Human Resources Committee on May 29th, 2007

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

Those motions are separate from this one.

This issue is one that has been raised in the House of Commons and in the committees and in the community. We had been assured repeatedly that all was okay with this summer placement program.

I raised this in the House three months ago, and in the response then the minister told me, “It's hilarious that the member would be concerned about a few million dollars in cuts.”

A few weeks ago, when we started raising it in the House, we were told it was all about Wal-Mart and Rogers, etc., and that this was supposed to be for a not-for-profit organization. But rather than reallocate the $11 million, they just cut it from the program, meaning that students were hurt.

Two weeks ago, members started getting calls from not-for-profits in their ridings. We raised this in committee. I raised the Autism Society of Nova Scotia and lots of others.

I have many letters here from people who not only were declined funding and who had always received funding, but who were insulted by the process. There's a home that takes care of students who have been kicked out of their homes and can't stay in school without this program. They got funding for 23 out of 70 areas applied for, and they couldn't believe it.

The Salvation Army got 31 out of 70 and were outraged.

Mic Mac Rowing Club says their program will not exist without the funding support. They're helping students who need it the most.

I could go through a number of these organizations that were the victim of this. Still we were told in the House that it was okay. Clearly, it's not okay.

Last week, Service Canada started covering up the program and trying to fix things when they started to scramble. We even heard that this was round two. We've heard that it was the bureaucrats' fault. Some of the stories are unbelievable.

The questions that need to be answered are: what was budgeted initially, because clearly it wasn't the full amount; second, what was added since then, and where did that money come from; what criteria were changed, because organizations that were turned down two weeks ago suddenly got funding on Friday—not everybody, but a significant number, we're told. And where do we go from here?

Minister Monte Solberg is a good guy. He didn't go out to deliberately hurt students. He didn't go out to deliberately hurt not-for-profit organizations. But that happened, and somebody has to take some responsibility for this. It is an important issue.

The clerk, I understand, advised officials of this motion, when I filed it last week, so that they'd be standing by. We had previous motions—exactly—that had been passed in this committee, looking for information we were told we couldn't get. Yet the minister has all that information when he stands up in the House of Commons. He knows who's been given grants in our ridings, and he knows who's been turned down, but he won't give it to us.

That's not acceptable. I think we need to have officials here from Service Canada this week to tell us exactly the answers to these questions, so that we can give some assurance to not-for-profits and students across Canada that this won't happen again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

I have on the list Mr. Chong, Ms. Yelich, Mr. Brown, and Ms. Dhalla.

Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I don't think we should support this motion, for a number of reasons. First of all, it seems to me that this is just going to prolong the partisan games around this program. We've had a number of motions around this program already. We as government have agreed to those previous motions to provide the information the opposition has asked for. This is just another motion to prolong the circus around the games being played around this program.

What we did was quite simple. We did two things to the program as it was previously constituted. The first thing we did was remove the funding for for-profit corporations. We did not believe that for-profit corporations such as Wal-Mart and the like should receive government funding, so we removed that element of the program. That constituted approximately $10 million of the program. That part of the program was removed. The funding that was in place for not-for-profits remained fully intact.

The second thing we did for the program—and this was based on very good public policy, based on the best advice we have received—was that we were going to target the program to areas of the country in which there were higher than average crime rates, higher than average unemployment, a higher proportion of the population that was from minority groups, whether that be linguistic minority groups or other minority groups, and there was a whole grid on which we evaluated these applications. As a result, regions of the country that had higher scores with respect to these social outcomes received more money, and regions of the country where there were lower scores with respect to these social outcomes received less money. That was the change in the program. It is based on very sound and very good public policy.

The Montreal Gazette recently had an editorial on this, saying the Tories took the right tack on the Canada summer jobs program:

The previous program gave local MPs far too much say over who in their ridings got money to hire summer students, a system that was ripe for abuse. The Tories instead devised a complex grid system administered by civil servants to decide who got the cash, and gave priority to jobs related to a student's field of study and to students who would otherwise have difficulty finding a job.

I think one of the things we have realized in the last week or so is that in many cases not-for-profit organizations that had long received money, that had not yet heard back from the government, were wondering what was going on. So the minister indicated in the House that the funding had not all yet been allocated and that there was going to be a second tranche of funding, and he has acted on it. In the last week or so, many of the not-for-profit organizations that in previous years have received money have found out that they are going to receive money in the second round of funding.

We have reacted to the situation. We have addressed it. The minister has been extremely competent and attentive in this regard.

I think that when all the facts are presented, we have acted appropriately, and I don't think we should introduce another motion that would see the deputy minister and other officials come in front of committees so that we can have another circus around this, when in fact the program is based on sound public policy, and furthermore, in the last week or so, the department has announced a second wave of funding that has addressed some of the concerns the member raised in the House and has raised here in front of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

I had Ms. Yelich, but she stroked her name off the list.

I have Mr. Brown, Ms. Dhalla, Mr. Lessard, Ms. Savoie, and Mr. Savage.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think at the last meeting we saw a lot of cooperation from government members in terms of supporting motions that were put forward by the opposition, realizing that we all recognize how important this program is to Canadians. I have to say, part of the tone that my colleague Mr. Savage used today is a good sign too, recognizing that in funding that went out on Friday to organizations, at least we're being open-minded to recognize that we are trying to make this program the best it can be.

I particularly liked the fact that you noted that Minister Solberg is a good guy, and using that spirit of cooperation.

I don't think we need to have an emergency basis. What I would suggest, and I think we had success doing this previously in terms of trying to find a way to work this without playing procedural games—I think we had success with that two weeks ago and we should continue in that spirit—is that instead of having emergency meetings, as we all have other duties here around the Commons, that we simply put clause-by-clause back on this bill that I think we're going to do on Thursday. We could have a further discussion on the summer jobs programs on Thursday, but rather than disarrange everyone's schedules, I would suggest that we continue to meet on the basis we already do as a committee.

So I'd ask Mr. Savage to maybe give that some consideration as an area of common ground, because that could certainly still be done within the May 31 timeline.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I just want to say, based on the 48th report, unless there's unanimous consent to continue, I have to adjourn this meeting at this point in time. We could bring this up on Thursday, first thing, if that's how we want to do our business. We can suspend...the other people. We can add some other meetings.

There are still people on the list. Unless there is unanimous consent to continue, we must break for the bells.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Well, the bells are ringing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's the point.

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

This resolution specifically has a timeframe on it. Because of the concern that the government might try to just rag the puck on this to get it out of the House, I would be prepared to accept that we would have a discussion again about this on Thursday. I would accept an amendment to this. I would change the date of the meeting, as long as that meeting occurred, whether the House was sitting or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

What we'll do is we'll bring it up as the first order of business on Thursday, and then we can make some decisions on the amendments there. We're going to be sitting next week, so it's not a question of that case.

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

Wouldn't it be beneficial at some point just to have the vote now? Because there is a timeline, and it is an important issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Well, there are more people on the list. As I said, we'll make it the first order of business—

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

I would call for a vote. What do we need to do to make—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We have to have unanimous consent to keep going for that.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.