Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What I was going to say applies either to the subamendment or to the amendment. It doesn't matter.
The argument doesn't appear to be about substance any more. This centre has not had A-base funding in quite a number of years. In fact, the latest funding came out of ICF, which is a temporary fund that has basically been sunsetted now. From that standpoint, I think we have to recognize that ACOA's gone to other priorities, so ACOA's off the table. I recognize that “the government” was put in here as a more general comment, and that's fine, but again I come back to the fact that this is called multi-year. What the hell does that mean?
I want to pick up on one of Peter's comments. We should be able to word this to say how we do a partnership going forward. Maybe the federal government doesn't have to be involved, and in the long run I don't think it should be involved. As we get out of this economic situation over the next year or two years, the private partners should come back in if it's that good. They should be doing this. If they think this matching service is worthwhile, then the private sector should be coming in.
I understand the challenges we're facing over the next year or two years, which is why we're putting the stimulus into the economy. To say “restore full funding”....
Somehow, some way, we have to come up with the words to say we want to go back and look at this in terms of doing it from a partnership standpoint going forward. I won't support it the way it's worded right now, because I think it lacks good business sense, quite frankly. We're not talking about substance any more; we're talking about emotion in politics.