Status of Women Committee on May 26th, 2010

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

This is the pressure cooker of time here.

Ms. Phillips, you spoke to it somewhat, but I would ask you to elaborate--and the others to comment--on what this means for the communities you serve. Without the funding, what happens?

[Shannon Phillips]

What happens is that we scramble to meet the gaping hole of need this has left. We had identified an area where we could make a very tangible difference in women's lives and we were doing that work. So we now scramble to continue to do it via fundraising, other very small pots of funding, and those kinds of things. And we move on because we're a group of very resilient women and we intend to reconstitute ourselves and continue to do good work in our community. Our community expects that of us.

That's what has happened. We are leaving no stone unturned in terms of looking for funds. We will reapply to Status of Women, and I hope my appearance here today doesn't jeopardize that application.

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

Me, too.

[Shannon Phillips]

But if you want to put a human face on what the need is in our community and the difference we've made in women's lives, I refer you to the brief I submitted. In the last few pages I included letters from organizations with whom we partner and work and refer clients, as well as one of our clients who now has become a peer-to-peer educator in our financial information sessions.

In particular, I'd like to highlight one line from Sharon's letter of support, where she says she used to feel worthless and didn't even know what financial literacy meant. Now she doesn't feel worthless and she knows what it means and can tell other people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That's it. Thank you.

Now we go to Madame Demers from the Bloc Québécois.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here with us this evening.

Ladies, I am going to need your help. I have in front of me a table from the Public Accounts of Canada. The table shows that Status of Women Canada has more money than previously. For the 2005-2006 year, the amount is $10,977,184, of which $10,268,852 was used. For 2008-2009, the amount was $17,550,000, which was used in its entirety. In the area of contributions, an amount of $6,600,000 was approved, of which $3,474,197 was used.

My impression is that Status of Women Canada gets a lot of money now. That is a fact. Do you know why it is that its approach has changed all of a sudden? Is it your impression that women have enough equality, that they are sufficiently equal to men and that defending their rights, basic research and lobbying are no longer needed? Could that be the case?

It seems to me that your groups, that have done a very good job, had the support of people working at Status of Women Canada. Am I wrong? Do you work with Status of Women Canada employees? Out of 16 offices, 12 have been closed. Are the employees close to you or a long way from you? Are the people you work with actually Service Canada employees? Could you clarify these things for me?

[Jennifer Beeman]

As to the funding and the money available at Status of Women Canada, I know precisely nothing. The officers tell us that they are overloaded, swamped with project applications. Now we have much less contact with them. Beforehand, we got real support in preparing proposals. They made sure that the group met the criteria of the fund. It is quite normal for a funding agency to have requirements. We have no problem with that. The requirements just have to be clear, the dates have to be set, feedback from the fund from which money has been requested has to be clear. When the offices closed, our relationships with the fund changed completely. It is much more difficult.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

At what point did you notice a change of philosophy at Status of Women Canada? Perhaps Ms. Phillips or Ms. Perron could reply.

[Johanne Perron]

About three or four years ago, they completely changed the funding criteria. They also changed the name of the program. Beforehand, they funded women's groups and those promoting equality for women. Ours was an advocacy program designed to have women's voices heard. But you always have to be careful. The term “lobbying” can seem a little negative, but I feel that it is about public participation. It is the voice of women. I have to emphasize that 700 individual members joined the coalition because they wanted to send a message in one way or the other. Of course, not everyone has the time and the opportunity to meet with their member of Parliament, but some have done so with us on a volunteer basis.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Is it your impression that the groups that have been funded are not doing that kind of work, the basic work, that is? Do you know anything about those groups?

[Johanne Perron]

Some good groups have been funded. It is not about knowing whether groups are good or bad. But it is true that work is much more service-oriented. It could be that those groups perhaps make fewer public statements about what they need in order to move their work on women's issues forward and specify the things that they would like the government to do to change things, to bring about systemic change.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Ms. Phillips, do you do service work as well?

[Shannon Phillips]

Yes, we do.

Yes. I mean, we sort of rolled with the punches, as it were, with the change in mandate, and we did begin to deliver direct services for women, and we were nevertheless denied.

As to our relationship with Status of Women, we had a regional representative we talked to, and we also had a contact in Ottawa who had worked, I believe, in the Edmonton office before it was closed. Our executive director had been there for 17 years and sort of unearthed her in Ottawa and began dealing with her directly. So we were not dealing with Service Canada. We were dealing with people in Status of Women who we had an established relationship with.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Every time that you proposed and implemented projects previously, was Status of Women Canada satisfied with the results? That question is for all four of you.

