Human Resources Committee on March 27th, 2007

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

They might want to be here for the conversation. That's all.

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

We had the conversation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We've had the conversation about three times, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Savage.

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

I think we agreed that we would have the discussion on this first. We were a little late gathering. We said we'd discuss it at the end of the meeting. I think we should get this done. It shouldn't take very long.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay. Where are we with the motion from Mr. Lessard and the amendment from Mr. Savage?

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

Mr. Chair, with your indulgence and with Mr. Lessard's indulgence, when we finished off, I believe we were at consideration of Mr. Lessard's motion, with my amendment on the floor, I think.

If it makes sense, I'll read the amended motion: “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 the adoption of this motion be made to the House as soon as possible.” That's the amended version.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's the amended version. Do I have some discussion on that?

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

As we discussed last time, I think this committee, from my understanding, has previously discussed the need for changes, and actually all parties agreed that there needed to be changes.

I think the new program reflects the changes we talked about. I think it needs to be pointed out that under this government right now, Canada has the lowest unemployment rate since 1990, and under this new program 100% of the funding for the not-for-profit sector has been preserved.

I'm not sure what it is we're trying to go back to, given that members from all parties previously recognized the need to change some things. Now the money is going to be allocated based on clear and objective criteria instead of by MPs. I think it is an important change. I think it's something we've been talking about, that we needed to do.

Under the former program, and it was obviously the previous Liberal government that set that program up, a significant portion of the funding was going to big business, who would hire the students anyway, and we talked about some of those examples last time around.

For example, I'll reiterate a little bit. Safeway received a grand total of a little bit more than $232,000. I would think they would be able to hire their own summer students without having government money to do that. Shopper's Drug Mart received almost $18,000 in just a few locations. Sobeys received $16,770. Wal-Mart received $266,000. It doesn't seem to me, and it doesn't seem to be consistent with what my constituents want, that we should be using government money to subsidize these big companies hiring summer students. They would be hiring these students anyway.

There's one specific riding that we were talking about in the last meeting, one specific riding in Ontario that got $10,000 for Rogers, $24,000 for Ford, and $20,000 over the last two years for Bacardi. Those are significant dollars going to private companies, and I just think it's not consistent with what this program is supposed to do.

The program is designed for students. It's not designed for businesses. The changes we've made are designed to get funding to students who need it the most, students with disabilities, aboriginal students, visible minorities, and students in areas of higher unemployment or in rural and remote areas. Those are the communities in which this program is supposed to be helping students.

In my view, going back to the old flawed program doesn't make sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

I have Madam Savoie, Ms. Dhalla, Mr. Lessard, Mr. Savage, and Ms. Yelich.

I want you to keep in mind that it's 10:38 right now, and we have witnesses to hear. We have been talking about this for the last three or four days, off and on.

Madam Savoie.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you. I think there are some important points to make.

As I mentioned last time, I think there was a discussion at this committee about reviewing some of the criteria. It seems to me that some good changes have been made within the criteria, such as the allocation of funds to the non-profit sector and encouraging employment in smaller communities to encourage young people to go back there. I think those are good changes.

However, as in many things, I think the government did some selective listening. For example, there are no criteria that reflect the level of poverty in areas. It seems to me that we instead have a new flawed program, although we should recognize as a committee that it's too late to make any significant changes to this program.

If you look at criterion three of the Canada summer jobs guide, for example, project activities are directed towards members of and support the vitality of an official language minority community, that being defined as official languages. I'm having trouble understanding this criterion. There might be an explanation from the government side that would help me better understand it, because I can't see how any purpose would be served by that criterion in northern Alberta, or northern B.C., or my own community. In fact, it represents a significant number of points on the application. For example, in my community there is a high level of employment but a very high level of poverty. There don't seem to be any criteria to account for that.

I'm concerned about the new sets of criteria, although I agree with my colleague that there needed to be a review of the criteria as they were under the old program. I guess I'm unhappy with either one.

