Human Resources Committee on May 17th, 2007

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I think it's the clause that said, “denied and approved”, plus “the funding allocation”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

So it's “—were denied funding under the Canada Summer Jobs program and,”. Is that it there?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I don't have the motion in front of me in writing, so I can't—

Perhaps you want to see whether it's a friendly amendment or not. If it isn't, then it wouldn't make any sense, but I thought that if we were to have a holistic discussion on this when we get the entire list, it would be useful to have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay. I will come right back to you.

Mr. Lake, you're next on the list, so go right ahead.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Ms. Chow, I brought this idea up in the first place and I've written out where I think it would fit, so is there a way I can just throw this out? If we bring in the word “region” now, we've brought in a whole new term that we haven't used anywhere else in here.

I think it is actually pretty straightforward. I have a copy of the motion here. I'm going to just read it out and I'll say where I'm fitting things in.

What I'd like to add right at the very beginning is “Subject to privacy considerations” and then “that the Department of Human Resources and Social Development provide the committee with: the list of non-profit organizations and private companies that applied for funding and were denied funding under the Canada Summer Jobs program”.

Then I'd like to insert, after “program”, the words “for 2007 and the Summer Career Placement Program for 2006”.

Then it continues: “and, that information be provided on a riding by riding basis, and that the department provide the amount of funding distributed by Canada Summer Jobs program”, and I'd like to insert the same phrase: “for 2007 and the Summer Career Placement program for 2006”. Then it continues with “on a riding by riding basis”, and we would strike “for 2007” off the original motion.

The three changes, then, are adding “Subject to privacy considerations” at the beginning and then basically adding the same phrase in two different places, that phrase being “for 2007 and the Summer Career Placement program for 2006”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Ms. Chow, is that okay? Do you like that, in light of what you're suggesting?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

The wording should include “and approved”, I assume. Oh, we already have “approved”. Okay.

That doesn't give us the funding allocation. Did you say that you've asked for it already?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

We asked for it already.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That is in “riding by riding”.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

He says in the last part of his motion “that the department provide the amount of funding distributed”.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Thank you very much; got it. It's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That amendment is okay, so I'll start a new list on the amendment.

I've seen Mr. Lessard's and Mr. Silva's hands.

Go ahead, Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chairman, aside from the fact that the motion calls for a number of restrictions under the Privacy Act, I'm trying to understand what purpose it serves. Aside from this fact, Mr. Savage's motion which was adopted this morning, and my two motions agreed to on Tuesday pretty much cover everything. Are we adding something new? Why repeat all of this, when all we need to do is refer back to the Privacy Act?

I'd like to hear your opinion on the subject, Mr. Chairman. If we open this door because we're afraid public servants will disclose information that they are not entitled to disclose, then this consideration should factor into all of our motions because in every case, information is being processed.

I fail to understand why we're insisting on this so much. As you so aptly said earlier, we are all responsible for the documents we disclose. I don't see why we are rehashing this. We now have three similar motions when all we want is some assurance that public servants treat information confidentially. However, by law, they are required to do just that. Therefore, to my mind, this motion serves no purpose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard. I will just indicate that, on this amendment, you are correct that the subject of privacy is already covered, but this will not affect your motion in any way. This is only the motion before us right now, which Mr. Savage is okay with. So your motion will still stand the way it is. It will be fine. As I said, it's already covered.

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will ask that the motion that Mr. Lake has put forward on the subject of privacy considerations be set aside and then voted on separately, because I will not be supporting it. I would just advise Mr. Lake, and also members of this committee, that there are few powers that members of Parliament have, but one of them—and it has been proven both constitutionally and in the history of the British parliamentary system—is the ability of members of Parliament to in fact ask for papers and documents, whether confidential or not. That is a right and privilege that we have as members of Parliament. I don't want to limit that right in any way, shape, or form.

It's up to the department to give the arguments as to why we cannot see them, whether we need to see them in camera and not in a public forum, or whether it needs to be distributed or not, but that right of ours as parliamentarians is a historical and constitutional right, and I will not be voting for anything that will limit my ability and my rights as a member of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, if there are no further questions, I will call for the vote on the amendment to the motion.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Are you calling the vote on his subamendment? He's basically making a subamendment to take that out, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, he's not. He said he's not going to vote for it.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

So right now we're voting on the whole thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm calling the question on your amendment.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

His amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Yes.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Are you separating the amendment? There are two clauses. One is the 2006-07 one, which I totally support. The other one is under privacy—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It's the same amendment.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

But if I want to support the 2006-07?