Do we have to?
Evidence of meeting #18 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was terms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #18 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was terms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
That's fine. Okay. We'll stay here. Good.
The motion reads:
That the Committee, as part of the motion agreed to on Wednesday, April 28th, 2010, invite as well as witnesses for the meeting of Wednesday, May 26th, 2010 an equal number of groups receiving funding from the list of 78 groups funded in 2009-2010 through Status of Women Canada.
Mr. Watson, you may speak to the motion.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will simply move the motion for discussion. I suspect others will want to discuss the substance of it. I don't want to step too far beyond Madame Boucher.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you.
Madam Chair, I have to confess that it's very difficult to make a determination about this motion. As it indicates, there were apparently 78 groups funded in 2009-10. We've asked several times to see the list of who is funded and who is not, and we have only been advised of three.
I think it would be very helpful to know who did in fact receive funding, and when we see that list then we can make the decision. But at this point I think it would be very, very difficult unless that list was provided.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Madam Chair, first of all, there was a press release put out by Status of Women Canada that listed all 78.
But I wonder if I could make a friendly amendment to this motion.
5:05 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Well, if the mover agrees they don't want to debate it, that they accept it as it is, it does work.
Ms. Brown.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
So it would be amended to read this:
That the Standing Committee on Status of Women, as part of the meeting agreed to in the motion passed on April 28, 2010, invite also as witnesses for the meeting of May 26, 2010, three groups from each of the five funding regions (National; Atlantic; Quebec and Nunavut; Ontario; West, Northwest Territories and Yukon) to be chosen by the Committee from the total list of 78 groups that received funding in 2009-2010 through Status of Women Canada-Women's Community Fund, as the Committee is inviting groups who did not receive funding during the same fiscal year through the fund.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
That is more than a friendly amendment, because it changes some of the intent.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Really it's to expand it to include those other groups.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Well, it changes the intent of the motion. The motion was for an equal number, and if you're asking for a certain amount from each region that may be more than an equal number.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Hopefully it's just to put fairness into the process from across the country. That's the intention.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'll read the amendment...
Did you want to speak to the amendment, Ms. Demers?
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Yes, Madam Chair.
There would be five regions and three groups per region, so we are talking about 15 groups that received funding and 15 that did not, which makes 30 groups in total. The meeting runs for two hours. I don't know whether we'll be able to give them a minute each.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
And to have 30 groups at one meeting for two hours--that's going to be fairly difficult.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
It's 30; if you have 15 who received funding and 15 who did not receive funding, that's 30 people.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
She just suggested three groups from five regions that received funding.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Then what you're suggesting is that you want to stick to the four who did not receive funding and add 15 who did. You realize you're moving away from the concept, in this motion, of equal. You realize that. So that's not a friendly amendment.
We don't have the mover of the motion here. It makes eminent sense to have the mover of the motion to speak; they know exactly what they intended and if they want their intention not to be there or not.
We don't have Madame Boucher here to say whether she agrees to moving away from equal and into what I would consider to be a huge number of people who were funded to a small group of people who were not funded. That certainly isn't equal.
The question I would like to ask the mover is does he mind if it is no longer equal?