But I think there needs to be a review of the new criteria, to perhaps start from scratch, if this committee is to serve any purpose in having the government listen to the kind of advice that was being given about the need for review and the need to have a more comprehensive assessment in terms of this program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I don't know whether or not I can get an answer to my question from the government side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Yelich will have a chance to chat. If she wants to bring it up, then she can respond.

Ms. Dhalla. Then I have Mr. Lessard, Mr. Savage, Ms. Yelich, and Mr. Lake.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I want to address the particular issue.

I know Mr. Lake mentioned the fact that the former program was introduced by the Liberal government, but I don't think this is really a partisan issue.

I know many youth in my riding of Brampton—Springdale had the opportunity to work with many of the non-profit employers or organizations within the riding, and this year they're not going to have the opportunity. I think the application for the new Canada summer jobs program came out very recently, and there is a very shortened period in which people can apply.

I know Mr. Lake mentioned repeatedly that a number of private sector companies and employers had received funding to hire students. I don't think anyone on this side is really advocating that private sector employers should continue to get funding, but students should have the opportunity to work. I think this program was very beneficial in that respect.

I wanted to find out whether or not Mr. Lake can forward to the committee any types of data he has in terms of the breakdown of non-profit versus private employers receiving funding to hire students.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Dhalla.

Mr. Lessard.

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

We believe the situations Mr. Lake referred to never should have occurred. It is unacceptable for jobs to have been granted to profitable private companies who weren't entitled to them under existing rules. The last time, we heard about Wal-Mart, Rogers, etc. So, there must have been a breach in the system. We must find out whether it is because people misused the program. If so, we should not fault the program as a whole.

It is the government's duty to look into what happened and make sure it never happens again. We agree with you: it never should have happened. I challenge you to find similar cases in my riding. There are none because we followed up with the officials and the organizations. That's what you've got to do.

This motion is essential for two reasons. First off, the $97 million budget was reduced by $10.5 million this year. Also, cuts on the order of $45 million have been announced for next year. That represents $55 million worth of cuts out of a $97 million budget. These cutbacks may not have much impact on the riding's budget this year, but they certainly will next year.

The major problem this year is the type of patronage we are starting to see. We absolutely reject that. Under the former system, stakeholders in the community could closely follow the awarding of contracts to organizations which needed them, based on certain criteria. This year, the minister has decided that the selection will take place in two cities. Montreal for the non-profit organizations, in one central location for the entire province of Quebec. With respect to public and private organizations, it will be done in Ottawa, at the minister's office. That is unacceptable.

Last week, the minister told the Bloc Québécois that that was it in terms of MPs getting involved in these cases. The very same day, he sent us an e-mail to ask us which local, regional, national or international events we supported, without knowing whether these organizations had submitted any projects.

This year, they are changing the rules of the game just as programs are being implemented, thereby giving some people the opportunity to stick their nose into things. I fully agree with my colleague Ms. Savoie in saying that you can't change the rules of the games midway. If we are to examine rules with respect to the awarding of contracts, let's do so in a serious way, as we did last year, by making 14 recommendations to the minister on this very program.

In closing, it is important to adopt the motion you see before you. The Liberals and the NDP will not agree to my motion as worded. We are prepared to accept Mr. Savage's Liberal amendment, it is the lesser evil, so we may continue this debate in the House.

I certainly hope all members of the committee will vote in favour of Mr. Savage's motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

Mr. Savage.

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

I would associate myself with the comments of my distinguished colleague Mr. Lessard. Very simply, if there were a problem with the program that too many large organizations were getting grants, change that, take it out completely, go with 50 people or fewer, or say that no private organizations whatsoever would get jobs. It makes no difference, it's fine.

I'm sure someone on the government side has looked at the grants in my riding, because I've asked the questions in the House before and have seen that we don't give grants to individual companies. I have no problem with saying MPs shouldn't make the decision.

I told Service Canada in my riding when I first got elected that I'm not going to pick winners and losers; that's not my job as a member of Parliament. Change that, but don't forget that the purpose of the summer career placements program was to hire students, and you've cut it. You've cut the amount of money. You've cut the number of students. That's why student groups have a big problem right now.

