Evidence of meeting #11 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was billion.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Order.

Go ahead, Mr. Lessard.

9:10 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

If I correctly understand what Mr. Lake said, we're now going to a public session.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

To put the motion I introduced in this committee in context, I'll say that it is directly consistent with the position of the opposition parties regarding the $1 billion placed in trust, a measure that was taken this week by means of the government bill approved by the opposition parties. The opposition parties clearly indicated that that $1 billion was clearly not enough. In fact, that amount must not only provide assistance to two sectors, the manufacturing and forestry sectors, but it must also be spread over a three-year period. Furthermore, that $1 billion is being allocated without any consideration of how the crisis varies from region to region, in other words by province. Quebec, for example, bears 32% of the impact of the manufacturing crisis, among other things, within the industry as such. We see that a province like Prince Edward Island is receiving the same base amount of $10 million as the other provinces. And yet its population is 123,000 inhabitants, whereas that of Quebec has more than seven million inhabitants.

From the outset, we can see that the distribution is unfair, Mr. Chairman. That's one of the aspects that the opposition parties raised. My colleagues will also be able to speak and introduce amendments to this motion, if that can make them more comfortable and enable them to express their own positions.

I will reread the motion, Mr. Chairman, in order to put it in context again:

That the committee recommend to the government, in view of the serious crisis in the forestry and manufacturing sectors, that it implement without delay an improved assistance plan for the forestry and manufacturing sectors, including $1.5 billion in support measures for workers affected by the crisis, [...]

So we're targeting the workers affected by the crisis. One component concerns the industry directly. So it provides support for companies. I'll continue:

[...] including $60 million for an income support program for senior workers [...]

This is about the POWA, Mr. Chairman. Where does this $1.5 billion come from? The government has been racking up surpluses in the employment insurance fund for nearly 13 years. In 1997, that figure reached $7 billion. To date, the amount diverted from the employment insurance fund has totalled more than $55 billion.

In 2005, the Human Resources Committee unanimously voted in favour of eight of the 28 recommendations made to Parliament. They were the first eight, and this is the third. It states that this amount belongs to employers and workers. It was unanimously adopted at the time by those around this table. Our committee asked the government to return those amounts to the employment insurance fund.

As regards the amount in Canada's Consolidated Revenue Fund, that's part of a debate that I won't start here this morning. In view of the way things are still being done, a $1.44 billion surplus has been generated this year. An amount of $60 billion is therefore being allocated to income support for older workers, as well as a reserve of $1.44 billion.

That's this year's surplus, Mr. Chairman. So we don't have to take new money from other accounts, money for which we have to levy a tax. This money is in the fund and has been generated as a surplus. Instead of applying it against the debt, this $1.44 billion, as a result of the urgent need to act on the crisis, should be placed in a special fund “until an independent fund is created; and that the adoption of this motion be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity.” That's instead of an argument while I'm reading.

What's being raised here this morning, and what is put before us, are the reports of the other committees that have had to consider a number of motions. I recall that the motions introduced in the other committees are not identical to this one. The only committee that used the provisions of the motion before us this morning is the Standing Committee on Finance. That committee only had to examine this aspect. Four other measures were provided for in the motion of the Standing Committee on Finance, which had to dispose of them together.

This morning, we are considering the appropriateness of this motion for this committee, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It reflects our responsibility, since our committee has authority over employment insurance as regards recommendations made to the House. That is why I think we should consider it and dispose of it regardless of who may have spoken in the other committees, since this wasn't the responsibility of the other committees. I'm not saying they shouldn't have considered the matter and given an opinion, but, if things had been done in the necessary order, it seems to me it should have been studied here first so that we could make our recommendations to the Standing Committee on Finance. That was not the case. The fact of having proceeded in reverse order also created expectations on the Standing Committee on Finance. What's done is done and I blame no one, but we can see the dynamic that has developed here.

In short, I think our committee should adopt this motion. It can of course be amended, but I don't think there should be any amendment as to its substance, with regard to the surpluses generated in the employment insurance fund, for two reasons. First, our committee has previously stated the unanimous position that the money in the employment insurance fund must belong to workers and employers. Second, if there is one moment when the House of Commons should be called upon to take a position on its obligations to workers who lose their jobs, it is now, as a result of the urgent nature of the crisis.

Thank you.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

So far, we have Mr. Savage and Ms. Yelich on the list.

Mr. Savage.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Thank you, Chair.

