Human Resources Committee on June 7th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Madame Savoie.

I have two people left on the list. I have Mr. Savage and Mr. Lake.

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

I feel compelled to respond as well along the lines of Ms. Savoie to the comments that Ms. Yelich made about how of course we'd want to have government members making announcements in Bloc ridings, that you wouldn't want separatists making those announcements. That is profoundly undemocratic. It is not up to the government to decide who the people in any riding should elect. The people decide that. To suggest that the government would go in and make an announcement before the MP even knows about it--

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I'll just clarify it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'll put you on the list if you want to respond.

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

Surely the member of Parliament in any area who receives enough votes to get elected is democratically elected and shouldn't be ignored by the Government of Canada. I find that appalling. We always got this information before, those who were allocated funding and those who weren't.

I want to make one comment to Mr. Lake. My position has been unquestionably consistent through this entire piece in everything I've put out and everything I've said: The old system worked; don't change it--there's no need to change it. I think there are lots of reasons to allow an MP a say and to allow an MP no say. I don't think the MP should pick winners and losers, but I think the old system worked because Service Canada made those decisions at the local level. They knew what was going on. What we've done here is centralized it until it all went off the rails and then they went back to the Liberal formula.They went back to everybody who got grants under the Liberal days and said now you're okay for this year.

There's a fundamental inconsistency. This problem has become an absolute case on how to mismanage a program for political purposes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

The last person I have on the list before I call the vote will be Mr. Lake.

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

I notice that Mr. Savage is very selective in what he wants to choose to say that he said and very selective in what he chose to hear today. Obviously there were some transition issues that were addressed and clearly the witnesses referred to those transition issues. We hardly went back to the old Liberal plan.

I want to talk about the motion here right now. I want to be very clear, because with the comments that Ms. Dhalla was making--and I'm not sure if she was listening when the witnesses were addressing her questions--it's very clear they were differentiating between what gets released publicly for everyone's consumption and the information that you get in your office regarding your own specific riding, and who was and wasn't selected at that time. That information was never released publicly unless you decided to send out a press release and do that. What I heard the witnesses say today, and I thought it was very clear, is this is not information that has been released in the past publicly. Who got funding and who didn't riding by riding across the entire country is not information that has been released publicly, and it is not information that they feel is appropriate to be released publicly.

What would happen if it's brought to this committee is it becomes public as soon as it's tabled in the committee if we're not in camera. I just think before we vote on this we just need to know what it is we're voting on. Let's make sure we're very clear. We're voting on the release of information that hasn't in the past under the old Liberal program or ours been released before. It's plain and simple. Let's at least just know what we're voting on before we vote. Let's be clear on that.

Just in reviewing the motion here I'm going to propose an amendment to it in bullets one and two. In bullet one, what I would like it to say is “under the summer career placement program in 2004, 2005, and 2006”. Then in bullet two I would like it to say the same thing, “summer career placement program for 2004, 2005, and 2006”.

I think we need to get some perspective if we're going to be discussing this fairly. We need to have some context and we need to know what's happened in the past as well. I think it's a common-sense amendment. If we're going to vote for the motion anyway, I don't think there would be any concerns with adding those other years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm now taking names for the amendment. I have Mr. Savage and Madame Bonsant on it.

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

I don't have a real problem with the amendment, but talk about inconsistency. Ms. Yelich says we can't make this so complicated; these guys are so busy. We don't have the information, and it's hard to get it, for 2006. Now we want to go back to 2004? I think all that's going to do is delay.

I don't have any problem saying we want this information on this amendment by June 12, and the rest of the information as soon as they can make it available. But anything that delays this information.... I support Ms. Yelich on this one thing: let's not make it too cumbersome for the department. This is the important information that we need.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Madame Bonsant.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I'm going to vote against the amendment because I kept the lists in 2004-2005. I did the rounds of my organizations. When we refer to the public list, it's the list that goes to the members' offices. I never took the list, but I had it published in La Tribune. There's a difference between public and public.

What I want—and I don't know whether that's also the case of the others—is to get the list at my office. You talk about the announcement naming the organizations that have obtained funding, but the parliamentary secretaries went around Quebec and announced which organizations had obtained funding and which ones had not. It isn't necessary to obtain a list. That too is a bit public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I have Madame Savoie; then I have Ms. Yelich for the amendment.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I don't understand the purpose of the amendment very well because I believe we already have that list. I saw it in my riding. I don't see how it could be helpful to request it again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Now I have Ms. Yelich on the amendment; then we'll call the vote. Oh, I'm sorry, then I have Mr. Lake. Thank you.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

For consistency, we want to see what the department makes public, so we need all of the lists they usually make public. Perhaps what the members received before was not the same sort of list that is made public. I think to have consistency in what we're looking at and in comparing the data....

