Status of Women Committee on May 26th, 2010

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

It seems as though we have an all-or-nothing policy now: either you get all your funding or you get nothing. Has it always been that way? Was there ever a time in the past when Status might say, “We can give you some money, but there's a lot of demand on the funding, and while your project fits the criteria, we can't give you all that you've requested“?

[Shannon Phillips]

They have asked us for some revisions in the past, and we have taken less money in the past. Those are conversations that have been held. There was no conversation in this instance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have one and a half minutes.

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

I do have more questions.

I'd like to go back to what's been said, because I think it's important to get it on the record. I know this is rather repetitive, but it concerns me very much, this whole notion that you have to have all these new people in. It seems to me it's very much a one-off, something that is very short term. It feels like busy work rather than substantive work. I wonder if you could once again comment on that.

[Jennifer Beeman]

We don't know what's been funded, so we can't judge those. I'm sure there are very good projects.

I have that absolute same concern in terms of the general orientation. Services for 18 months...that group has to show that it can pick that up and continue in some way. We've been doing this for 25 years. It doesn't mean it doesn't change what we do; it evolves. We have new members, things change, we re-analyze, we resubmit, workers change, direction changes, and we evolve. But the meaning of the work...it's so grounded in our membership that we know what the problems are of the women in our respective fields, so we adapt immediately to their needs. It's an absolute concern of ours in terms of what exactly the government is investing in. What's the long-term change and improvement that we're going to see? It's not clear to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You're out of time, Ms. Mathyssen.

Ms. Wong for the Conservatives. Do you want to pass, because he's in the next round?

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

I'll pass my time to Mr. Calandra.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Okay.

Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'll just focus on a couple of individuals, because we don't have a lot of time.

Ms. Beeman, with respect to the application process, you mentioned how difficult and convoluted the application is. I think a couple of you, maybe Ms. Phillips, did as well. I wonder if you could, not right now or here, if there's a possibility, provide some input into how it could be made easier. If you have suggestions now, what other advice do you have to make it a much simpler process? One of the things we did hear through the stimulus from our municipal and provincial partners was how much easier the application was, how quickly they were able to get through it. It always concerns me when the government, no matter who it is, puts in place red tape, which causes things to become even more difficult. It strikes me as a bit ridiculous when you spend more of your time on applications than you do on actually doing work.

That is just as a comment to all of you, if you would have suggestions to do that. I'm a fan of a one-page type of application on the Internet, but that might not be enough.

[Jennifer Beeman]

Who do we give this to?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

It goes through the chair to us. I would really appreciate getting any suggestions on that front.

I wonder, Ms. Phillips, if I could focus a bit on you. How do you set your priorities, because of demand, when you're looking at the community you service? How is it that you focus down and set the priorities of who you're going to help? What process goes into that? How do you then deal with those areas that you simply just can't afford to help or you can't reach?

[Shannon Phillips]

We set the priorities for what we were going to ask for, for phase one, which then led to the phase two application that was denied. We set those priorities by working in the community for 20 years, working with low-income women and advocating on their behalf. It was almost like 20 years of focus grouping on where we saw gaps in service and gaps in full participation in economic life. That's how that project evolved. That's why it was so successful, because we knew that need was there.

We also did focus groups at the beginning of the project to make sure we weren't just telling low-income women what they needed but were actually getting feedback from them. We set the priorities according to the budget of what we could actually deliver with the funds from Status of Women.

The other priority we set was reaching aboriginal people, because we are bordered by two of Canada's largest reserves and we are home to a large number of off-reserve aboriginal people, and they are a priority for us to serve.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Even with the good work that you've been doing, which you've outlined, it must be a little frustrating, because there are always going to be organizations that aren't getting funded, or groups that have good ideas, even throughout all the years that all of you were being funded. It must have been somewhat frustrating when there were a lot of other groups that aren't getting the funding, and they have good ideas. What kind of advice can you give them in order to handle that?

One of the dilemmas we have here right now was actually alluded to yesterday as one of the lead-off questions during question period, and today, if I'm not mistaken, by the leader of the opposition. This was the large deficit the economic downturn has created. The leader of the opposition said he believes it's an absolute priority that we tackle that deficit immediately.

One of the things we struggle with is how we can manage the resources we have, to make sure we get the most out of what we're getting. I look at some of the Alberta groups. These are some of the groups that received funding: the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters; the Canadian Mental Health Association; Changing Together, a centre for immigrant women; the Edmonton Mennonite Centre for Newcomers; Immigrant Services Calgary; the United Cultures of Canada Association; and the Westlock Women's Association. All of these, I would think, are very good organizations doing good work, like you; some perhaps not as experienced as you, but all, I'd submit, probably very worthy of doing this. How, in the context of everything that Canada is facing, do we balance the need to get on the ground to do things, tackle the deficit, as has been suggested by the leader of the opposition, and something that obviously we want to look at? Who on a list like this would we then say to, “Sorry, we have to move you out in order to move another group in”?

