(Return tabled) Question No. 227 Ms. Irene Mathyssen: With regard to the Women’s Community Fund and the Women’s Partnership Fund: (a) which organizations or groups applied for funding under each program in 2008, 2009 and 2010; (b) how many organizations or groups received funding under each program in 2008, 2009 and 2010; (c) which organizations or groups were successful in receiving funding from each program in 2008, 2009 and 2010; (d) which organizations or groups were not successful in receiving funding from each program in 2008, 2009 and 2010; (e) what criteria were used to approve funding for organizations or groups and their pr ...[+++]ojects; (f) how much money was granted to each organization or group and project, and how much money has each received to date; (g) which organizations or groups were recommended for funding to the Minister for Status of Women by ministry staff; (h) which organizations or groups that were recommended for funding to the Minister for Status of Women did not receive funding; and (i) what criteria did the Minister for Status of Women use to decide which of the organizations or groups recommended for funding were funded and which were not?

That the Committee hold a special meeting to examine the manner in which funding is distributed by Status of Women Canada, and in particular, examine the apparent denial of funding to previous Status of Women Canada grant recipients in the 2009 call for submissions; and invite the current and former Ministers of State for the Status of Women, the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women, Womanspace Resource Centre, the Pay Equity Coalition, Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail, and any other witne ...[+++]sses that the committee wishes to invite.

The original motion that was passed, that was going to ask for the special meeting, was asking for the special meeting specifically to examine the manner in which funding is distributed by Status of Women Canada, and in particular, it was to examine the apparent denial of funding to previous Status of Women grant recipients in the 2009 call for submissions, and invite the current and former ministers of Status of Women, etc., and other witnesses the committee wishes to invite.

Since such an analysis has not been provided and since HSY and Greece made that doubtful and hypothetical claim without any supporting evidence, the Commission dismisses without further analysis their claim that the State (including ETVA) acted as a market economy investor since the financing granted at favourable terms triggered an increase of the value of HSY shares which was sufficiently important to compensate the ‘foregone revenues’.

In this regard, [.] (as facility agent for the twelve banks, lenders of nearly [.] to Csepel power plant) argues that ‘The view of the Banks is that the PPA is part of a package of closely related commercial agreements that secured and still secure the Facility Agreement that provides the financing for the project at market conditions.

The Commission and each applicant country should therefore draw up a multiannual financing agreement in which the conditions determining the use of the Sapard contribution will be set out. Annual financing agreements should set out the financial contribution of the Community.