In all fairness to Mr. Weston, I don't think that was his intent. Mr. Allen brought up a good point, that full funding could mean one year, five years, or anything. Would the committee agree to look at throwing out the two amendments we already have and putting in a new one that says the government would restore full funding for one year to the CCFI, from May 1, 2009, to May 1, 2010? That way you wouldn't get into the five- or ten-year program. It would give it one more year.
We all know they weren't advised properly or formally that they were no longer going to be a player. They heard it through the back door.
We also know that Minister Shea's department--although I haven't heard her say anything on it yet--was going to give x number of dollars, and indicated support for it. I would ask my parliamentary secretary colleague whether the minister has spoken publicly on this decision regarding the government funding. Was she opposed to it or in favour of it? Did she have any say in the matter?
I don't know, but if we change it, Mr. Byrne, and you looked at it....
I'm looking for a compromise here to change the term and restore full funding for one year. That would give it an entire year to do what Mr. Allen said before about industry and maybe other government departments picking up more--that kind of thing. So I'm just asking if there's a consensus to change the words to “full funding for one year”? I'm throwing that out for debate to see if we can get a consensus.