Lastly, does it not stand to reason—I could be wrong—that because you are so experienced, you have the ability to actually move forward and overcome some of the changes in funding so that you can create some of the fundraising avenues? You've created a lot of connections over the years that others might not, so after all this time—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Wrap it up, please.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Phillips, we are now over time on this round, significantly, but I will allow you to answer the question as quickly as you can.

[Shannon Phillips]

I'll try to do it quickly.

To this notion that we have an ability to move forward, well, we have a great deal of support in the community, but there are no other avenues of funding.

As to the Alberta women's groups and other groups—because Mental Health is not a women's group, but they did receive funding—there has been no regional representation here because there's no one in southern Alberta, south of Calgary, who has been funded.

As to the application process, I would happily give input on that.

As for deficits, things like financial literacy and economic participation for women are things that OECD countries are investing in. There was just a very recent G-20 labour ministers' committee report indicating that investment in things like financial literacy and training are things that are actually going to move states out of deficit situations, and they should not be areas of cuts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Phillips.

That was a seven-minute piece. Thank you.

Ms. Neville now, for another five-minute round.

I just want to tell the committee that we started at 6:30 because of the vote. This was meant to be a two-hour special meeting, so we now have another 24 minutes to go. So we have another round, and there's going to be one, two, three, four, five...I think we'd better do a three-minute round here, to allow everyone to get an opportunity, because everyone goes over.

Ms. Neville.

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

Thank you. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to ask some more questions.

There are two questions I'm going to put out there. Ms. Mathyssen raised the issue of consultation. The previous minister advised me that she was consulting widely in establishing her action plan. I assume that none of you was consulted. My question is, do you know of anyone who was consulted? That's my first question. You're shaking your heads.

Secondly, I wonder if you—and some of you have touched on it—could explain what having capacity means, what it means for your organization, what it means for funding organizations.

In three minutes or less....

[Jane Stinson]

First, we were not consulted, and I don't know of anyone else who was. I actually find it easier to answer the reverse: what does it mean not to have capacity? It's easier because that's what we've been experiencing in the last while. It's just so hard to do anything. We've had to lay off staff, reduce things. We can't produce fact sheets. We can barely have a face-to-face board meeting.

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

Can you talk about capacity that comes from being out there and having experience? What does that mean in terms of your ability?

[Jennifer Beeman]

We love giving our pay equity training session because we go out into the regions—I was the one who was lucky to set it up—and you meet secretaries out in regions in Quebec who are earning $11 an hour and who know something's wrong in the small business they're in. Through their questions, when they finally understand what pay equity is, they say things like, “The mechanic is earning this, and maybe I should be earning more than $11 an hour. My work is so much more than being a receptionist. I'm meeting clients, dealing with the database and all of this stuff, doing accounts receivable. My economic worth is much more than I realized.” You see their eyes open.

By doing this, we get so much information from what women's economic reality is across Quebec. It just feeds our work in a concrete way, in terms of us being better equipped to then answer them and give them even better information and tools, and answer their needs more satisfactorily. But it also equips us in terms of our policy analysis, in terms of knowing what the needs are of women who are out there, just how precarious their jobs are, and just how little choice they have. Hopefully, that's where a lot of the work is grounded and where our capacity is coming from.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Ms. Brown for the Conservatives.

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

Ladies, I apologize that I wasn't here for the presentations you made. I was in another committee meeting doing clause-by-clause of a piece of legislation. I'm afraid that takes priority, so my apologies.

Ms. Phillips, I want to ask you a question, but I want to tell you a story first.

I have two women's organizations that function in my riding. One is an organization that is totally dependent on funding from sources at municipal, regional, and provincial government levels. Now they've started to understand that they have to reach out and do some additional fundraising because there isn't enough money in the regional pot or in the provincial pot to give them what they've had in the past. So they're reaching out to organizations that are non-profit organizations in our area. They've come to the Lions Club. I'm an executive member of the Lions Club in the area. We do enormous amounts of fundraising, and much of that money has gone in a donation to the women's organization. They have constraints put on them in what they can do, because they are limited by, I suppose, the ethics of the region, or the municipality or by the province.

The second women's organization that's in my town is enormously successful, in fact to the point where last year the woman who was the executive director did a fundraiser for another women's organization that is just outside of my riding—actually, in Paul Calandra's riding—and donated to them $35,000. She has made an enormous number of connections. She's got a connection with the Bay and accounting organizations in the area. What I'm saying is that she's so successful that she's giving money away. She takes absolutely no government money whatsoever from any level of government. I look at what she's been able to accomplish with the structure she's put in place. She's national.

My question, Ms. Phillips, if I may, Madam Chair, is about the comment you made about the application process, that there was nothing in it that said new money. In 25 years, was there ever any indication that money that came from Status of Women was coming in perpetuity? Is there not an opportunity, or should there not be some fairness in the process, whereby new organizations can apply because they've got good ideas that need seed money to get started?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

If you need an answer, we have 15 seconds.