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.