National Report Slams Canada’s Water Treatment Standards Nicole Burton, OP News Editor A recently released national report claims that the federal government of Canada is doing an “abysmal job” ensuring that people in Canada have clean and safe access to their water supply. “The cost is quite high and there’s really no excuse in a country that’s as well off as Canada and has the abundance of water supply,” said Randy Christensen, author of the Report just released by an environmental group called the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. The report suggests that the Canadian government is fail- ing to provide a number of key features in water treatment that should be considered a minimum standard. Some examples, according to the report, are that Canada has no enforceable drinking water standards such as in the US. and other rich countries. Between the years 1993 - 1998, the report says that the number of boil-water advisory days across Canada increased by 24 per cent (data from later years is not yet available). But these alarming statistics are not isolated or just a thing of the past. The Sierra Legal Defence Fund report also states that as of 2006, there are that only four provinces—Alberta, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec—trequire advanced treat- ment of their potable water supplies. Only Ontario and Newfoundland provide routine information on water quality by publicizing test results on water. 4 THE OTHER PRESS OCTOBER 12 2006 Ottawa Slashes Equality- Rights Funding Cuts come despite report on gender-equality issues Carl Meyer, The Excalibur (York University) TORONTO (CUP)—The federal government has cut and eliminated funding to key government programs that pro- moted equality rights. On Sept. 25, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty unveiled $1 billion in spending cuts as part of an expenditure review process. “Canada’s new government is trimming the fat and refocusing spending on the priorities of Canadians,” said Flaherty upon releasing his annual financial report. But not everyone agrees on what those priorities are. The expenditure review included the elimination of the Court Challenges Program, a non-profit organization that provided financial assistance to court cases arguing for equal rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The review also included a $5 million cut to Status of Women Canada, the sole federal department involved in advising government on gender-equality policies. The Law Commission of Canada, a federal law reform agency, has also been axed. “Tt’s indicative of the mindset this government,” said Kemba King, coordinator for York University’s Centre for Women and Trans People. “Tt’s disheartening when women take away rights from other women,” she added. “A lot of politicians are looking out for themselves.” John Baird, president of the Treasury Board of Canada defended the cuts, saying, “I just don’t think it makes sense for the government to subsidize lawyers to challenge gov- ernment’s laws in court.” But King suggested that the government is able to carry out these cuts because not enough people know about the recent legal historical significance of federal equality assistance programs, or even of the programs’ existence. On top of this, she said, the public is being blindsided by the federal government’s piecemeal process of re-prior- itization. “People are getting things in small bits and not necessarily putting them together,” King said. The cuts to Status of Women Canada come despite a report in September 2005 by the Expert Panel on Accountability Mechanisms for Gender Equality that found serious problems in gender-equality issues in Canada. The report recommended the program’s significant strengthening so that it may operate as an effective gender equality watch- dog group. It pointed to severe gender disparities in income, employ- ment opportunities, sexual assault cases, single-parent families and unpaid work, among other areas. King suggested that there is an unrealistic assumption among the public that the court system is entirely just and that equal-rights cases are a thing of the past. REAL Women of Canada, an organization that has defended the traditional definition of marriage in court and promotes a “Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage and family life” has lobbied the government to reduce or elimi- nate funding for gender equality groups, on the grounds that their funding is biased towards feminist organizations. “T think that [there are other issues that] mean more to people than pay equity does,” said Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL. “We would like the whole Status of Women to be abandoned or disbanded.” Many of those involved with the political process have objected to what they see is a clearly ideological approach to government funding. “Women’s organizations are being forced to shut their doors,” said Irene Mathyssen, NDP critic for the status of serious problems in women. Mathyssen declared the cuts an attempt to “de-fa the women’s movement. The Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Acti noted that constitutional cases involving gender equality a often too expensive to mount single-handedly for those whom the discrimination affects most. They argue that cu to publicly funded constitutional rights cases present a cle picture of the Conservative government's priorities. Nine professional and university organizations associa with the advancement of women released a joint media s1 ment, suggesting the cuts fly in the face of Canada’s com ment to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The federal government’s annual expenditures amoun roughly $210 billion. The government has placed the $13. billion budget surplus for fiscal year 2005-06 towards red ing the federal debt, which is $481.5 billion, or roughly 3! cent of GDP. The federal government says repaying the | eral debt is a larger priority. Other programs affected by the expenditure review include the elimination of the GST rebate for tourists, a ! million cut to the Canadian Volunteerism Initiative, and a million cut to museum funding. The expenditure review also cut $55 million from Hu Resources and Skills Development’s Summer Career Placement Program, eliminating 25,000 student jobs.