BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

DISHONESTY AND DUPLICITY BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN

Even though three other of the opposition-dominated House of Commons Committees had already reviewed the de-funding of the Court Challenges Program (CCP), the opposition dominated Standing Committee on the Status of Women was eager to review it once again. In doing so, the Committee decided, apparently, that integrity, honesty and proper ethics should not stand in the way of its obvious objective of recommending that the CCP be re-established.

To put it mildly, the entire proceedings of this Committee were perverse.

December 4, 2007 Hearing

At the December 4 hearing, there were seven witnesses, all but one of whom had a conflict of interest in regard to the CCP. That is, the witnesses either held prominent positions on the now disbanded CCP, or were members of the largest beneficiary of the CCP, LEAF (Women’s Legal Education Action Fund). In some cases, the witnesses were in double conflict of interest. The only witness at the hearing without a conflict of interest was the one representing REAL Women of Canada.

It was significant that any conflicts of interest by the witnesses were never disclosed during the proceedings.

The hearing was chaired by NDP MP Irene Mathyssen (London-Fanshaw) whose actions as chair were appalling. She twice posed questions of the panelists without vacating the chair. She ignored the REAL Women of Canada witness countless times, but permitted the feminist activists on the panel to speak for extended periods of time without interruption. The witnesses at this hearing were as follows:

Shelagh Day: Ms. Day represented the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA)

. In her presentation, Ms. Day did not disclose the significant fact that she was the former chairperson of the Equality Rights Panel of the CCP. Ms. Day is also the former vice-president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC); former chair of the lesbian caucus at the UN Beijing Conference on Women; as well as a member of the Steering Committee of FAFIA.

During the Committee proceedings, Ms. Day stated that she was a proud feminist and lesbian, but failed to disclose that during her appointment as chairperson, that is, between 1994 and 2005 (according to CCP’s 2004-2005 Annual Report), the CCP provided resources for 41 homosexual cases, as well as 140 cases for LEAF. The promotion of one’s personal views, both feminist and homosexual, as chairperson of the Equality Panel of the CCP, was a betrayal of her responsibilities, as well as that of the Canadian taxpayers, who funded the CCP.

Sharon McIvor: Ms. McIvor was listed on the panel only as an "individual". In fact, she was also a former member of the Equality Rights Panel of the CCP. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of FAFIA, already represented on the panel by Ms. Day. In her testimony before the Committee, Ms. McIvor claimed she had no other support for her legal challenge of the status of Aboriginal Women case, except that of the CCP. In fact, according to her website, Ms. McIvor’s case is receiving resources from the British Columbia government and the Service Employees’ Union, which is, at present, also calling on its union allies to contribute additional resources to further her case.

Martha Jackman, National Association of Women and the Law: Ms. Jackman did not disclose in her testimony before the Committee that she was also a former member of the Equality Panel of the CCP. She is also currently a member of the Board of Directors of LEAF.

Doris Buss: She represented LEAF on the panel, although there is nothing on the website of Ms. Buss to state that she is actually a member of LEAF. Ms. Buss is the author of several papers on feminism and international law, including a paper criticizing the "Christian Right" in international politics (2003).

Elizabeth Atcheson: Although described on the witness list only as an "individual", Ms. Atcheson failed to disclose that she is, in fact, the current chair of the Board of Directors of LEAF, in addition to being one of its founding members. In fact, Ms. Atcheson was one of the co-authors of a paper written in 1984 recommending the principles behind the establishment of LEAF.

Carmela Hutchison: Ms. Hutchison, although representing the Disabled Women’s Network of Canada (DAWN) on the panel, is also a member of the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA), already represented on the panel by Ms. Day.

In short, a handful of feminists, who had previously controlled the CCP, and who have been the largest beneficiaries of that Program, masqueraded at this Status of Women hearing as independent feminist groups, in order to give the false impression that they represented a large cross section of women. They, in fact, represented only a handful of interchangeable radical feminists operating under different hats, in order to push for the re-establishment of the CCP of which they were the largest beneficiaries.

Bias of NDP MP, Chairperson Irene Mathyssen

As stated above, without vacating the Chair, the Chairperson, NDP MP Mathyssen, posed several questions to only the feminists on the panel on behalf of the NDP party. She asked whether the disbanding of the CCP was detrimental to Canada’s international obligations and reputation under the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). This question was obviously pre-arranged since both Ms. Day and Ms. McIvor, as members of FAFIA, had appeared before the CEDAW Monitoring Committee in 2003 and 2005 with complaints about Canada’s failure to supposedly promote the equality for women. Based on their complaints, CEDAW issued a report criticizing the Canadian government. It should be pointed out that the CEDAW Committee is largely a committee of feminist NGO’s whose membership is comprised mainly of representatives of international radical feminist groups. CEDAW’s criticism, therefore, does not carry any credible weight.

Status of Women Hearing, December 11, 2007

There were seven witnesses at this hearing as well. All were acknowledged feminists and three of the seven witnesses admitted their association with LEAF.

Because there was no dissenting voice present, which REAL Women provided at the December 4th hearing, this entire proceeding was a farce. The feminist witnesses laid it on thick and heavy, with both exaggeration and misrepresentation of the facts in order to allege that the CCP had been essential in achieving equality for women in Canada. This was music to the Committee’s ears.

Lawyer Mary Eberts, one of the founders of LEAF, who had argued cases on its behalf, testified at this hearing that the CCP has “…served to complement rather than displace the legislative activity of the Canadian Parliament…”. This was not the case, because CCP funding led to the courts overturning legislation to suit feminist objectives. Eberts also said (page 6) that the CCP “…makes possible an orderly and law-abiding approach to social change.” That is, she conceded that the Courts make the final decisions on social change, not Parliament. This is orderly all right, but scarcely fair or democratic!

One of the witnesses, Carole Tremblay, representing Quebec Sexual Assault Centres, stated at (p. 14) that “When you deprive the women’s movement, feminists…of this kind of recourse [to the CCP] everyone suffers. And that includes children and men”. Spare us this insult to our intelligence, Ms. Tremblay.

Captain Jennifer Lynn Purdy, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces stated:

…as a white, able-bodied, upper-middle-class, Anglophone, heterosexual man, Prime Minister Harper, along with most of his cabinet, will never understand what it is like to be treated unequally in Canadian society. When he made these cuts he ignored the rights of everyone not lucky enough to share his own particular characteristics.

A rather large and egregious stereotyping of men.

The witness, Colleen Sheppard, an associate law professor at McGill University, who also teaches feminist legal theory, stated at page 3:

I applaud the committee for its concern with looking at women and discrimination against women from an inclusive and broad perspective. I think it will be important to ensure your deliberations are informed by consultations with a broad range of women from those communities. (emphasis ours)

The “broad range of women” to her, apparently means a broad range of feminist women.

The most incredible statement of all, however, came from lawyer Kathleen Mahoney of the University of Calgary, who said on p. 15:

… the Court Challenges Programme is very good public policy. It is in the public interest to maintain it and to improve it…. I would conclude that anyone who doubts this statement should look at the history of the cases funded by Court Challenges.

I would defy anyone to say that any one of those results is not in the public interest.

We can think of countless Canadians who would easily disagree with Ms. Mahoney’s ludicrous statement that the results of the CCP funded legal challenges have been in “the public’s interest”.

These entire proceedings were a farce. They were dishonest, duplicitous and unethical ­ and paid for by the Canadian taxpayer.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS