REAL WOMEN WORKING IN PARLIAMENT

1. Secretary of State Women's Program

As soon as Parliament began sitting in September, REAL Women went into action to educate our MPS on the importance of pro-family legislation and policies.

One of our first undertakings in September was to raise our concerns with the MPs and Senators about the actions of the Secretary of State for Women's Issues, Hedy Fry, in endorsing a lobby of MPs by the radical feminist umbrella organization NAC. In a letter to all MPs and Senators, dated August 5, 1997, Ms. Fry encouraged federal legislators to attend NAC's annual parliamentary lobby in order to "... benefit from the views of women's organizations."

REAL Women responded by sending a letter on September 12, 1997 to all MPs pointing out that: NAC in no way represents the views of Canadian women, nor does it represent the views of the 700 women's groups in Canada it claims to represent.

... NAC is not representative of Canadian women. Rather, it represents only those women who have a far-left, socialist, even Marxist agenda, an agenda which can be attributed to only a very small minority of Canadian women.

Notwithstanding the fact that NAC is representative of only such a minority of Canadian women, it, nonetheless, continues to receive a priority position and special treatment from the Secretary of State, Status of Women Canada. In fact, it is the extensive funding by the Women's Program of the Status of Women Canada that has permitted NAC to survive over the years, with virtually no grassroots support.

It would appear that the Secretary of State, Status of Women Canada is failing in its responsibility. That department is being administered in a biased and discriminatory manner by supporting only the policies of radical feminist organizations.

Feminists are more influential in Canada than in any other country in the world simply because they are so generously protected and maintained by the Canadian taxpayer. Without such funding, their organizations would, frankly, cease to exist. Feminist women do NOT reflect the views of the majority of Canadian women -- so why does the government in Ottawa persist in funding them?

The Women's Program, Status of Women Canada, has failed to represent the diverse perspectives of all the women in Canada. In view of its discriminatory and unfair practices, it should be disbanded.

We received many sympathetic letters from Senators and MPs. However, it was significant that Minister of Finance Paul Martin, Secretary of State for Women's Issues, Hedy Fry, and the Prime Minister's office all declined to reply to our letter.

2. Appearance before the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Elimination of Denominational Schools in Canada

In an attempt to change denominational schools in Quebec to schools established along linguistic lines, the Quebec National Assembly passed a resolution last April requesting the federal government agree to the change by way of a resolution of the House of Commons and the Senate providing that S.93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly called the British North America Act), would no longer apply in Quebec. S.93 provides a constitutional protection for religious rights in education, e.g., it protects denominational or religious schools in Canada. In order to placate Quebec, as well as to indicate to Quebec that the Canadian Constitution is "flexible", the Minister of Interprovincial Affairs, StŽphane Dion, reacted swiftly to Quebec's demand by tabling, as soon as Parliament was opened in September, a resolution in the House of Commons to remove the application of S.93 from Quebec.

On October 28th, REAL Women of Canada's National Vice President, Gwen Landolt, Sophie Joannou, National Board member, and Diane Watts, our Ottawa Researcher, appeared as witnesses at the Joint Committee on this important issue. During our 45-minute presentation and discussion, Diane, speaking in French, stated that the move to abolish the provisions for religious school boards is an attempt by a political elite to impose its secular ideology, which.borders on totalitarianism:

If we can have no confidence in the stability of our school system, how can we be confident that minority rights of any sort will be respected? This attacks the rights of the majority of Catholic parents and the minority of Protestants.

Gwen, a lawyer, then discussed with the Committee the serious legal consequences of the Quebec resolution. Specifically, she pointed out that if this resolution is passed, it will lead to a fundamental restructuring of Canadian society.

This conclusion is based on the fact that if the constitutional protection of religious rights in education provided by the Constitution Act, 1867 is removed in Quebec, the precedent is set and the other Canadian provinces, to which S.93 applies (Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba), will also be able to readily remove the constitutional protection of denominational schools in their respective jurisdictions by the will of the majority over the minority. Moreover, once the protective overlay provided by S.93 is withdrawn, the full rigours of the Charter will come into effect, and S.2 of the Charter, which provides for freedom of religion, will be used to prohibit public funds being applied to any religious-based schools in Canada.

REAL Women also expressed further concerns about the attempt to remove the constitutional protection of S.93 by the application of the amending formula set out in S.43 of the Charter of Rights. The plain reading of S.43 requires that other provinces affected by S.93, such as Ontario, give their consent to this resolution. This did not occur. Further, there are persuasive legal arguments that amending S.93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (which, as stated by the Supreme Court of Canada, in 1987, is the "basic compact of Confederation") requires that the amending formula as set out in S.38 of the Charter (consent of the 7 provinces as well as that of 50% of the population) be applied instead. We submitted that the S.43 amending formula was never intended to apply to circumstances such as this, and that any attempt to do so would be held to be constitutionally invalid.

The concerns expressed in REAL Women's legal agenda on this crucial effect of the amendment to S.93, as it relates to the school system in Quebec as well as in other Canadian provinces, was presented as well by other lawyers before the Joint Parliamentary Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada on the resolution.

REAL Women then sent this legal opinion, together with a letter about its concerns on the removal of S.93 from Quebec, to the MPs and Senators pointing out the serious consequences to religious education in Canada of this proposed amendment if Quebec's demands are acceded to. For example, the province of Alberta, which now provides partial financial support for independent and private schools, including Christian schools, would be prohibited from doing so if the S.93 Constitutional protection is removed.

In view of the complexities of this case and its far-reaching ramifications for Canada, REAL Women requested that, at the very least, a reference be made to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine the constitutional validity of applying S.43 of the Charter to amend S.93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

3. Appearance before the House of Commons Finance Committee on 1998 Budget

National President, Cecilia Forsyth, flew to Ottawa from her home in Saskatchewan to appear on November 3rd before the House of Commons Finance Committee. (Her expenses, thankfully, were paid by the federal government.) Cecilia was accompanied at the Committee meeting by our Ottawa members, Sophie Joannou and Diane Watts. The purpose of REAL Women's appearance before the Committee with eleven other groups was to participate in a round-table discussion on the priorities in the 1998 budget now that the deficit is under control and a balanced budget is expected in 1998-99.

Cecilia testified before the Committee that, since Canada is still in debt ($600 billion) which requires $40-45 billion a year in interest payments, debt reduction must be a major government priority. Cecilia pointed out that there is not only far too much government waste and duplication, but that the billions of dollars paid out to special interest groups must be stopped.

She also argued that children live within a family unit and the focus of government policy should be to support Canadian families by reducing taxes, not by increasing government spending on selective programs solely intended to address the issue of child poverty. The best way to reduce child poverty, according to REAL Women's brief to the Committee, is to assist the family unit by leaving earned income in the hands of the taxpayer. Lower taxes would reduce the need for expensive social assistance programs.

It was a stroke of luck that, on the weekend of November 1, prior to Cecilia's appearance before the Committee, a Globe and Mail Angus Reid poll was published which showed that REAL Women's views on the budget represented the majority view of Canadians, which is what we've suspected all along.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS