Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I entirely agree with my friend Mr. Savage. If there have been any abuses in a few large companies, let's stop them; that's all.
In both my riding and neighbouring ridings, very few projects have been handed over to the private sector. You have to draw a distinction between those who work for large companies and those who work for small companies. It also has to be admitted that hiring a young person is not necessarily productive for the company.
Mr. Lake says there are abuses, and yet he has never hired any young people. Over the years, I hired young people to work at my architectural office. Those young people cost me more than the small amount I received from the government. Why? Because other employees had to show them the work; they had to be constantly coached. So it wasn't profitable.
Last year, people in my riding who produced water-lilies and water flowers received some projects. They had to take time to show the young people what to do. They learned to work, but these people didn't make any money.
As a general rule, the projects were mainly directed toward the NPOs, not to the private sector. I agree with Mr. Savage that the purpose of these projects is to show young people how to work, not for the private sector to make profits. It's a community-focused educational and support program. It's important that it be delivered as it previously was, because it's the people from the community who know the priorities best and who are best able to provide training to the right people.
There have definitely been abuses. No system in the world can prevent abuses. I note that the Conservatives would always like to prevent the slightest minor thing from going wrong, and that disappoints me. They'd like to have a perfect world. In a perfect world, another system would prevent abuses. However, that perfect world does not exist.
Why change a program that works very well and that the communities are satisfied with, and that they moreover expect to have? It's being almost completely cancelled so that it can be decided at the national level, at a level entirely beyond the scope of the people who know the situation in the ridings?
I think this motion is excellent. We have to go back to what was previously done. It was one of the federal government's good programs, so let's keep it.