Status of Women Committee on May 26th, 2010

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Did you do that publicly? I don't mean by taking out a radio spot, but publicly.

[Johanne Perron]

Yes. We don't have money to put any announcements anywhere, but one of our volunteers, one of our board members, spoke about it at an event.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

If it was the government's view that actually women should just negotiate in contracts, I guess I would have been concerned, if I were in your shoes, that they may view your particular organization as one that was dispensable. Were you a bit concerned about that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I think we're going to have to end here.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Sorry.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you. We can come back to this if we have a third round.

Now I'll go to Ms. McLeod for the Conservatives.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I want to acknowledge the very important thing that Ms. Stinson said about the importance of housing. I have to say, certainly from the economic action plan, in my riding we have enjoyed, especially in partnership with B.C. Housing, many, many transitional beds, support for low-income seniors, and just last week, shelters for women. Either between British Columbia or British Columbia in partnership with the Canadian government, I think we've made some really great strides. I think you're right; it's absolutely critical in terms of housing being one of the social determinants. I presume that's happening in many ridings, but again, I am very pleased with many of the things we've done.

That was just a comment. Next I have just a small preamble and then a question.

Certainly in my pre-political life I was involved in the health care field. I was in a bit of a managerial role, and a bit of a role perhaps like some of you have had in terms of having to write many applications. I got great funding. I had great funding for great projects. At the end of the day, after doing this and struggling with this particular concept of writing grants, getting funding, and seeing programs that were effective, I came to a theory. I came to this theory—and this is just my own personal perspective—that we should be doing grants, and grants should be one time to do a specific project. We should be giving grants that transition from one thing to the next, or we should be providing core funding.

Again, I think that happens everywhere, in everything. So I wonder if there should be a bit of a philosophy shift in terms of how we do these things.

I was terribly frustrated, but I do think there's certainly a role for grants, as I say, for hitting at projects and saying you're trying to get from here to there.

[Shannon Phillips]

For us, an enormous amount of time, both paid and unpaid, is taken up writing grants. Yes, for something such as our financial information program, it would seem to me that running that as a project first to see if it would work would be a great idea, and then, because we identified such a need, running it as an ongoing core-funded program that works on the full participation of women in economic life.

I completely agree with that. It certainly would just take the pressure off having to spend so much time doing that and not serving the women you're there to serve.

I share your pain of going through grant application after grant application. It takes time. It's not a terrible exercise; it certainly focuses the organization and focuses the mind. But core funding would be, I believe, the right way to go for Status of Women once a project has proved its worth and demonstrated accountability in other ways, which they are already doing.

[Jane Stinson]

If I could add to that, as we said, we really hope this committee can go further than looking at who has received funding and who was denied, and look at these bigger questions of both mandate and nature of funding for Status of Women Canada. It would be an important contribution. To start to reinstitute core funding would make a huge difference.

[Jennifer Beeman]

I think what you raised is actually extremely interesting. I would, as everyone else, take it a little farther and look at mandate, and perhaps also funding brackets. Right now, you can be funded for, as I said, $1.5 million or $15,000. There are some huge projects funded. If it could be a little bit more clear what is funded under what criteria, timeframes, and requirements, clarifying a lot of the mandate could go very far.

The discussion has to be a little bit larger, but that's very interesting what you raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have half a second.... I'm sorry, I mean you have half a minute.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

I can't do much in half a second, but within half a minute....

Again, I feel your pain in this particular issue. If I had more time I would really like to know whether the actual application process was reasonable and sensible, but I don't have time, so thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

You're bang on; that's great.

Now we're going to go to Monsieur Desnoyers for the Bloc Québécois.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I am a little flabbergasted with everything I am hearing. You said that the criteria have been changed. Here, it shows: eliminating violence against women, improving economic security and prosperity, encouraging women and girls to take on positions of responsibility and decision-making. Each of you has said that your organizations met those criteria when you submitted your applications.

I am not sure whether someone from the government side can help me to understand what I am having trouble grasping. Normally, when an investment is made, by the government or the private sector, you look for stability and accountability. Now you are being asked what you have done and where you are going. You have been congratulated for doing a great job for all those years. But today, unfortunately, no one is telling you why they have refused to fund your programs.