This is the whole problem: we're always comparing it with an old program. If we're really going to compare it with an old program, we need all of the information. To just study a new list and start going through a new list doesn't make any sense, when it's a brand new program. I think we have to have some sort of consistency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Yelich.

I have Mr. Lake, and then, if there are no further comments, we'll vote on the amendment.

Mr. Lessard, do you want to speak on the amendment? Okay.

Mr. Lake.

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

I think the comments by both Ms. Bonsant and Ms. Savoie speak to the problem with the communication here. Both of them refer to the fact that they already have this information for their own riding.

The trouble is, no one else has the information for your own riding. What we're releasing here is everybody's information across the country. So you may have the information for your own riding—we all do, for the years we've been MPs—but what we're releasing here is information across the country, for everybody's riding.

I want to see the information for your riding. If I'm going to see the information from 2006 and 2007, I want to see the information from 2004 and 2005 as well. That's what I'm asking about.

You weren't maybe listening to what they said, Mr. Savage, because both of them were concerned about the fact that they already have the information for their own riding.

If we're going to release all of this information, clearly I want to see it for 2004 and 2005. I'm not going to hide the fact that we had a change in government—actually, I'm rather proud of the fact that we had a change in government—in January 2006. I think it would be fair to take a reasonable snapshot here, to have a picture of the two years previous to the change in government, if we're going to have the information anyway, and the two years after. It's just a logical, commonsense way to approach this information, if we're going to do this.

I can't see anybody actually opposing that amendment, to be honest. If you're going to ask for the information, you have to ask for all of the information, at least the amount of information that gives a clean snapshot of the history here, and I think four years is a reasonable snapshot, if we're going to go down this road anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

I now have Mr. Lessard and Mr. Savage, on the amendment.

Mr. Lessard.

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

I understand Mr. Lake's concern. These people probably want to be able to work on the basis of the new political criteria for next year, as the deputy minister said earlier. That can wait, Mr. Chairman.

What is currently on the agenda is the situation this year. To get a better grasp of that situation, we must compare it to that of last year. To do that, the load has to be as light as possible for officials. So, for the moment, we must limit ourselves to 2006 and 2007. Once Mr. Lake and his colleagues have those lists in hand, they can consult those from previous years if they deem that appropriate. Then they can re-address the question.

It is hard to understand the Conservative logic. First these people say it is impossible to provide these lists, but they suddenly say they are prepared to have not only those for 2006-2007 to be provided, but also those from previous years. That's quite hard to understand.

I think that's quite ironic from a political standpoint. Our colleague Ms. Yelich, whom I appreciate very much, cites the example of Quebec. We shouldn't make any announcements. Mr. Chairman, I've never made any announcements, nor has my colleague. In Quebec, two-thirds of members are from the Bloc Québécois. That may be explained by the fact that our conduct is dignified. The Conservatives, on the other hand, completely disappeared from the map in Quebec because their conduct was undignified. They currently represent 7% of the deputation. If they continue to act in this manner, they will disappear from the map once again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I have Mr. Savage and Ms. Yelich.

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

Just to clarify for Mr. Lake, we don't want this information so that we can call a press conference and list all the organizations that did or didn't get funding. We want this list so that we can find out how badly this program was screwed up and the impact it's had in the ridings, which is felt, and which the government wants to keep under wraps.

We've never gone out with this list before. We use it in our duties as members of Parliament. The government members are listening to their political masters here. Mr. Chong told me the other day that one of the problems with the old program was that everybody got the same amount. All the ridings got the same amount of money.

There is a riding in Newfoundland that got $1.2 million in funding. My riding got $400,000. There's a riding in Ontario that got $98,000. It was based on criteria. The criterion was the youth unemployment rate in that region, which makes eminent sense.

We need the list so that we can do our jobs as MPs and represent the people we are supposed to represent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

Next is Ms. Yelich, for final comments.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Actually, I will defer to Mr. Lake.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right; Mr. Lake is going to have the final comment.

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

I hope what I'm hearing over there is support for my amendment. I'm sure they wouldn't want to be withholding information or hiding information from 2004 and 2005, so I'm hoping that this amendment will pass and we'll be able to get the full information.