Organizations in the community are going to have a big problem soon, when they realize there's less money. People are already upset that there was a late, late reannounced, regifted program. If you don't like that, change it, but don't forget that the number one purpose of the program was to hire students who need work. They need the jobs. Don't cut the number of students; that's the biggest problem with the new program. You can regift all you want, I don't care who gets the credit, but students need the jobs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Next is Ms. Yelich, and then Mr. Lake, Madame Bonsant, and Mr. Brown.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I think that's exactly what we're doing. The economy is hotter, and those jobs were going to be created by the companies anyhow.

We're listening to witnesses again and again going on about the shortage of good, qualified people, so I think they all exist. I don't think it ever was about taking poverty levels across Canada. This was always about creating jobs for students and encouraging especially non-government organizations to create jobs for students so they would be able to work in their own communities.

I think it's targeting more communities instead of focusing it on just companies, businesses, and industries that would have created them anyhow. It's for the groups that would like to hire summer students, and to be able to continue it.

I don't really think you're testing each riding to see what the poverty level is; you're trying to get students to work. It's about students. We know businesses exist that are short of employees, but this is to encourage non-government organizations to hire students.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Yelich.

I have Mr. Lake, Madame Bonsant, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Silva.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I want to deal with a few of the issues that have come up in the discussion. I want to speak first to Ms. Savoie's comments.

She talked about no criteria dealing with poverty, but with all due respect, your party talks consistently about poverty's correlation to high crime, high unemployment, and aboriginal communities. This program is designed to get funding to students with disabilities, in aboriginal communities, and in areas with high unemployment and crime rates. It does deal with areas where poverty might be a concern.

In dealing with your question about northern Alberta and northern B.C. not getting help or not needing help, if you were to talk to colleagues of mine and yours--the member from Skeena—Bulkley Valley--you'd hear that in the rural areas there is a need for a program like this to bring students back to the communities to help out with the non-profit organizations in some of those rural areas. So those areas are targeted for this.

As for so much of the conversation from everywhere, I want to remind you that 100% of the funding for the not-for-profit sector has been preserved. Anything else that any of you are fighting for right now is money for big business, because we're preserving the funding for the not-for-profit sector.

My colleague Mr. Savage talked about students and defending students, and we're on the same page there. The program is designed for students to get jobs. The argument we're making is that the big businesses will hire those students anywhere.

I'll reiterate that right now under this government, with the things we've done in our last two budgets, youth unemployment is lower than ever. Students are getting the jobs and have a better shot at getting jobs now than they've had in years in Canada. I think that students are definitely well served.

I was puzzled by the Bloc comment on nepotism, because I think that's one of the things we're trying to correct here. Again, what the previous committee wanted is what we have with this new program. The goals the committee was asking for have been accomplished.

Let's review the program next year and come back with suggestions if something else needs to be corrected. At the end of the day, youth unemployment is lower than ever, and students are going to get those jobs anyway from the big businesses you're trying to protect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I remind the members once again that we have witnesses waiting. I have four on the list. I encourage you to keep it short so we can get to our witnesses.

Next is Madame Bonsant, and then Mr. Brown, Mr. Silva, and Madame Savoie.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I think some people have selective memory here. Since 2004, we have been working on the Summer Career Placement Program and on the 14 recommendations which Conservative members supported. We tabled these recommendations in the House on several occasions, and the last time, the minister did not bother to reply. So, I'm awaiting his response.

You say that it's the same thing. It isn't right for organizations not to be able to get a copy of their applications. Is it because the program is designed in this way or because this wasn't thought of? Whatever the answer, the applications disappear from the system and cannot be printed.

The budget was cut by $10 million. When we ask the government what the budget is for Quebec, we don't get a reply. Either they don't want to answer us, or they don't know. We've worked on this issue for two years, and we've been talking about it for four weeks. I don't think we are going to reach a consensus.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that we vote and put an end to this straightaway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. We'll go to Mr. Brown.