like them.
Ed Deak.
===========================================
GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE
WORKING PAPER NO. 07-03
Economists, Value Judgments, and Climate Change:
A View From Feminist Economics
Julie A. Nelson
October 2007
PDF:
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/07-03EconValClimate.pdf
07-03EconValClimate.pdf
The final version of this working paper has been published in Ecological Economics 65(3): 441$B!>(B447 (April 2008) and is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.001
Tufts University
Medford MA 02155, USA
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae
Abstract
A number of recent discussions about ethical issues in climate change, as engaged in by economists, have focused on the value of the parameter representing the rate of time preference within models of optimal growth. This essay examines many economists$B!G(B antipathy to serious discussion of ethical matters, and suggests that the avoidance of questions of intergenerational equity is related to another set of value judgments concerning the quality and objectivity of economic practice. Using insights from feminist philosophy of science and research on high reliability organizations, this essay argues that a more ethically transparent, real-world-oriented, and flexible economic practice would lead to more strongly objective, reliable, and useful knowledge.
Holocene
3 years ago
no demonization required
jwstewart, child care will stop being a womens’ issue when men start having babies. More realistically, it will stop being a womens’ issue when men stop “babysitting” their own kids. The lion’s share of child care continues to be done by women, to the detriment of their earnings, benefits and pensions, and their eligibility for EI and chances for advancement in their career.
Treating citizens equally? Sure. Let’s start with pay equity.
As for the Court Challenges Program, no one said it was only used by women, only that it was particularly helpful to women in seeking redress for the kinds of inequities that are the result of centuries of bias and discrimination, when those inequities have ensured that women don’t have the financial resources to do so otherwise. Your argument against its cancellation being a womens’ issue makes as much sense as arguing that since some men get breast cancer, that isn’t a womens’ issue.
greengreen
3 years ago
OUR children
Child care a women's issue? A children's issue? As a single, male non-parent of some vintage, I know that child care is a societal issue-a priority for us all.
Peter Dimitrov
3 years ago
The root cause issue
Mr. Dobbin said it correctly: "One of the most cynical efforts by the Harper government to turn back the clock was its decision -- again, with no reference to Parliament and no consultation with women or women's organizations..." The political realty is that our colonial low level democracy concentrates excessive power in the Prime Minister Office (and Premier's offices), and rather than collaborative democracy that mandates consultation and collaboration - we have authoritarianism - what the PM or Premier says, GOES, especially in a majority government (but evidently also in a minority government. Then too, we ought to layer on top, the immense powers of appointment that goes to Prime Ministers and Premiers. We, as citizens are allowing ourselves to be governed like children, ought we not then look in a mirror and ask why, and for how long shall we suffer this outdated institutional political design, and what resources do we have individually and collectively as a people to change matters. Surely, if citizens in other countries can convene a citizen's constituent assembly to provide for the collaborative re-writing of their national constitutions, we can too, or if not, we as a nation and peoples are frozen in historical time, forever more sentenced to suffer both the inequities and foolishness that flow from the authoritarian concentration of power, nationally and provincially.
Peter Evanchuck
3 years ago
Harper the Harpie is NOT for Canadian values
Mr. Harper continues to chip away sometimes with a pick other times with a chain saw, at the values we Canadians cherish. The charter should protect Canada from Harper's personal vendetta against our version of democracy, justice and fair play. It seems not and Mr Kadhr is a prime example of this. God save Canada, Harper won't.
onthebay
3 years ago
Priorities
Due to a lot of valid reasons, there are people who will never find a place in the current workforce. In a more ideal world these people would be encouraged to contribute in some way, and would be valued for the contributions they can make, but in the faceless, profit-driven, corporate world, they are just so much flotsam. All the government does is put these people on very under-funded social assistance programs that drive them further and further to monetary and social margins where non-governmental entities fill in some of the gaps (food banks, soup kitchens, etc.) to help keep these people from falling entirely “off the map.” And then there’s the whole other matter of the increasing number of working poor, where ends can’t possibly be met by paltry salaries, the fallout being resentment and personal difficulties that spin off into social problems - both of which will probably end up costing a lot more in the long run and in more ways than we can imagine.
Until we change the corporate bottom-line, frontier minded, ideology that is driving governmental actions and processes, and the “colonial low level” democracy that passes for government these days (great summation Peter) the poor in Canada will remain “not worthy” as Bob pointed out earlier, they will continue to be blamed for being poor - after all, Canada is a land of opportunity if one just does the “right” things - right?