I want to add that the women's struggle is a fragile thing in our society. I think that everyone around this table is aware of that. If we look at the principal struggles that you have been involved in, we see that they are important ones. We just have to think about women's right to vote; that is important. When I look at the criteria and the work that you have done, I wonder how it all can be completely ignored, all the money that has been spent, all the millions of dollars that have been invested in a number of organizations to get where we are today.

I would like to hear what you have to say, especially about the stability of your programs and the results that have been achieved at the end of the day. Have there been contacts with the department about your programs, have you been criticized, your militancy aside. I know that women have had to struggle; being militant is not a sin, in my opinion, it is normal. But have you done anything untoward in the course of your work?

[Johanne Perron]

One thing strikes us, specifically: our expertise does not seem to have been taken into account. We have 10 years' experience, after all. When we started, I think we received $20,000 in funding in the first year. That was very little. We had to prove that we were capable of doing the job and when we proved it, we got more money. That seems to me to make sense. I am not a businessperson, but it seems logical to me. Now we have built our capacity. We have a network in the province. We have 700 members in 81 member organizations, but our funding has been cut off. We have proved our capacity, but it unfortunately does not seem to have been taken into consideration when projects were evaluated.

[Shannon Phillips]

Concerning the application criteria, nowhere in the application does it say that being a new group is part of the funding criteria. If that has become part of the funding criteria, it should be made apparent to everyone asking for money. That was never part of any conversation we had with Status of Women, it is not written anywhere on the application, and it would have been good information to have.

The second point is that we at Womanspace were doing the work that government said is a priority: financial literacy. There is evidently a task force going across the country trying to find ways to teach financial literacy. We were doing it. We were successful at it; we even served 1% of the population in our small town. We reached a lot of people with our model, and we could have reached more, had we been renewed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have half a minute, Monsieur Desnoyers.

[Jennifer Beeman]

We have a long history of stability in our organization. As we develop each aspect, we build on it. We move several steps beyond what we have already established each time. At the moment, we are dealing with perhaps the most difficult matter for women in the workplace, becoming integrated into male-dominated occupations.

The first file on my desk was women in construction. That was simple: there weren't any. Just 1.2% of construction workers are female, in spite of the fact that women's levels of training are markedly higher. Proportionally, there are more women trained in construction trades than there are women in construction itself.

We are so far from equality, and these are such good jobs for women below the highest levels of education. They are good union jobs. We will certainly continue to find funding. We thought we had reached perhaps our most important file, but we have received no support from the government. You even consulted us about the matter, but we are getting no funding to do something about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much. I will now go to the next person.

It is Ms. Mathyssen for the NDP.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

When the changes were made to Status of Women Canada in 2006, the minister at the time, Ms. Oda, and the subsequent minister, Ms. Guergis, were very clear that women had achieved equality: we had the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; we had the Constitution; strong women don't need advocates; they certainly don't need pay equity or research; women were capable and strong. But subsequent to that, in this committee we've done a number of investigations and looked at a number of issues—women and pensions, EI, poverty among senior women, real property rights for aboriginal women—and in each instance we turned to the community for their advice and their information. I don't think we could have created the kinds of reports we have done without that wisdom.

I wonder whether Status of Women ever comes to you to ask for advice or input regarding what they're doing—the changes, their new priorities. Have they called you up and asked what you think: we're going to make some changes, and will these changes benefit women?

[Jane Stinson]

No, they've not asked us that—at least, in recent years.

[Jennifer Beeman]

I think 2006 was the last consultation. Groups in Quebec were consulted; I don't know whether the others were consulted. It was quite an interesting exchange, bringing together all the groups on what the most important issues are. But I think that was 2006. I don't know whether it was before the transition or after.

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

One of the things we heard in this committee from the previous Minister for Status of Women was that she made the final decisions; that the funding decisions rested with her. Are there any concerns about that? Do you have any comment in regard to one individual having that kind of power or influence?

[Shannon Phillips]

For us, that would be disappointing, if it were the case, because it would mean that 25 years of relationship-building with people who work at Status of Women, of our long record of service among people who have institutional memory of that—all of that—would have been lost, and applications would have been decided upon somewhat arbitrarily. It would be a huge disappointment if that were the case.

However, it still doesn't explain why an application that actually reflects the priorities of the government was denied.