Status of Women Committee on May 12th, 2010

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I was almost going to raise a point of order. I thought the discussion of whether it was a friendly amendment or not would be up to me as the mover, not the chair of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

But that it is changing the word “equal” in this amendment.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Chair, I'm entirely comfortable with the amendment as a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You are comfortable with it as a friendly amendment.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Good.

So if you're comfortable with it, we will read the amended motion.

The motion then--in effect it's really a new motion--is as follows:

That the Committee, as part of the motion adopted during the meeting on Wednesday, April 28, 2010, invite also as witnesses for the meeting of Wednesday, 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.

That is actually seven groups we're asking for, at three times. That's 21 groups in total.

If I read your motion, it says the areas are national, Atlantic, Quebec, Nunavut, Ontario, west...

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

There are five regions, right?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

There are five groups--separated by semicolons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Okay: it's one, two, three, four, five.

Now we will discuss the new motion.

Ms. Neville.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me go on record right at the outset as opposing both the amended motion and the original motion. Let me just speak to the amended motion.

I did see the list of the 78 organizations that received funding, but it was a list. It was not full disclosure as it came out in the quarterly reports. In the fully disclosed list, we would have not only the names of the organizations but the amount of money for each organization. If I remember correctly, that was not the case. So that's point one.

Point two is that we heard Ms. McLeod today talk about division. We heard the minister in the House talk about divisiveness. At a press conference we heard groups that did not receive funding talk about division. Everybody is latching onto this whole notion of dividing women's groups.

I would say that the amended motion, even more so than the original motion, pits one women's group against another. I find it abhorrent that we bring in winners and losers to tell their story and to say “I was better than you were”.

I simply won't support this kind of divisiveness and--I'm repeating myself--this pitting of one group against another.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

We have Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I believe in the original motion there was accommodation for other witnesses. Certainly the opposition has come out very strong and loud, with some very perhaps...I consider very insulting accusations regarding what has been happening with Status of Women and the funding.

I believe we're particularly proud of the amount that is in the fund and the great projects it's funding. So to have a completely unbalanced panel, yes, albeit disappointed that they did not get funding this time, I think is not being fair in any way whatsoever in terms of the reality of what we're trying to understand, which is how Status of Women is moving forward initiatives for women.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Brown.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I think Ms. McLeod said it very well. What we are trying to find, if I read this correctly, is what are the initiatives that are being successful in their communities, that are really helping women into productive and self-reliant and...just opportunities for them that are there. What are the initiatives that are really working in Canada?

Is one group entitled to funding forever just because they've had funding in the past? Is it their entitlement, or are there new initiatives that are going to be worthwhile to fund that may need seed money and they haven't been able to get it in the past because other projects have been receiving the bulk of the money?

In my own riding, several women's groups have not been successful in the past but are very intent on providing new services to women. Their funding has not been looked at in the past...not that they were all successful this time either. But it's just that they do have some new initiatives, and some of them need that seed money in order to get started.

I don't think we are really here evaluating the project itself but looking for how fairness should be across the country. I mean, I'm sure there are initiatives that have been funded in all our ridings that are new initiatives, and I would very much like to hear about some of those new ways that are being funded.

Is it possible for us to divide up the hours?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We are getting ahead of ourselves here. First and foremost, we have to get this motion passed before we decide how many hours we will dedicate to it.

Before I go to Mr. Watson, I would like to quickly refocus everybody on exactly what we are talking about here. The original motion that was passed, that was going to ask for the special meeting, was asking for the special meeting specifically to examine the manner in which funding is distributed by Status of Women Canada, and in particular, it was to examine the apparent denial of funding to previous Status of Women grant recipients in the 2009 call for submissions, and invite the current and former ministers of Status of Women, etc., and other witnesses the committee wishes to invite.

So the reason for the meeting is to examine the manner in which funding is distributed and examine the apparent denial of funding to previous Status of Women Canada... So just refocus on what that original motion said when you speak to it.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Chair, I think you just gave us the exact reason why we would want to call, if not 15, all 78 groups. If you want to talk about the manner in which funding is distributed, all the more reason you'd want to hear from groups that were successful. They may have opinions as to why their particular projects were successfully funded.

I want to respond to Madam Neville's intervention. I don't see why there is a fear of inviting other potential witnesses, other potential opinions. Surely there would be no objection to having the widest possible discussion on funding of Status of Women projects, unless, of course, there is a fear it doesn't fit in the opposition's narrative against the government. That could be the fear here...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...seen the list of groups but questions the amount they've been funded. What better opportunity to find out how they've been funded than by questioning the groups themselves? They'd be able to tell you. Call all 78 groups and have them tell the committee. It would be the opportune time, I would think, to pose those types of questions.

I'm not sure there's a common sense objection--at least not put forward yet--to say no to this particular motion and to call these particular groups.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am having some difficulty understanding. The original motion, which we agreed to here, was designed to determine what had happened with the funding from Status of Women Canada. Ms. Boucher initially asked us to invite an equal number of organizations that had received funding, but that proposal was modified. Now, we are being asked to invite 15 groups that received funding so that they can tell us what really works in Canada. That is what you said:

what really works; let us see what really works in Canada.

