Evidence of meeting #79 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
On page 864 it says:
Ordinarily, committees are able to obtain the documents they require for their work by simply requesting them. Where a committee meets with a refusal to provide a document it deems essential to its work, the committee may pass a motion ordering its production. If such an order is ignored, the committee has no power to compel its production, but may report the matter to the House and request that appropriate action be taken.
I have two concerns here. One is that as members of Parliament we have always had access to this information. In fact it was last year, on May 6, that Service Canada sent me a list of who had applied, who was going to receive funding, and who was denied. That is my job as a member of Parliament to know that. Service Canada, at the local level, knew that information. As Ms. Dhalla said, we don't pick winners and losers. I never did. I never thought it was my job.
The other day I was listening to a radio station in Newfoundland where a Conservative member of Parliament, Fabian Manning, said:
There was an attempt this year...to take this program, I guess, out of the politicians' hands. And, to be honest with you, I certainly disagree with that, because I think that nobody understands, you know, the riding as much, as a matter of fact, as the local Service Canada offices, the organizations that are out there, and the MPs in that regard, travelling around.
I have a concern from a privacy point of view, but I don't think this is about privacy. I think this is about disarray, disorganization, and the complete discombobulation of this program. If it takes this motion to force this issue--and I understand the motion is in order--then I think that it's up to us, as parliamentarians, to support that motion and do our job.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay.
We have some comments on this. I have Ms. Yelich on the list, and then Mr. Lake.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
Well, given the deputy minister's comments about privacy concerns, would we then have to have this in camera so this document does not become public? She said the members of Parliament are privy to this, or can see these lists.
We definitely have to have it in camera so it is not a public document.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
Well, she said it would become a public document. So it has to be done in camera.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Well, I guess the question is are you proposing an amendment to this motion?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
So would you like to let us know what that is?
Mr. Lake, do you want to talk? You're on the list.
Ms. Yelich, if you'd like to propose an amendment while Mr. Lake is talking, then....
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Well, given the testimony from the witness today about the circumstances under which it's given to members of Parliament, versus the type of information that's released publicly, I think it would make sense and be prudent to receive this list in camera to start with. Obviously this is not information that typically is made public by the department. I think that would be the smart thing to do, so I'd fully support that.
Now, are we discussing right now the amendment, or are we discussing the motion itself?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Well, we just have the motion. We're discussing the motion until Ms. Yelich—
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Good, because I want to be clear in terms of what I said previously here.
I'm not accusing any individual of anything, Mr. Savage. I'm simply saying that under the old program there was the potential for corruption. I think we should be doing everything we can to avoid the potential for corruption; therefore, I think this program obviously had to be changed.
Conservative
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lake and his colleagues have been suggesting for weeks that there have been shady dealings.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
This is not a point of order. I'll put you on the list, Mr. Lessard, if you'd like to discuss this. So I'll put you on the list to speak.
I recognize Monsieur Roy, and then Mr. Savage.
Go ahead, Mr. Lake, and then I have Ms. Yelich's amendment drafted, and we'll get to all the speakers.
Mr. Lake.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
The point is that it was absolutely imperative. I think it was agreed by most of the people on this committee in the past that there were problems with this program that needed to be fixed. As a member of Parliament, it is important to me there not even be a perception of the possibility of any undue influence by members of Parliament in terms of picking winners and losers in any program.
You can make whatever political arguments you want to make. It was funny hearing the claims of petty politics coming from the other side immediately after they rattled off a list of I don't know how many press releases in a row regarding this program. The inconsistency just astounds me.
Mr. Savage, in speaking today, talked about understanding from both sides this idea of whether MPs should or shouldn't decide what to do with the winners and losers. Yet in the past, on March 22, he stated that “I don't see any reason that any part of it should have been changed”, when talking about the summer career placement program. So at that point he was sticking up for MPs deciding. Then on May 17 in this committee, he said, “frankly, I don't think they should”, when he was talking about members of Parliament having control. So he's clearly all over the map on this. It obviously is a very political issue for that side.
I think what we're talking about here are some very practical changes that members of all parties have said have to happen. It is important for me to get this on the record when I hear some of the screaming from the other side on this.
I'm not accusing any individual of anything. I want a program that makes sense, that's objective, with fair criteria for everybody, so that everybody knows, when they look at those criteria and when it comes to putting forward their proposals, what needs to be in those proposals and the argument they need to make, so that it's fair for everybody. So I think that's where I'm going.
Quite honestly, it's too bad the officials are gone, because I didn't have enough time to commend them. Clearly, they were responsive and did recognize there were challenges and that there were some wrinkles in terms of the program when it began to be implemented. I appreciate the responsiveness of the department and their very, very quick reaction to some of the challenges.
So I just want to get that on the record.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you.
I have the amendment to the motion right here before us.
On the list I have Ms. Dhalla, Madame Bonsant, Ms. Yelich, Mr. Lessard, Madame Savoie, and Mr. Savage. Those are the people I have on the list, so we'll make sure we get around to all of you.
The amendment I have here reads:
That the Department of Human Resources and Social Development be ordered to provide to the clerk, for review in camera, no later than June 12, 2007....
This is the amendment for review by members of Parliament, and “in camera” is the only addition.
I would ask those people on the list if we could now talk about this amendment. I will revert back to the list when we get back to the main motion. Are there any other comments or questions about this amendment?
Ms. Yelich.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
I have to ask before this amendment goes forward whether it is even possible. This is a new program, and therefore I don't know if it can be delivered riding by riding. I think it's probably not really possible.
As our deputy minister said, they're very busy trying to get this program rolled out. They have a lot of negotiating yet that is in process, plus this fall it's going under review. I think it's pretty unfair to ask them to stop the clock and review an old program that perhaps, as Mr. Manning might have been suggesting in that interview, was unfortunately set up to have so much political influence riding by riding.
I don't think he's complaining about the new program. I think he's complaining about the way it had been set up, which caused all members of Parliament to have these kinds of issues coming back to them. I just wanted to say, though, that I don't think it's possible. I think first of all that's a question we'd have to ask the deputy minister--whether they could even deliver on a riding-by-riding basis. June 7 isn't very far away.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
Or the 12th. What they're asking for has to be reconsidered.
Conservative
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
Do we want the money delivered to their constituents or not?
Conservative
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
On the amendment, I have two comments. One of them would be that we're talking about public money, so I'm not sure why this needs to be in camera. The other is again that it seems to be handcuffing the ability of MPs to respond to their constituents' questions. If I am limited to keeping this information secret from my constituents who ask me, I think that's handcuffing my ability to be accountable to them. I would have trouble with that particular amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you.
I have Mr. Lessard on the amendment, and then Mr. Lake and Mr. Savage on the amendment.
