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.