Frank
3 years ago
onthebay
great post
cdn
3 years ago
beyond comprehension
Why any woman would vote for the Conservatives is simply beyond my comprehension.
realisticman
3 years ago
Change
"Surely, if citizens in other countries can convene a citizen's constituent assembly to provide for the collaborative re-writing of their national constitutions, we can too, or..." - Peter Dimitrov
After Meech Lake and Charlottetown there will not likely be an other attempt by any federal government to change the constitution for a long time. The veto system assures it, since deals are needed for agreement. Decentralization is here to stay so the only chance is at the provincial level and Gordon Campbell offered to change the voting system and that was fraught with acrimony and the resulting suggestions from the citizen's assembly went down to defeat. So that one's off for a while too.
Marysue52
3 years ago
child support
When marriages break down, child care, child raising and all expenses fall mainly on the moms. Male support payments? Hardly ever happen--hardly any men pay it regularly. Men, by and large, abandon their kids, when the marriage ends. The resulting emotional damage to their kids is severe and the financial situation for them, disasterous. That male abandonment and resulting poverty impacts the kids' future and affacts their chances of making it in this world. Most kids raised by single moms are angry and frustrated, and they project their feelings of abandonment unfairly onto their moms. There's little help out there, so most of these kids do not turn out well.
VICTREX
3 years ago
Not only women's rights
Harper's real agenda is one to REALLY fear ! His ideology is based on the fundamental christian church values that he is a member of. These values are male oriented---men are the masters and women are submissive slaves, there only for the use of the male---like it says in the bible. The agenda is to create laws that cater only to the Wealthy World ELITE. Making it financially impossible for a normal wage earner to sue for rights, leaves unjust laws unchangeable. The children of the wealthy will get the best care and education and thusly the best jobs, while the rest will fight for the crumbs. Harper's cold arrogant elitist demeanor, expresses his disdain for Canadian gov't system and society as a whole. He wants to slyly, quietly change the laws so there will be little opposition. He deliberately makes parliament disfunctional and lies about the Senate blocking ALL of his bills---like a spoiled rich brat that cannot tolerate anyone questioning his edicts. By proroguing parliament he is deliberatly killing all the tabled bills so that he can stack the Senate to rubber stamp all his bills (edicts) that the opposition is too foolish to pass---most bills have more than one issue to consider---to agree with one issue means MPs have to agree with others that Harper connivingly included in the same bill. There is NO HONESTY in Harper's agenda, just lies and deceit, to change Canada without Canadians understanding that they are being screwed ! Be thankful he does not have a majority. The free-trade deals he has made with Colombia and the coming European Union, etc. will further impoverish the workers and enrich the foreign wealthy elite investors. It is time Harper found another job, before it is too late for not only women but all working Canadians.
OilbertaRedTory
3 years ago
Mr Minority's female problems
... are likely rooted in his church's misogyny:
http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/print.aspx?postid=238678
onthebay
3 years ago
insightful
OilbertaRedTory - thanks for that insightful posting!
BDD63
3 years ago
Hey Marysue52
"When marriages break down, child care, child raising and all expenses fall mainly on the moms. Male support payments? Hardly ever happen--hardly any men pay it regularly. Men, by and large, abandon their kids, when the marriage ends."
First of all it takes two to tango. My brother-in-law's first wife has gone out of her way to poison the minds of his son and daughter about what a deadbeat their father was even though he never once missed a support payment or was allowed much if any input on how and if that money was actually being spent on his children. Once his son finished school and got out into the real world he discovered that his dad was actually a real cool guy and started to realize that his Mom was a bit of a "See You Next Tuesday" if you get my meaning.
And regarding REAL WOMEN. Whenever I see them out spouting off about how they think the world should work the first question out of my mouth is "Hey sister shouldn't you be at home making dinner for your hardworkin' husband? And who lookin' after your children so you can run around to political rallies?
paisley
3 years ago
Marysue52
Maybe the government's reduction in programs for women is just a way of saying "your fired" when it comes to raising our children. The feminist movement with their idiotic notion that mothers only know best how to raise our kids is the first good reason for being fired. I'm sure you will blame somebody else because one third of all our children are considered to be obese. We all know that society believes that mothers have the last word on parenting. Which the feminist movement purports and truly believes. If the male of a family with children should try to have the last word on parenting he will be rejected and dismissed in short order. Women don't have any reason to stay in a marriage because when all is said and done lose very little. They get custody of the children and assets of the marriage, exactly what they asked for and then complain about raising the children( or rather being one of their friends(yikes)).
Custodial parents can use the children to exact revenge for what ever they deem needs to be revenged against their ex-spouse with legal impunity. In BC, women have the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program that has almost limitless power to strip a non payer of all their money, drivers license and passport. So there is no reason that the custodial parent will not receive any money owing. Except in the case that the non-custodial parent's life has been destroyed and has no reason to be an eager wage earner because they don't get to help raise their own children anyway. Non-custodial parents are generally forced out of their children's lives.