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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
If there is no more debate, I will then call the vote on the amendment.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay, the amendment is defeated. Let's go back to the main motion.
I have one speaker left on that list. It's Mr. Lessard. I don't know if you had covered your comments, but I do have you on the list.
Are there others?
Okay, I have Mr. Lake.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
It's astounding to me that we voted down that amendment.
If we're going to put the information on the table, I want to go back to common sense here. Obviously...based on the input that we got today from the department, I do not believe that we should be releasing the information in public, based on the information we have.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
No. We're debating the motion now; I can debate the motion.
Liberal
Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON
I thought you were debating the amendment that we just discussed with regard to 2004-2005.
Conservative
Conservative
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
We have disposed of this motion. It was negatived. The debate is over. We agree on the principle, but it's the date that poses a problem. We could come back to this later. We can obtain this information, but later, so as not to burden the department. We will ensure we have the requested information for the twelfth. We do not object to the principle. He is entirely right on that point. We need only state another date.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Back to what I was saying, I think that when you look at the motion as it stands right now, it's obvious that the entire issue has been a very political issue on the Liberal side. It's very important, if we're going to pass this motion, that we have a complete picture. Obviously there are politics being played in terms of the vote on that amendment. It's a common-sense amendment. It's not political, because it just creates a fair picture.
If we're going to release the information.... I think I'm very clear that as is, I won't be supporting this motion as it stands. But even if I'm not going to support the motion, it's clear that it's going to pass. I think if we're going to pass a motion like this, it's important that the information be presented in context. To have proper context, you have to have two years. You have to have at least four years.
I'm prepared to move another amendment. And I'll continue to do this until it gets some common sense. We can either vote on it and then go on to what we need to go on to and vote for a common-sense amendment, or we can continue to avoid having proper information out there.
The amendment I'm going to move now, under the first bullet, is that it read, “under the summer career placement program in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006”, and then, “distributed by the summer career placement program for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006”.
Quite honestly, this isn't a matter of trying to waste time. We can move on and we can vote on these things until we get something that's common sense, and then we can move on to whatever it is we have to discuss. But if you guys are going to play political games on the other side and vote down an amendment that makes total sense simply because you don't want that information to come out, then I'll keep moving amendments, and we'll add years if we want to. It has to have context if you're going to put the information out. It has to have context, plain and simple.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
On this amendment list I have Ms. Dhalla, Madame Savoie, and Mr. Savage.
Liberal
Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON
On the amendment, if Mr. Lake and the Conservatives are so eager to have the information from previous years, they have access to that already. We've seen that the parliamentary secretaries and their ministers have utilized that information in repeated venues across the country, whether they're making announcements in Quebec or in the House of Commons in the chamber. So they have access to that information.
I think if they were interested in having that information previously, they could have put a motion forward. We know that for people on this side, in terms of the opposition, it is really not about politics. This is about non-profit organizations that have been denied funding. It's about students coming into my office when I'm there on a constituency day on Fridays saying that they had access to jobs last year and they don't have the same access and they want to know what is going on. And we're unable to respond.
I find it ironic, because if the deputy minister, under the direction of the minister, I gather, whom she directly works for, sends us a letter saying that there are privacy concerns, and at the same time she sends us a list of expenditures per riding, they must have a complete list of organizations that received funding if they can come up with that final amount. So if Dartmouth—Cole Harbour received $400,000, there must have been a list of organizations that received funding that added up to the $400,000. If someone out in Bourassa in Quebec received $232,000, there must have been a list of programs that received funding to come up with that final amount of $232,000. So when the Conservatives are saying that it's difficult to come up with it on a riding-by-riding basis, we've already been provided the information in terms of total amounts. What we are asking for is a comprehensive list.
I think the prudent thing to do to ensure that it is transparent and to see that there is accountability is to put forward this list. I'm sure there is nothing to hide. It is public knowledge when the list does come out. We as parliamentarians are asking to be able to do our job. We are a link between our constituents and the government, and we have a job to do. I think these types of handcuffs are really putting a restraint on our ability to do our jobs well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I have heard a couple of different things here. I do want some clarification, Mr. Savage, on the motion. As I understand it, you were you requesting the same information you received last year. You asked for riding-by-riding information. In other words, you're requesting the same list you got last year in your riding. Is that correct, essentially? Or are we looking for all these lists, having other people's lists going back and forth? Are you just looking to have your list in your riding provided to the individual members of Parliament?
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I'm entirely comfortable with that. The intent of this is so that I know what is happening in my riding, and it's important that we know, across the country, the total funding amounts. That's another piece of it, for the committee.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
That's entirely different from what she said.
Liberal
Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON
If a member of Parliament is provided with a riding-by-riding list, as we were last year.... The list we were provided last year had every single organization that applied. Then HRDC made recommendations on whether or not these organizations should get funding or get partial funding or be denied funding. We want that list either given to us or given to every single MP across the country.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I just want clarification. You were looking for the list the way you got it last year?
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Yes, but they have computers now, Lynne. They can work around.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We're going to move on. Here are the names of those I have on the list now. I have Madame Savoie, Mr. Brown, Mr. Savage, and Ms. Yelich.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you.
I share the concern about being able to compare apples with apples that Mr. Lake is raising, but I think there are two concerns, one of which they have expressed themselves: they don't want to bog down the department. Why not accept this motion as it is and make an additional motion to get these facts down the road, because we're not asking for anything different from what was obtained.
There's no rush on that information. It is going to be good to have, and I would support it if it came in a separate motion with a different timeline. There isn't the same rush for 2003 as there is to respond to the groups that have been calling our offices.
It would be useful to have, and I would support getting it with a longer timeline, if they're willing to make that kind of amendment and change the timeline. This is the urgent part of it. Let's not bog down the department, as you suggested on your side, and get at this information. Then we can come back and get at the other information for previous years, if you feel the need to respect a principle of comparing apples with apples.
It's not a question of not accepting the principle Mr. Lake raises. It's just a question of different levels of urgency that we want to get at to respond to our constituents in our ridings, to the groups that have approached us, to the students who have talked to us.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Brown, followed by Mr. Savage, and then Ms. Yelich.