I'd also like to thank you for clearing up the confusion about yesterday. I think it makes eminent sense that we have Mr. Martin at the subcommittee. Not that Madame Savoie, if she would be the replacement, wouldn't be more than adequate, but Tony is the regular committee member. He has had a death in the family.

I want to clarify that the subcommittee will take place outside of the times of the regular meeting next week.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

That's correct.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Thank you, again, for your work yesterday in putting this back together.

I thank our colleague, Mr. Lessard, for bringing forward this motion. It is our view that there has not been enough done for the crisis in manufacturing and the forestry industry. We think the response of the government to date is inadequate.

Just over two years ago, the Liberal Party proposed a $1.5 billion program to help the forestry sector. It had booked that money, and then the new government killed that program. The commitment of the Liberal Party is clear on this. Our leader has made a number of policy statements about the manufacturing sector. Recently there was a plan for the advanced manufacturing prosperity fund, which would not only help the ailing manufacturing sector but also drive research and development for green technologies.

We believe there is much to be done. The different parties have positions as to specifically what should be done. It is not my intention, nor I believe my colleagues' intention, to support this motion as it is. We do support the intent of it. I would be prepared to propose either a friendly amendment or, depending on the state of Mr. Lessard's countenance, perhaps an unfriendly amendment. I won't do that now. We'll perhaps see where the debate goes.

We support the intent of the motion, but we want to recommend to the government that they do more. We want to make it clear that we think the response to date has been inadequate. We don't necessarily want to slip the Bloc Québécois platform on this into the motion. We wouldn't support that. We want to show our commitment to doing more for the manufacturing sector.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

Mrs. Yelich.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK

Am I correct that the finance committee rejected the motion? Is it even in our purview? Would we be able to accomplish anything with this motion? According to this motion we're asking the finance minister to reallocate. As is well known, we've already given the billion dollars for the community development trust. We've given the forestry workers $127.8 million for the long-term competitiveness initiative, and there is the targeted initiative for older workers. Some of the programs that are already in place were not mentioned.

I'm wondering if this is above those programs. And could we do anything anyway, if it's really in Finance's purview? That's why it ended up at Finance. Finance has now rejected it, so is it in our purview? I would like to see the motion rejected so we can go back to the employability study. I'd like to see the employability study before we break.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

To comment on that, certainly just asking for money is probably not within our purview, but it does reference income support programs and employment insurance funds, which are under HR, so that would be something we could recommend.

To go back to your point on whether that needs to be debated now or it should come after the employability study, once again we have other pending legislation. There are two private members' bills that need to be dealt with, as well as a study on poverty. So we'll have to decide what amount of time, if any, is going to be devoted to this.

Part of the reason these motions get reported to the House is so there can be concurrent debate. We need to be mindful of that as well. There is another reason for these. It's not just that the Bloc would like to see money given to the industry, it also provides an opportunity for them to talk about it in the House. That's the other thought on that.

That was for clarification.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK

I'm just saying that there is new money targeted for this industry in particular. There's $127.8 million. That's ignoring what has been done. The $1 billion community development trust is starting to be developed. There is a new targeted initiative for older workers--$70 million.

I'm not sure what we'd accomplish by dropping the employability study and going into this motion when it has already been looked at by Finance. How many times can you take that particular sector and keep reallocating money? That's probably why they rejected it. They want to do it, and they want to do it right. And I think they've done it. For us to interject might cause some hardship and maybe even cause a delay. I don't know why we would continue this.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you.

It will certainly cause a delay, there's no question about that.

I have Madame Savoie.

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

From what I've read, there are precedents for assisting workers in a crisis and for assisting workers, communities and industries. The idea is thus to restructure industries to make them greener. The idea is not to do one thing or the other.

Everyone knows that the employment insurance fund is no longer really used to assist workers. Many workers are excluded and are not eligible for benefits. My impression is that this motion restores the purpose for which the employment insurance fund was to be used when it was established.

Mr. Savage spoke of an amendment. I would like to listen to that amendment, but I think we have a responsibility to use that fund for the purposes for which it was established.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

I have Mr. Lessard on the list, and if there are no other further comments, I'll have Mr. Savage propose his amendment after him—unless, of course, there are more people on the list.

Mr. Lessard.

9:25 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I stated at the outset that we didn't claim to be introducing a perfect motion that could be supported by the three opposition parties. I also recalled that establishing an additional contribution level was, if you'll permit the anglicism, a must, an obligation. As you will no doubt understand, I'm taking my precautions before the amendment is introduced, since we'll then have to debate it as drafted.

It seems to me that the amendment will at least have to retain this mandatory character in a very targeted and defined way, as regards improving or enhancing the Conservatives' plan. So the idea is to state the level and to increase it. That's the essence of our motion.