That means that these 78 organizations that received funding would know what it takes for things to work in Canada, but the other 328 would not. So only the organizations that received funding deserved to be funded.

I am having a hard time understanding. It is as though the organizations that received funding are being pitted against the ones that did not. All we wanted was to understand why organizations that had received funding for 15, 20 or 30 years were no longer being funded even though they had the same goals as before. That was our question.

I don't understand anymore. I'm certainly going to vote against this. We are talking about 20 groups, which makes no sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I think what we have here, Madame Demers, is that Mr. Watson agreed to this new motion, dubbed a friendly amendment. It's not an amendment; it's a new motion. Mr. Watson has actually removed the motion and allowed for the new one to sit.

So that's what we're talking about, the motion that was brought forward. Just to be clear on what we're talking about, it's Ms. Brown's new motion now.

Ms. Wong.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

I want to clarify a number of things.

Whenever we talk about funding, we keep saying those are funding cuts. In fact, if you look at the total amount of money for Status of Women for these groups, actually it has been doubled.

If we go back to the original idea of having the study, it's to study the manner in which it is distributed. Right now, we are looking at the redistribution of funds.

If we just look at one side of the picture without looking at the other side as to how it is distributed—those who do not have the funding now and those who now have the funding—if we only look at those who do not have access to the funds, it doesn't tell the whole picture. That is why I think the whole spirit of the motion right now addresses the original purpose of this study, of asking the panellists to come to us. That's why I'm supporting this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Brown, and then Ms. Neville.

We're running out of time, so I would like everyone to please note what has already been said but just add something new here.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Just to speak to what Ms. Neville was saying, hopefully we would be looking at this reallocation, because I see this as an education for myself. There may be organizations in my own riding, as in yours, where one might ask, what if their proposal had something else in it, or what was it missing? What would help them get funding another year?

So it's looking at a reallocation of the funds. It's not a smaller amount; it's more money in the fund. What was the reallocation, and does it mean that there is an entitlement because they've had funding in the past? I think that's what we're looking at.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Order, please.

Yes, Ms. Neville.

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

Thank you.

Let me say right at the outset that I'm not fearful in any way of hearing from anyone or seeing anyone, and I'm not in any way fearful of having the narrative altered, or whatever you want to call it.

What I am concerned about...and we heard it. I think it unlikely that we will have the previous minister come to this committee, but when she was here, at her last appearance before this committee, she made it absolutely clear--I asked her, and I went back and asked her again--that she had the final say on who got funding or who did not get funding. I remember the words. I said to her, “Minister, are you saying yea or nay?”

We know categorically that there are groups that went through the process that had every reason to believe from the bureaucrats that the funding was coming to them. Either they spoke out or the minister didn't like them or somebody didn't like them, and their funding was withheld, or not approved.

So I'm not fearful of the narrative being changed. I am sorry that it's unlikely that we will hear from the previous minister to ask her the process by which she determined how the funds would be given out or not.

I don't think it's our role to micromanage groups that get funding. There is a bureaucracy. I know, because I've spoken to bureaucrats over the years, that they work with the organizations, they work with the groups, to try to help them fit the criteria of the funding, and to advise them on how to fill in their applications. And it's been much more of a challenge for them since the offices were cut across the country; they've had to do it by phone, by e-mail, occasionally by travel. I met a group in Winnipeg a couple of years ago that were coming out to do it. But the reality is that that minister—I don't know whether this minister is operating the same way—had the final say on who did or who didn't get funding.

I want to know from the organizations that did not get funding whether they had every expectation that the funding was there, whether they adopted the criteria to meet the existing criteria, and what their history was, because many of them had a long, proven track record with capacity.

You talk about new organizations. There's no question: if we've got increased funding, then there's an opportunity for new organizations to get funding.

Just as a note with the new funding, I'm advised that some of the money under the partnership program has been lapsed for a few years, so we haven't spent all the funding under the Status of Women funding.

I just find this games-playing a charade, and I'm not prepared to support something like this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Okay, Ms. Neville.

Is there any further discussion on this motion?

No? I'm going to call the question.

I'm going to reread the motion so everybody knows what we're voting for here. We proposed that the original motion be amended to read as follows:

That the Committee, as part of the motion adopted during the meeting on Wednesday, April 28, 2010, invite also as witnesses for the meeting of Wednesday, 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.

Those in favour of that motion?

Those opposed?

I guess I will have to break the tie.

I always try to tell this committee why I'm voting the way I'm voting. I actually could have supported--very much so, because I thought it was fair--the original motion, which said “equal”. I think if you have 15 people who received funding and you happen to have five people who did not receive funding, it's an unfair grouping of people. I think it should be equal.

So I cannot vote for this motion.

(Motion negatived)

There's a motion to adjourn?

Thank you, Mr. Calandra...