Status of Women Committee on June 7th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We will begin with a notice of motion from Ms. Neville, dated Friday, May 28. The motion reads:

That the Minister of State for the Status of Women appear before the committee to explain the manner and criteria by which funding is distributed by Status of Women Canada through each of the Women's Community Fund and Women's Partnership Fund.

I do not like the words “condition féminine”. Sorry, this has nothing to do with the motion. It should be “la situation de la femme”. “Condition féminine” sounds as though somebody is sick. Anyway, whatever. It always bugged me when I was the minister.

This is the motion before you.

Ms. Neville, you wanted to speak.

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

I do.

Very briefly, Madam Chair, we had anticipated and hoped that the Minister of State for the Status of Women would be present at the meeting at which we had the four groups. For whatever reason, she was unable to do it. I'm appreciative that Ms. McLeod asked her a question about funding cuts during the maternal health discussion, but I think it's really important that as a committee we understand how funding is determined or not determined both in the community fund and partnership fund.

We heard from groups that had been longstanding recipients, that met the criteria, that met the needs of the community, and there was no obvious reason their funding should have been denied.

I think we need to have a full discussion with the minister. It's a new minister. She may be going forward in a different manner, but I would like to have it at this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Is there discussion?

Ms. Brown.

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

I think the flip side of that, Madam Chair, is that we didn't have the opportunity to hear from organizations that did receive funding. I think it was a very unbalanced demonstration of what was available out there.

As I said in the past, when an organization has been receiving funding for 20 years, what that funding has become is part of their general revenue. There are other organizations that have obviously put forward very good proposals, new ideas, and new directions that have been deemed as having a good opportunity for the people in their community.

I think if we had heard from those other organizations, we as parliamentarians would have been able to determine what those organizations are doing in our own communities. That would have given us the balanced approach.

I'm very sorry, as a member of this committee, that we didn't have any representation from the other side to come in and tell us what they're doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Brown.

Are you making an amendment to this motion?

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

I'm not sure how it's helpful to have the minister come in without our having heard from the other organizations that did receive money. I personally would rather hear from them what their objectives and goals are in our communities before we do anything else.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Neville will speak, but in my opinion, the motion does not ask about who is funded and why; it just wants to know what are the criteria and methodology of the department and the minister. So this is a separate motion from whatever you're discussing, but you make a good point.

Ms. Neville.

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

Thank you.

Actually, you made my point, Madam Chair. This is not an issue of who got funding and who didn't get funding. I want to know how we're moving forward, how the funding is going to be given out, what criteria are going to be used. Will the minister again be the last one who says yea or nay to funding? Will she go on the basis of the recommendations made by the bureaucracy? If she chooses to proceed in the manner of the previous minister, what criteria will she in turn be using?

I think it's important. We're opening a new page in this area and I want to know how we go forward. I think too many of the organizations out there are confused. We heard some of the issues of confusion here. We heard that there was no indication that priority was given to previously unfunded organizations. We've heard from organizations that they had every reason to expect their funding and at the last minute didn't get it. I just want clarity on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. McLeod.

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

Madam Chair, thank you.

I look at our schedule and I know that we have many important meetings between now and when the House rises. I also know that we just had the minister here. I know a call for proposals will be coming out in the fall, so perhaps the fall, when the proposal calls go out, would be a very timely opportunity to have the minister come. The organizations will be able to hear at that time. It will be fresh in their minds, and they'll be able to hear what the minister has to say. I think we should wait until fall.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

This has no timing in it. It has no time limits on it, so the first thing is to agree with the motion as it stands, which is that we want to have the minister come and explain, generally speaking, how her system works. Then we can decide when we do it.

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

If it had criteria that indicated it would be in the fall, I would support it, but I'd have trouble with leaving it open. If the minister doesn't come before we rise....

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

I have a comment, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Ms. Neville.

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

I have no problem with holding it over until the fall. I just want a motion on the books that she will come. I can see how jammed this agenda is, and I want to add something else to it as well, in addition to this.

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

Will you accept a friendly amendment for this fall?

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

I have no problem with that, but it's to be early in the fall.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We would interpose that, so the motion would read, “That the Minister of State for the Status of Women appear before the committee early in the fall...”.

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

It would be early in the next session, or whatever it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

No, we won't say the next session. It will be “...early in the fall session to explain the matter”, blah, blah, blah.

Go ahead, Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, once we have met with the minister and she has explained how she achieves her objectives, I, too, would like to meet with groups who have received funding. So I am in favour of Ms. Brown's motion. I would be very happy to meet with groups. We could see what is being done, where and how. It would have to happen in the fall, however.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

There's nothing that stops Ms. Brown from making a motion to that effect eventually, but we're discussing this one right now.

Does anybody else wish to discuss this motion? The amendment was a friendly amendment, so we're not going to debate the amendment. Shall I call the question on this now?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

The question, as you know, is:

That the Minister of State for the Status of Women appear before the committee early in the fall session to explain the manner and criteria by which funding is distributed by Status of Women Canada through each of the Women's Community Fund and the Women's Partnership Fund.

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

It's not the Minister of State, just Minister for....