Human Resources Committee on March 22nd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Yelich.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I agree with Ms. Savoie. I think there were some problems. I think they were cited. In fact, I remember being at this committee when someone—and I thought it was someone from the Liberal side, but maybe I heard incorrectly—said they wanted to get away from members of Parliament directing where the money was allocated.

The changes in this program were made so that the allocations were based on clear and objective criteria. It was important to start changing the program to be directed, and not just to those who wanted to take advantage of the program.

I'm very surprised that you're jumping in on that argument when in fact you just finished arguing that you wanted to take it all home to Quebec, to your government. You're arguing now that it's all right. You're okay with the businesses being back and now having a different provision. So I'm not sure what you're arguing, then, because I thought the suggestion you wanted was that it go to the government and that the federal government not be handling it.

I don't know how we can prejudge the program. It hasn't even gone out there. I think we'll be quite surprised at how well it will work out. I think Mr. Savage should be very surprised, because I'm understanding that rural areas and more remote areas are going to benefit from this program. And I'm very surprised that there is any suggestion that it is anything but a better program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Yelich.

I have Mr. Lessard, Mr. Lake, and Madame Savoie.

Mr. Lessard.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Savage asked a question on an amendment. In the past three days, we've had to postpone all that. The difficulty concerns the transfer of management to the provinces that so wish. What is urgent is that we prevent the program from deteriorating. So I would be ready to accept an amendment to that effect. The part that calls for the government to transfer management of the initiative to the provinces that so wish could be deleted. If that suits Mr. Savage and Ms. Savoie, we would agree to that.

Furthermore, I would like to note here a few elements that are not consistent with what has happened. We already revised this program barely a year ago. The committee made 14 recommendations to the government, which did not consider them, which disregarded them. Are we going to do the same work all over? What are we doing here, Mr. Chairman?

I would also remind the Conservatives that, in the budget tabled this week, the government announces that it is ready to transfer all matters pertaining to employment training to the provinces. That means that this is also consistent with this concern, but I'm dropping this part.

What the Conservatives are raising is intolerable. We don't agree that it's Wal-Mart, Rogers or other large companies. This program was poorly implemented in certain places. In our ridings, it was properly implemented. It is false to say that it is us who choose. It's the public servants in the regions who choose based on applications. When we have to arbitrate choices, we can intervene, but it's first of all the public servants who choose.

Our friends here said so. It isn't because one part doesn't work or that someone did his job poorly that the entire program has to be thrown out. Let's take the following example: it isn't because a senior minister in the present government deceived the House that the House budget will be cut by 50%. The situation here is the same.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're going to have to hold it here.

The subcommittee has decided that we're going to meet on Tuesday morning from 9 until 12 and cancel the Wednesday and Tuesday afternoon meetings. So we will have only two meetings. That was a request from all the committee on all sides. I have the agenda, and we'll have to look at it afterwards, because we're out of time.

We need to deal with this issue, Mr. Lessard. I have more people on the list, so my challenge is that we have a vote here.

Mr. Savage, if you'd like to at least make the amendment, we can discuss it when we come back next time. So the amendment just strokes out “that the government transfer the administration of the program to the provinces that so wish it.”

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

There's one other small change, that the committee recommend the government maintain the budget and format of the summer career placement program as it existed before the cuts of last fall. As it is, it's the reduced number.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Can we call the vote?

[An hon. member]

We don't even know what the question is, so how can we call the vote?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Chair, could you repeat the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Most definitely.

Mr. Savage, would you repeat the motion?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

That the committee recommend that the government maintain the budget and format of the summer career placement program as it existed before the cuts of last fall, and that a report of this adoption...etc.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right.

Madame Savoie.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I would agree to cut the entire budget, without adjusting the format. You have to be consistent. I read one report saying that this committee agreed on certain changes that were necessary. I find it hard to see how we could now say that the same criteria should apply. That's tantamount to voting without really having thought about it. We all agree on this side that the budget of the Summer Career Placement Program should be maintained in full. That's what I would be ready to support right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard, we have to wrap it up.

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

Mr. Chairman, I invite our colleague to vote for Mr. Savage's motion as it stands, for the following reason. Our colleague says he does not object to someone changing the rules without debate. We move that the rules be maintained and that we then move on to the debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I have to adjourn the meeting for now. We'll look at this on Tuesday when we meet again at 9 o'clock.

The meeting is adjourned.