I also don't want our Liberal Party friends to get the impression they are adopting the Bloc québécois platform. If that were the case, this would be quite a bit more elaborate. Whatever the case may be, that's not how we view the matter. This is very fragmentary. The motion seems to be gathering the support of the opposition parties. The announcement made by the Liberal Party, in particular, on improved assistance to the two industries brings us to a total of $2.5 billion.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I recall that, during the election campaign—and I have documents confirming what I'm saying—the Conservatives condemned the measures taken by the Liberal Party, saying that they impoverished families. They promised at the time to remedy the situation. Last November 10, barely three months ago, the leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Dion, gave a press conference in Toronto at which he promised to attack poverty. However, saying you want to attack poverty does nothing to change the situation. You gain credibility by announcing measures and defending them. Those measures must be clarified. It's not theoretical; it's concrete. When people are poor, that tells us that programs are no longer suited to today's needs.

According to the Employment Insurance Commission, only 46% of individuals who contribute to employment insurance and who lose their jobs can hope to receive employment insurance benefits. A study by the Canadian Labour Congress put the figure at 38% to 40%. If the figure is 46%, that's appalling. That means that 54% of those people are excluded from employment insurance. When you lose your job, you no longer have any income. That's inevitably a major factor in aggravating poverty.

It can now be said, without exaggeration, that the situation is dramatic for forestry and manufacturing sector workers. In each of the ridings that our committee colleagues, including our Conservative colleagues, represent, people are experiencing a dramatic situation because their plants have shut down. In Quebec, its clothing and shoe factories, and even businesses belonging to a high-tech industry. Approximately 123 communities live from forestry. When the sawmill closes, woodcutters leave the job sites, and people want to find work. In this situation, the Conservatives recommend that they go and work in Manitoba, where they need labour.

When you're 55 years old and you live in Baie-Comeau, Roberval, Val-d'Or, La Sarre or La Tuque, do you pack your bags and uproot yourself from your community without knowing what you'll be doing in Alberta or for how long you can be guaranteed a job? In Alberta, the cost of living is so high that, even if you earn more money than in Ontario, the Maritimes or Quebec, it will be starvation wages.

Twelve percent of people who work use food banks. To my great surprise, 18% of Alberta workers use food banks. So that means that more people use food banks in the province where the economy is operating at full capacity, thanks to oil, than elsewhere. These people are working, but their incomes are inadequate. The kind of housing that would cost $750 a month in the Maritimes, for example, costs $1,500 a month in Alberta, twice as much.

When these matters are overlooked, I also appeal to our people from western Canada. Sometimes when you have money in your pockets, you forget the poor. When you see the money in circulation in western Canada, you get the impression they're acting as though there were no poverty. We went to western Canada on our tour, and we saw a fair amount of poverty.

When we were in Regina and Winnipeg, our colleague Mr. Martin went out at night to see the situation of the homeless. He told me about that the next morning. These people had jobs. Some of them also testified before our committee.

We're talking about our situation in Quebec—I see our colleague from Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière—but we're surrounded by people who claim that everything's going well because the economy is doing well in Canada and only two sectors aren't doing well. You have to see where those sectors are located and what damage has been caused, including the ridings where that's happening.

For example, let's take Mr. Dion's commitment—but it could be that of Mr. Harper—during the election campaign. He promised to attack poverty. How can you go about that? Do you just say that when you're on a podium in order to get elected? My goal isn't to be here as long as possible.

I've gotten to a certain point in my life, and I have other things to do than come here. I'm here because I have convictions. My two objectives are Quebec sovereignty and to ensure that, in the meantime, we defend those who elect us and who are disadvantaged. One way to defend them is to adopt concrete measures such as those on the table today. Otherwise, it's all talk and empty words; that makes no sense.

Mr. Chairman, I'm a bit emotional this morning because I find this unfortunate. Our colleagues here aren't bad people. They have good intentions, they work hard, and they have their convictions. Unfortunately, at times, when you find yourself in a particular situation, especially when you want to get into or stay in power, you try to adopt more visible measures for the do-gooders.

Would it be possible, at some point, to compromise a little? One way to compromise and to support those in need is the way we favour. There could be accommodations, but not on substance, the amount or the recommendation to the House.

If we're saying this is what should be right, if this is an honest wish, if we're also setting a quota and this isn't going to the House, then we're not telling the “real story”. It seems to me we know each other well enough to tell each other the truth.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

I now have on the list Ms. Yelich, Mr. Lake, and Mr. Gourde.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK

I just want to make a couple of comments.

