Feds try to make 'advocacy' a dirty word

Ginette Pettipas-Taylor
A woman's view
Published Thursday September 13th, 2007
Appeared on page D8

It has been almost a year now since the federal government announced that funding for women's groups would no longer support equality and advocacy work.

We can start assessing the damage.

It's a sad sight. The losses are mounting among local, regional and national non-profit organizations dedicated to fighting discrimination and injustice.

After 20 years of valuable efforts on behalf of women and child victims of domestic violence, the New Brunswick Coalition of Transition Houses has no money left to pay for a phone line or staff salary. The former paid co-ordinator is volunteering her time and her cell phone.

This week, the National Association of Women and the Law, a 30-year veteran of research and advocacy on pay equity, maternity and parental leave and family law, announced that it has laid off all staff and shut down its national office. The NAWL board will keep the organization alive on a volunteer basis, but notes its capacity to consult with women and advocate for feminist law reform will be greatly diminished.

This past June, the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women -- a promoter and clearinghouse for research and action to advance social justice and equality for all women -- laid off most of its small staff.

Crumbling infrastructures and the scattering of community-based expertise is the result of the federal government's decision to weaken the mandate of Status of Women Canada's Women's Program. The Women's Program used to support action by women's organizations and other partners "seeking to advance equality for women by addressing women's economic, social, political and legal situation."

Under the new mandate, actions to advance equality are out. The intent of the new criteria is clear: organizations seeking grants cannot be involved in advocacy and lobbying of any level of government. The program now aims "to facilitate women's participation in Canadian society" by addressing their economic, social and cultural situation through Canadian organizations.

So what kind of work is now eligible for funding? Try small projects providing direct services to individual women. That includes projects run by for-profit and religious organizations.

This means, for example, no more lobbying for fairer salary systems for traditional female employment, but yes to programs that outfit women with clothing for their job search. Clothing programs are fine, but women's jobs must also be fairly paid so that they can afford to feed and clothe themselves and their families and put some money aside for a decent retirement.

The Harper government has tried to make advocacy a dirty word. But most of us would agree with Jackie Matthews of the New Brunswick Coalition of Transition Houses, who says, "Advocacy is part of democracy -- it's a catalyst for change for the better."

Advocacy organizations are working for the rights of citizens who belong to groups experiencing systemic discrimination. It is true that society as a whole loses when lobby groups do not have the time, resources and freedom to speak up about the needs and reality of citizens too vulnerable to be heard.

Governments that mainly deal with service delivery groups and ignore advocacy groups -- as is the case in Canada to a much greater extent than in other developed countries -- can be accused of maintaining problems, rather than solving them. Efforts to reduce the suffering of victims do nothing to change the conditions that create victims.

Here in New Brunswick, a handful of groups -- like the Coalition of Transition Houses, the N.B. Child Care Coalition, the Urban Core Support Network and the N.B. Coalition for Pay Equity -- had shared in a modest pot of federal funding. All relied heavily on volunteers and partnerships with community, business and government organizations to stretch their meagre grants.

To read the entire article, please visit the Times and Transcript website at:
http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/72197