Status of Women Committee on Feb. 1st, 2007

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Minister, I have heard several times this reference to taxpayers' dollars. Sometimes it's about citizenship. What on earth are we going to do to protect women and save their lives? It seems to me this talk about responsibility should extend to the lives of women and girls.

Have I time for more questions, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have two minutes for questions and answers.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I would like to respond, if I could.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes, Madam.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Status of Women, prior to the changes in terms and conditions, through the funding it gave and the changes that were made, has not diminished anybody's responsibility for saving the lives of women and girls.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

But the organizations have been very, very clear that they need SWC; they need the support and funding in order to do the work that will indeed address the very questions you asked in your preamble before answering questions.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

As I said, the organizations that are coming forward...such as the one that was approved today, that actually is saving the lives of women and girls in Prince George, is now going to be supported to take those girls off the streets and to show them they have another alternative.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

What about the rest across the country, Minister?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Any organization that is going to undertake that kind of meaningful activity and work with the women and girls in their communities to take them off the streets, we will support.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

When they have no access to a regional office? When their contact with SWC is limited?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

There is no regional office in Prince George, and we just approved their grant.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have half a minute, if you wish to pursue this further.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I do have some other questions.

I wonder, Minister, are you aware that Canada is violating the general recommendation 6 of CEDAW? I have a copy of it here, if you need it. I'm wondering what you're going to do about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have 20 seconds to respond.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

We've noted that. We are studying it and will make a response at the appropriate time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Ms. Mathyssen.

We'll now go to Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Minister, thanks very much for being here again today to answer our questions. I know we've got lots of questions. Certainly we've heard lots of questions from members of the public right across this country. We've had witnesses appear, several of them at two meetings, and we've got two more meetings coming up to hear from more witnesses and their concerns regarding the changes to the program. I know there are a lot of concerns out there; I also know there's a lot of misunderstanding out there. I think it's very important that the opportunity be given to explain the changes, and to explain them properly.

One of the things that we did hear about, which I have a question about as well, is the change that now allows for-profit organizations to be able to apply for funding under the women's program. I know there've been a lot of concerns expressed to us regarding that. Some of those concerns are centred on the fact that for-profit organizations are deemed to have more resources available to them and are more able to prepare applications, and so on, and to put a program and request together than a not-for-profit. I'm wondering how that may impact who is coming before Status of Women for funding.

Is the application form a simplified form? I know that in the areas I've been involved with before, lots of times people spend as much money trying to fill out the application form as they do on the grant they're hoping to get at the end of the day.

How is this going to impact on different organizations when we have for-profit and not-for-profit organizations vying for the same funds?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

First of all, I know you appreciate that within the women's program, the funding there has always been the same. It will remain the same.

On the access by non-profits, I would say that out of the examples, I think the opportunity should be there. I don't want to foreclose having an opportunity with some. Maybe a for-profit might have capabilities that a not-for-profit might not have in the delivery of the service. Again, it's a matter of saying that the forms themselves....

We also committed, as a government, to streamline. The government overall has been charged with streamlining and becoming less administratively burdensome to providing services to organizations and citizens. So the application forms, I would suggest, are equitably accessible. Of those application forms that we've received to date, we're getting very thorough application forms.

It's very clear that there is a request for measurable differences. There's a clear ability to describe the programs, to describe who else would be involved, like other partners or other non-profits. In many of the smaller communities, they see a number of organizations coming together to put forward a proposal.

So I would suggest to you that there is no disadvantaging of non-profits because of just an opportunity that's there for a for-profit organization if it comes up with a project. The reality is that we welcome the for-profit sector that would come forward with a project that is not in line with their core businesses, but does so because they believe they have a place and a way to contribute to this effort.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have twenty seconds, but the minister won't have time to respond. You can pose a question and she can respond later.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I will just make a comment, if I may.

I just wanted to say that it's in my riding where the group of women have come together to form the committee to combat human trafficking and to bring awareness to the community. I'm really proud of these women. They've been doing it with no funding, so I'm quite sure they'll be applying for something.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We'll go to round three now.

I understand, Ms. Neville and Mr. Pearson, that you're going to share your time. You'll throw the questions out and the minister will answer.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

We're sharing our time. I'll ask my question, then I'll be followed by Mr. Pearson.

As a quick comment, I apologize, Minister, for not being here when you presented. I had another commitment.

As I look at this presentation that you made, I really feel for the women who have been working in the field for women's equality for years and years, because I find this to be an insult to them.

I've heard you use the word “streamline” and I've heard you use the word “meaningful”: “meaningful” programs, “meaningful” research. I need to know—and I think women out there need to know—what the criteria are and what the definition of “meaningful” is.

Mr. Pearson.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Minister, I've just returned from Darfur, in southern Sudan. We had a team of ten women from London come over with us to assess the various women's programs that are going on there. They are in pretty desperate situations. What we discovered is that in the places in which money was applied to programs to help women with micro-enterprises, with education and other things, there was great success in those programs when women were also resourced to advocate together against tribal chiefs and other groups that are there. What we also discovered is that in the area in which those resources were not there, the women's programs did not function at all well.

I'm just wondering what makes Canada so different. This is the law of international development when we work: that we understand that the need to advocate is one of the main engines that drives women and allows them to have equality. But they have to be resourced in order for that to happen.

We know that in other countries and we apply that through CIDA and through other organizations. I would just like to know why Canada is so different. How can we not fund people for advocacy? How can we trust that they'll just be able to go ahead in their own programs and make them work?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

This question was asked of me when I was speaking to the women in Vancouver. I was very clear, and I think I can give you an answer as to what I mean by “meaningful” and what I mean by projects such as this.

If we can take one, ten, a hundred women off the street, that's meaningful. That has changed, actually changed, the life of one woman and her children and the family. That's what I mean by meaningful.

I mean that if we can give women the confidence and assurance they need to remove themselves from a situation of domestic violence, to know there is somewhere to go, but also to know that...and I do know a little bit of the realities of those situations. The shelters available right now have a limited time that women and children can stay there. My conversations with my provincial counterparts concerned how we can work together to look at the secondary residential needs of women who have been victims of domestic violence. We're working on that part. That's what I mean by meaningful.

I've asked every provincial minister to tell me what the real needs are in their communities.

As far as advocacy, yes, we support advocacy in those situations, as you've expressed, but I would suggest to you here in Canada it's been 25 years since Status of Women was established, and the times were different. We have had 25 years of advocacy. We have not said that advocacy should stop. We've encouraged people to advocate, and the research has been done for 25 years. What we're saying at this point is that domestically we've chosen this particular resource that's made available for women to work in a different way at this time.