We have motions on the table as well and we haven't considered any of them. We now have two motions on the table. Ms. Brown made a motion a while ago to put a halt to these motions so we could study employability, which was very important to everybody. This study can be rolled into social economy; the literacy cuts are part of the social economy issue.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Ms. Brown.

October 3rd, 2006 / 1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON

Yes, of course we would all like to proceed with the study that was agreed upon. Some of us weren't here when that subject was chosen as being the number one issue for HRSD. But even so, I agree with Ms. Yelich that I'd like to proceed with what has been agreed upon without the interruption of motions.

Of course, at that time, with a booming economy and a $13 billion surplus announced for the last fiscal year, no one predicted that anybody would be bringing in cuts to programs that this committee is responsible for. Now that the boom has begun to fall, I would suggest it's only a paring knife compared to the guillotine that will fall in the next budget. I think we have to be alert to those changes, and I think that's what the movers of these motions were trying to do.

However, if in fact there is a huge concern about getting off schedule or disrupting certain witnesses, Mr. Chairman, you always have the option of calling an extra meeting on Wednesday afternoon, which is how other chairs solve these problems. You could have one study on Tuesday and Thursday at the regular meeting times, and you could have another one that takes three or four meetings on Wednesday afternoons.

I only put that forward.

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK

There are opportunities to ask the minister about the cuts. There's going to be a committee of the whole. I believe it could be handled there.

To go back to the social economy issue, the cuts are part of it, so why can't we role it into that?

As for running parallel studies or parallel meetings, this morning we heard witnesses express that they were very pleased we are studying this, because it's a crisis situation.

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON

Mr. Chairman, I'm saying we don't have to interrupt that. We can add this very serious concern.

I have less faith in the minister's answers than in her parliamentary secretary's answers. I've been asking her questions in the House and, other than ideological responses, I haven't heard one fact come out of her mouth. I don't think we will get good answers when she comes. It's not that she's not a very nice person. She is a nice person, but she's following the party line so seriously that we can't get the facts from her.

I think we have to hear from the people affected by these cuts on what's going to happen on the ground. I completely agree.

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Roger Valley Liberal Kenora, ON

Call the question, Mr. Chair.

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Are there any more points of discussion?

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

Mr. Chair, I have a question on procedure, being a rookie here.

I have an outstanding motion that's now been there for a couple of months. As Mrs. Brown's motion moved, we all said that we'd get on with the work of the committee. But whenever a political issue of the day comes up for the opposition, their motion supercedes the motions that were already put in front of it. I'd like some clarification on that.

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Mr. Storseth, I'll only mention that the motion can be brought forward at any time to be voted on. Right now the point of discussion is on this particular motion, but those motions can be brought forward to be voted on.

Mr. Lessard.

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

In fact, there are two motions on today's agenda: Mr. Martin's motion and Mr. Regan's motion.

Mr. Chairman, I think the committee should focus on its own mission. It presented to the minister a report containing 28 recommendations on employment insurance and every single one was rejected . If the government systematically refuses to consider our findings, we have to wonder if we are of any use at all to the House of Commons.

My other questions has to do with the decision we just made, namely to invite the minister and concerned officials to come and explain to us the reason for these cuts. I think Mr. Regan's motion should be retained, so that we have the opportunity to hear from these individuals before the cuts take effect.

I'd like to move the following amendment. I would retain the initial wording in Mr. Regan's motion, but I would propose the following, "That, in consideration of the funding cuts to announced September 25, 2006, that the Human Resources, Social Development and Status of Persons with Disabilities Committee recommend that the government continue funding all Human Resources and Social Development Canada programs and that the chair report the adoption of this motion to the House forthwith."

Otherwise, a number of files could be mismanaged. In my view, literacy programs are not the only ones deserving of our attention.

1:10 p.m.

The Clerk

Ms. Lessard, I just want to be certain that I've understood you correctly. You want to replace the words “the Adult Learning and Literacy Program at the 2005-2006 level [...] with ”all Human Resources and Social Development Canada programs [...]”.

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Mr. Chairman, the question arose as to whether is would be preferable to list all of the programs. I think not, because, when it comes to the cuts, some programs are not identified per se, for example, funding to women's groups. That's why I've chosen to word my motion this way. Moreover, it is consistent with the motion adopted previously by the committee. The minister will explain the cuts to us.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

I want to read the amendment as I understand it, just for clarification, "That, in consideration of the funding cuts to HRSDC announced September 25, 2006, the HUMA Committee recommend that the government continue funding all HRSDC programs at the 2005-2006 level and that the chair report the adoption of this motion to the House forthwith." Is that correct?

Okay, then that's the amendment.

Can I call the vote on the amendment, or do we have more discussion on that?

Yes.

1:15 p.m.

NDP

Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC

I'm sorry, as a new MP, I'm not aware of the procedures, but normally shouldn't cuts like this be presented to the House for discussion, for Parliament to--

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

I'm sorry, Madame Savoie, Mr. Martin is at the table, so you're not allowed to.... I apologize for that.

If there's no more discussion on the amendment, then I will call for the vote on the amendment as proposed by Monsieur Lessard.

(Amendment negatived)

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

We're going back to the main motion.

Mr. Lake.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

I'd like to suggest an amendment. What I'd like to do is remove the words “at the 2005-2006 level” and replace them with the words “while recognizing and respecting provincial and federal responsibilities.”

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Is there any discussion on this?

I will call the question on the amendment as proposed by Mr. Lake.

(Amendment negatived)

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

We're back to the main motion.

If there is no more discussion, I will call the question.

1:15 p.m.