Human Resources Committee on May 17th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Once again, it's the list of non-profit organizations and private companies that applied for funding and were denied funding by the Canada summer jobs program, and that information be provided on a riding-by-riding basis, and that the department provide the amount of funding distributed by the Canada summer jobs program on a riding-by-riding basis.

Once again, perhaps I could summarize the three things: it's a list of people who applied and were denied; that the department provide it riding by riding; and that the department show the funds distributed riding by riding. Those are essentially the three things that have been requested.

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

So the differences between this and Mr. Lessard's motion from the last time is that it's the people who didn't get funding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's the first difference.

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

That's the first difference. And it's only for 2007 as opposed to 2006?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's correct.

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

And what other differences are there?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

He wanted it riding by riding, as well as riding by riding for those who actually got it.

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

But having it riding by riding was in Mr. Lessard's motion in the first place, so the only difference is that he's asking for people who didn't get it, and he's not asking for 2006.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That is correct.

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

Okay.

I think it would be important that we include “subject to the Privacy Act”; that we recognize it might not be riding by riding, in terms of the way the information is distributed by the department; and certainly, in the interest of consistency, that we get it for 2006 as well, so that we're consistent with Mr. Lessard's motion in the first place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

If you are moving an amendment, I'd ask you just to think for a second about what that will say. I have a list of people. If you have an amendment, talk to Mr. Savage.

I now have Ms. Chow, Ms. Dhalla, Ms. Yelich, Mr. Lessard, and Mr. Savage again, followed by Mr. Brown.

Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Chair, maybe you can help answer some questions.

So the list that would be provided would be from 2006 and also 2007, the ones that were approved and the ones that were denied, and riding by riding, if possible; and if not, then by region. Am I correct in those assumptions?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Yes, that is my understanding—with the motion. That would be—

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Okay, and of course, making sure that we're not breaking any privacy rule, because I remember seeing it.

Mr. Chair, I don't know whether this would be out of order or not. Aside from getting the list—which makes sense, because certainly it's public anyway for a member of Parliament to receive it, and I don't see there is any reason for it not to be—I'm just wondering whether Mr. Savage would consider another aspect.

Since it's the first time that a grid system is being used—which I think is a good way to determine, by points and by merits, and all that; it's a good idea—has the department explored establishing an appeal process? I have seen that there are occasional mistakes, not because of the fault of anyone, but sometimes there is miscommunication.

I don't know whether an appeal process is possible. It may not connect with getting the information out, which I support anyway. I see that we don't really have department staff here, but if we're discussing this issue, could we think about having an appeal process, which really would help the situation right now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, thanks. And once again, that's probably not within the scope of this motion. Maybe it's something that should be considered for down the road.

I have Ms. Dhalla, who just got up to leave. I'll give you a chance to get back to your seat, if you like, or I can switch you with Ms. Yelich. Why don't we do that? We'll come back to you in a second.

Ms. Yelich.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

The student summer jobs program has changed significantly, so it is no longer done riding by riding. It has priority groups. The remote areas have been taken into consideration. So I don't think it's even possible to provide that.

If they're going to do comparative data and that's what they want, then we'll have to go back years and see who has been denied and who has received funds, because we'll find that there are not always consistencies there either. These are new groups that have apparently gotten some of the funding, that are very pleased. The criteria have changed, so I don't think it's going to be quite that simple. It's a new program. We're not calling in the old program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Yelich.

I will just continue to move Ms. Dhalla down the list here.

Mr. Lessard.

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

Mr. Chairman, we're prepared to support this motion. I do indeed believe that it complements the motion we tabled at the last meeting.

It was somewhat amusing, and at the same time, rather disconcerting to see the minister demonstrate the exact opposite of what he said here yesterday in committee. At that time, he maintained that there were no lists containing data for each individual riding.

During question period, the Liberals put forward a series of questions and all of the minister's answers came with examples gleaned from different ridings. For someone who claims that detailed lists do not exist, it's rather surprising to see how readily he came up with examples for the ridings of the Liberal members who were asking the questions.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I'm convinced that such lists do exist. Secondly, I don't think we need to amend or adjust current procedure or set up an appeal board, when quick action on our part is required. I think we need to come back to the old formula whereby decisions are made in the ridings or in their immediate vicinity, as was the case in the past.

Regarding privacy, Mr. Chairman, the answer is obvious. You're quite right to state that the people responsible, including public servants, for supplying information to a riding are sufficiently responsible to know what kind of information they can and cannot pass along. There is very little in the way of information that cannot be disclosed to a committee, Mr. Chairman, even if that means convening in camera where necessary.

Riding lists along with the names of businesses and non-profit organizations have never been secret. Why then would that change under a Conservative government? There's nothing to hide, Mr. Chairman. We're talking about public funds allocated for a good cause, namely providing jobs to students.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move a sub-amendment. I'd like to add the following words:

and that the lists be turned over to the committee no later that June 1st, 2007.

I would like the sub-amendment to apply as well to the two motions allowed by the committee on Tuesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We have an amendment to the motion now to be added after “for the basis of 2007“: “ and that this list be provided by June 1, 2007”. Is that correct? Is it the first or the thirtieth?

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

June 1, 2007 falls on a Friday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay.

Now the date is switched over to the amendment on Mr. Savage's motion. I still have you on the list, sir.

Do we have some new comments about this? Mr. Lake.

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

We definitely want to support the motion in principle here. There are some amendments that we want to make. It needs to be noted, though, that we have to give a reasonable amount of time to put the information together. We're talking about the biggest department in the government. I think that June 1 might be pushing the limits of a reasonable timeframe to put together the information that we're talking about and make sure that it's in a format we can use.

I know we're just talking about the amendment right now, so I won't get into the other things. But I think when we're talking about a timeline here, let's make sure we're being reasonable in terms of our expectations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. Once again, I appreciate that.

We're talking about the amendment now. I've got three people on the list for this. I've got two people on the list for the original motion: Ms. Dhalla, Mr. Savage, and Mr. Lessard.

Ms. Dhalla.

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

In regard to the amendment being put forward, I think Mr. Lessard is correct in proceeding in terms of wanting a timeline, a deadline, on it.

I appreciate Mr. Lake's comment that it is a large department, but with the era of technology we're in, I'm sure the department has all of this information on hand, as many organizations have been provided with funding and there are many others, probably a greater number, that haven't. I would appreciate getting it by June 1. That will give us a chance to take a look at it as a committee before the House ends for the summer session. I think that will give us an opportunity as a committee to discuss it a little bit further.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Dhalla.

Mr. Savage, followed by Mr. Lessard.