Thank you, Mr. Allison. I wasn't going to speak, but I heard Ms. Dhalla mention that there would be students in her riding who will be unable to work for not-for-profit groups.
Instead of getting into all this rhetoric that this is bad or that's bad, let us be very clear--and Mr. Lake just said this--that 100% of the funding for not-for-profit sectors has been preserved. That is 100%. So let's not get into games and say that there are students who are not going to be able to work in the not-for-profit sector. It hasn't changed on that front.
The only thing that has changed is that we're not subsidizing multinationals with hard-earned taxpayer dollars through this program, which means that a member doesn't need to look in a senior's eyes or a hard-working family's eyes and say that we're taking their federal tax dollars to subsidize Wal-Mart or to subsidize Safeway.
The riding that Mr. Lake previously mentioned, when he said $10,377 for Rogers Television, $2,212 for Ford Canada, and $20,000 for Bacardi, was Brampton--Springdale, which Ms. Dhalla would know quite well.
The good news about this change is that you can look taxpayers in the eyes and say that we are efficiently using their tax dollars and that we're not going to subsidize multinationals. I can't understand how anyone could be against that. I know it is the job of the opposition to get upset with government policies. But when we decide not to subsidize multinationals, and 100% of the funding goes to not-for-profit, how can you be against that? It is absurd.