Human Resources Committee on June 7th, 2007

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Allison.

I'm a bit perplexed too that Mr. Lake's amendment was shot down. This committee works best when we compromise. We've seen a few examples of that over the last month. We were able to move through things swiftly because there was that willingness.

What we have seen in the last 30 minutes is a move away from that, which is a bit disappointing. I'm glad to hear Ms. Savoie say she wants to see that context and look at the whole picture.

I'd understand why the Liberal members here would vote against seeing past years, because I wouldn't be surprised if there are things they want to hide there. But to see the Bloc and NDP vote with them and stand as a crutch for the Liberals to hide the performance of this program while they were in government is odd. I don't know why they would choose to do that.

I hope, if Mr. Lake rewords his amendment and adds the discretion to it that Ms. Savoie was searching for, that they'd want to see that broader context. It is a bit unheard of to go foot by foot, hand in hand with the Liberals, trying to avoid further information for the decision-making process as we review this.

That would be my advice. If we want to move through this swiftly, there needs to be that greater cooperation, and a way to do it is what Ms. Savoie suggested. You can play with the timelines, but get the whole context; get the whole picture. Let's not try to hide Liberal dirty secrets. And they certainly don't need a crutch, doing it with the Bloc helping them.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Ruby Dhalla]

Next we have Mr. Savage.

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

In the interest of breaking this filibuster--Mr. Lake has indicated he wants to talk this out--I think Ms. Savoie said it very well: there are no secrets here. How often did you even see this in the headlines in the last ten years? You didn't, because it worked under the covers in our communities, it worked for non-profit organizations, it worked for students.

We can go back to 1994 if you want. What I don't want to do is make this encumbrance upon the department so heavy that they can't release the critical information. For me, the most critical information is this year, because I know last year and years before. If Mr. Lake wants to do another amendment to go back to 2004-05--pardon me, if he wants to make another motion--I'll support that motion, but this one is very, very important. We have to get this and we have to get it by June 12. So I'll support Mr. Lake if he wants to make his motion, following this one.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Ruby Dhalla]

Just to clarify, the amendment we're debating right now is with regard to 2003, 2004, and 2005 being added to the motion.

We're going to let Mr. Allison take back the chair.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Because it has now been decided we want to study the list, then I think in order to do a comparative--because what we're studying is how the program works, and I think Mr. Savage made it quite clear he doesn't believe this new program works--we have to have the old lists.

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

The department made it clear.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

The department didn't. The department is busy, but they're rolling out this program and they're going to review this program. So this is the list I think would be very difficult and would take time to provide to the committee.

The old lists probably do not, as you said earlier. With the technology nowadays, that's probably not going to be the issue. The issue is, if we're going to take our time at committee to study a list, then I would like to see some comparative data. I myself have my own list, and the department said each of us can get our own list. To have the department provide lists for across Canada for us to examine, then I think we have to have some comparative data so we have something to work with.

We're talking about a new program. We want to find the flaws in it. This is the best way to do it. This could even help the minister in his review.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lake.

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

I had to step away for a second, so I might have missed Mr. Savage's comments.

With regard to what Ms. Savoie said, here's my concern. When you asked why we couldn't do it as a separate motion or do it down the road later, first of all, as Ms. Yelich said, the information's already there. So this is not the part that's going to take the lion's share of the time.

The reason why not is that this is clearly a case of the Liberals wanting to release a specific set of information that they will then cherry-pick for political ammunition--clearly. I don't think anyone would have a question. Even they know they're going to do that.

So what I'm saying is, it has to come together. The information has to come together at the same time in the interest of fairness, of context. So I think it's common sense. I think it makes sense to do it the original way I said, two and two, so 2004 and 2005, 2006 and 2007. I think that probably makes the most sense. I want to be clear: this is an issue of principle. We can pass this in one minute and then we can go on to whatever else we're doing. But I will not let this die. This is not going to pass as is; it won't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

I have Mr. Lessard.

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

Mr. Chairman, is it possible to introduce a subamendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Sure, most definitely.

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

Since we want to give priority to Mr. Savage's request, I would move, as a subamendment, that the information for 2003, 2004 and 2005 be sent to us no later than September 1. If the department can provide it sooner, that will be a good thing, but whatever the case may be, Mr. Savage's motion will have priority.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Can you turn off the BlackBerries? It's hard on the ears.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'd just ask people once again to put their BlackBerrys on silent.

We have a subamendment. We'll discuss that right now.

I have a new list, starting with Mr. Lake.

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

This will take two seconds.

Mr. Lessard probably didn't hear what I said to Ms. Savoie, but I'm saying the same thing: it has to come at the same time. It has to come at the same time for context. The whole purpose for the list is for the Liberal members to cherry-pick for political purposes. That's the whole purpose for that list. If the information doesn't come at the same time, it's just not acceptable. It has to come at the same time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Savage.

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

I have a question on the subamendment. In this amendment it indicates that if we don't get this information by the specific date, we could have it reported to the House, correct? If the subamendment were adopted for September 1, would that mean that we could not report this to the House until September 1?

That's a question for the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The subamendment left June 12 intact. The subamendment was just for the 2003 to 2005 years.

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

So if we didn't have the first part of the information by June 12, we could report to the House that we hadn't received that information, as per Marleau and Montpetit, page 864.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That is correct.

Madame Savoie, and then Mr. Brown.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

You know, Mr. Lake repeats that it's to allow the Liberals to cherry-pick. I don't know what their motives are, but my motives are to be in a position to respond to my constituents this year. I'm not responsible for three years ago. I'm responsible for now. That's what I need an answer for: now.

I do think the analysis would be interesting and will be interesting. That's why I would support this amendment in terms of a different date. But I think there's such a thing as asking for so much information.... I think anybody who's been involved in bureaucracy knows that you can shut down a system by asking for so much information. That's the concern.

Perhaps it might be more reasonable to say that if the other information for 2003, 2004, or 2005 is available now, then bring it in as well. That I would support--if the other information, etc. So just to be clear to Mr. Lake, that we're not and he is not trying to bog down the system, if that information is available, let's have it.

Is there any way of making a sub-subamendment? I don't know where we're at.

It's a question of getting the information, responding, and being accountable—I think that's the favourite word of the Conservatives—to our constituents this year. That's what I would propose--unless this is all about games-playing. If we really are trying to solve the problem, then we can add this....

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Madame Savoie, is that it for right now?

If this motion is defeated, we can certainly add a subamendment back to that.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

It was just that this subamendment would perhaps address Mr. Lake's concerns that he wants the information at one time. I'm saying let's get it all at one time if that information is available, if this 2003, 2004, or 2005 information is available. If not, then the later date might be more reasonable for that.

What we're concerned about is responding to our constituents now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay.

I have other people on the list, but yes, if the committee is in agreement with that, we could change that. I would have to get some consensus.

Right now I'm going to continue on with the list.

I have Mr. Lessard on the list, after Mr. Brown. I have Mr. Lake after Mr. Lessard, and Ms. Dhalla and Ms. Yelich.

Go ahead, Mr. Brown.