Mr. Lessard talked about western Canada, and the poor people they saw. Some of the policies we brought in—the working income tax benefit—are supposed to...because we're talking about the working poor, so that is part of the WITB program. Then they asked about the people who are not eligible for employment insurance. That is exactly what the labour market agreements were with the provinces.

So there has to be an acknowledgement of what has been done, specifically that every problem he has cited is being responded to through programs, and the increased funding in all these areas has been more than has ever been funded.

If you want to talk about the homeless, there is the partnering strategy; we're trying to engage local communities and community leaders and our provinces. A lot of this is worked through the province where the employment insurance...where they're not eligible.

When it comes to employment insurance, the benefits are being used for training. As well, we're spending a lot of money on skills and training, because many people here in the employability study have said that part of the solution to poverty is to get a good job and to get training and skills. I would say most of our employability study concentrates on that, and if we do this right, this motion can be moot, because we can be discussing all the things he has suggested. All of these scenarios are coming through on our employability study, and that's why I urge us to get back to the employability study. Let's have it done before Easter.

I think all the things that he said come up, each motion, one by one.... We hear that these issues are critical and they're crises, and that's why the sooner we get some of these ideas into print, into a report, and acknowledged by the government, I think the sooner some of these situations he is telling us about today can be looked at, because we are working for all of Canada.

I realize he's only working for Quebec, but we want Quebec to be a part of this, and that is why we have looked at the big picture. I'm sorry, we have to include Quebec with our policies and programs. I'm really disappointed he doesn't want them to be a part of it. I just think that they, too, want to be part of the economy. It's growing. Quebec, particularly, did very well with the targeted initiative for older workers; because they were in a crisis situation, they got more. I believe they got quite a bit of the funding, more than others.

More than any other government, we invested in all these programs. It's not something that can be dismissed through a motion, when this is what our employability study is all about—all these situations, all these scenarios. It's why we're here and it's why we want to get this employability study done. We are in critical.... There are labour shortages and skills shortages. That's what we're looking at, so I think the sooner we get back to this study....

I do not want to see it go past Easter. I have no time to spend at extra meetings trying to get it done, because all of a sudden they're going to decide we need this employability study done. I want to do it now and do it properly. I think we'll address all the issues this motion is trying to do. So why don't we work through this, and then he can perhaps make these suggestions, and they will be good suggestions.

Thank you.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you, Ms. Yelich.

I have Mr. Lake, Mr. Gourde, Mr. Savage, Ms. Sgro.

Mr. Lake.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

There are a lot of things wrong with this motion. First of all, it's clearly an obstructive motion, in the sense that we have virtually the same motion being presented in five separate committees. Right at the start, there's the obstructive component of it, because obviously we're clogging up the business of five committees as we deal with this.

It's already been noted that the finance committee dealt with the motion and voted against it. Every single word in our motion was contained in their motion, plus a few extras. Fortunately, in that committee, at least three Liberal members, including their finance critic, voted against it. So I'm hoping we'll get the same result here and will actually move on to this important employability study we're dealing with.

What else is wrong? You have a motion made in committee, kind of symptomatic of the ad hoc approach of the Bloc, that would propose to spend an amount equivalent to 2% of the federal budget via a one-paragraph motion made in committee. There's something wrong with that.

The Bloc member says he's unhappy, but I would note that if you look at transcripts from this committee, it's always doom and gloom with this particular member. Notwithstanding the fact that outside the committee I find him to be a very amenable man, inside the committee it's always doom and gloom.

We're sitting in a situation in which our economy is one of the strongest in the world. Under this Conservative government, our employment rate right now is higher than it's been in three decades. With the new steps we've taken, I would point out that we are ahead of the curve right now, having come out with an economic statement in the fall. The federal government will soon be taking less money from Canadians than it has in half a century. Of course, the flip side to that is that Canadians will have more money to spend on the things they need.

If you had a chance to read the C.D. Howe Institute report on poverty, an organization named after a former Liberal cabinet minister, poverty rates are actually going down in this country, contrary to what you have to say. It's not to say that we don't still have some work to do, but poverty rates are coming down. To that end, we have a very important poverty study that's been instigated and pushed by a member of the NDP. I think we're all looking forward to getting on with that study. Things like this just bog us down.

I would encourage us to deal with this motion quickly, vote it down, get on with finishing the employability study, and then get to work on this poverty study that I think is so important to all of us.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

We're going to move to Mr. Gourde, and then to Mr. Savage and Ms. Sgro.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

Mr. Chairman, I'd simply like to make a few comments on this motion.