[Johanne Perron]

I insist on making sure that quite detailed reports are submitted when projects like these are conducted. We do not just submit a report at the end, but at various stages of the project too. We have telephone conversations with the project officers to keep them up to date on what we are doing. It is not like we are forgotten once the money has been handed over.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

So what annoys you most? Is it the fact that you worked very hard and got no prior indication that your projects would not be accepted? You went through all the same stages as you did before and, all through the process, you were told that you were most likely going to get some money. At what point was that connection broken, at what point did the money disappear?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I would ask our panel to be very quick with answering this, because we're going to run out of time.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Jane Stinson]

I was just going to say yes, it was partly that we were denied this time, and it was a total surprise to us. But we were surprised that we were funded after the changes four years ago. So I really do believe there is a deeper issue of the way in which the program is structured and what is given priority for funding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Now we go to the next person, Madam Boucher, for the Conservatives.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Good evening, ladies. Welcome to our committee.

As you know, I have been the parliamentary secretary for Status of Women for three years. I have travelled extensively in many parts of Quebec, and even Nunavut, in order to make announcements. No one on the government side has any doubt about the exceptional work you are doing with women. I want you to know that.

Yes, we have changed programs. Yes, we wanted to help women more directly. That is true. This year alone, we had 500 project applications. This is one of the rare times when Status of Women Canada has received so many applications at once.

As I listen to you, I must say that some interesting things occur to me. Your organizations have all received funding from Status of Women Canada previously, as I understand it. So 12, 20 or 25 years ago, you started from nothing and Status of Women Canada helped you. Your organizations have contributed to what women in Canada have become.

Our government has funded 78 projects, at least. As you know, if we had all the money we would like, we could fund everyone, but unfortunately, that is not the case. Now there are criteria dealing with combatting violence against women and providing women with leadership. A whole host of things.

One thing occurs to me, because you have mentioned it a lot. Would you be interested if the Women's Community Fund contributed to a large number of projects, but to a lesser extent? The funding would drop a little in order for us to have more partnerships with other organizations. Would that be of interest to you? Do you find the idea has any merit? Do you have ideas for the new minister, Hon. Rona Ambrose?

We have tried to work a little more with people on the ground. You have done a great job and no one around the table here can overlook the importance of what you have done for women.

We have invested in certain provinces. A year or two ago, I went to Montreal to announce some projects that would not have seen the light of day if we had not changed the criteria. I feel that all the women in Canada should have access to Status of Women Canada programs.

Can you contact us when you have new programs? I have seen you before, madam, but the others have never contacted me. I am the spokesperson, the parliamentary secretary, and I would be happy to work with you. But, just to be clear, you have to help us too. I want to help; we want to help. Yes, we have changed our criteria so that we can work with groups that, in my view, are all relevant when it comes to their work with women.

If the Women's Community Fund could fund more projects with smaller amounts of money and with partners, would that be something we could look at in order to help you?

[Jennifer Beeman]

I feel that it would be important first of all to know what the funding criteria are. Who is chosen? A private foundation in Montreal received $1.5 million in funding over three years, while, for a small project, a really good group gets $30,000. I am sure that all the funded projects are interesting, but we have to understand your criteria a little better.

Important questions have to be asked. With the new services, funding is project-specific for a period of 18 months or 3 years. You are funding new services through new groups. Do you know if those groups are going to be able to continue providing the services after the 18 months are over? But then there are groups with a longer track record. They have demonstrated their ability to produce returns on investment over several years. The funding is an investment, after all.

That raises some questions. You are about to experience this, with the closure of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, for example. They have created essential services, but there is no more funding with which to deliver them. It is the same thing here. If the situation happens again, it will be serious. There is no doubt that the funded services are real. But what good is that if the funding runs out after 18 months? Expectations of service have been created once more and the group will no longer be in a position to provide them.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

But madam, it is not only new groups that get funding—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry, Madam Boucher. Ms. Stinson wanted to answer your first question, and you're basically running out of time. I'm just giving you an extra couple of seconds here.

[Jane Stinson]

The question is new and other partners, possibly, but I don't think it's enough. CRIAW was able to turn to a new partner, SSHRC, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, to get a major research grant. Other organizations don't have that option. Where do they go? We've tried for years and we were lucky to get that. We tried for years to find other funding sources. They're very limited. There are a few foundations and a few others.

I also think that if this government is really serious about fighting abuse against women, why aren't you providing more money to women, either through direct transfers to poor women or through the CHST to fund social services—which is where services should be funded, not out of the Status of Women Canada budget—and those sorts of things? How about housing for women? Those funds need to be provided if you're serious about ending abuse against women.