A request is being made to increase funding, but no long-term solution is being provided for the forestry sector or workers. The forest industry is currently in transformation. Some ways of doing things will change. Better equipment will no doubt enable these people to work. They will also have to get training in order to learn how to operate the new equipment. New equipment often enables workers in this sector to be more productive, but it inevitably takes away their jobs. That's sad, but that's the way it is.

So some of these workers may have to change industries. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, for example, 30% of workers are turning toward the mining industry. The service industries, which manufacture a lot of equipment for the manufacturing and forestry sectors, are now making equipment for the mining industry. Workers have been able to take development training and have benefited from the new equipment, which has enabled them to change industries.

I'd like to make a comment on labour displacement, to which Mr. Lessard referred. In my riding, people 60 years old came to see me to tell me they wanted to venture off to western Canada for a year or two. They asked me whether I thought that was a good idea. I told them they were free to go if they wanted to do so. In Canada, every individual has a right to work where he or she wishes. No government wants to uproot people here and there. The decision to leave and work in western Canada for a year or two is a personal choice. I believe you'll agree on that.

Are these people unhappy? They came to see me again, and they're very happy. Sixty-year-olds often want to work. They form a highly skilled and very much appreciated labour force because they have the necessary skills, which they can transmit to future generations. Are they well supported there? The answer yes. Are they well housed? Yes, because companies often house these workers. As regards wages, they all told me that one month's wages was equivalent to three months' wages in Quebec. They're very happy and that's enabling them to build a little nest egg for their retirement.

You shouldn't think that workers are stuck in a situation. Some workers, as a result of their leadership, will find solutions. They'll find solutions for their industry because they're close to the resource. They no doubt have the best ideas for improving their fate. We must give them the tools and permit the development of a future plan that will no doubt save the forest industry in Canada. It's these people who will do it. It's not by investing money or waiting for the situation to resolve itself. The leadership will come from the regions, and the government is fully confident in all these competent people who live there. That will guarantee a prosperous future for all the regions and Canada.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

We will now move to Mr. Savage, and I still have Ms. Sgro on the list.

Mr. Savage.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Thank you, Chair.

Further to the conversation that Mr. Lessard started, Mr. Lessard makes impressive use of words both in passion and sheer volume. I listen carefully to what we says because in spite of the differences I have with the Bloc on many issues, I know they are profoundly democratic and believe in democracy. This is a democracy that we are here today taking part in, and he would know that we have every right to amend the motion. He may like it or he may not. We support, as I've indicated, the intent of it, but we don't believe that these specific measures he has here are appropriate, not by themselves. We don't think it makes sense to have them as part of the motion. So I will be amending that.

He mentions Mr. Dion and poverty, and he says we need more than words. Well, we've had more than words from Mr. Dion. He's not the Prime Minister of Canada yet, and when he is, I think people will say, okay, here's a guy who actually means what he says. It's pretty significant for a national party leader to talk about poverty, particularly one who has an opportunity to be the Prime Minister of Canada, because poverty is not a vote-getter. Everybody needs help, but the people who need our help the very most, the people who in Halifax spend the night at the Metro Turning Point Centre Shelter and go to Hope Cottage for breakfast and maybe take advantage of Phoenix youth programs for challenged young adults and who work for the National Coalition for the Homeless, they don't buy anything. They don't get the advantage of the GST. We sometimes hear from the government that the GST helps the poorest, and I think some of them believe that, but these people don't buy anything.

There's something else that all of these people who absolutely need our help have in common, and that is most of them don't vote. They don't even know or care about elections, but they are human beings who need help. There is very little political advantage in poverty, so when Stéphane Dion came forward and announced his 30/50 plan, that meant a lot to me, as somebody who thinks we should do more for those who need help the most. It is not political. It is entirely in keeping with what Stéphane Dion believes is the future of Canada, and I'm proud of that.

EI is a piece of it. I would be the first to suggest that we need to have a look at how EI works in Canada. Mr. Lessard mentioned the 2000 vote of this committee on EI. The government now would have been the opposition then, I suspect, and would have supported that motion. They have since changed their minds, in part because there is no EI surplus. There is every year more money that goes into EI than comes out, but there is no continuing surplus. The money goes into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Government of Canada. Should we do something about EI? Absolutely. Every year there is more going in than coming out. Employers should get a piece of that. I think employees should get a piece of that.

I supported Bill C-269, the Bloc bill. That would have extended benefits on employment insurance. But we need to look at GIS, the child tax benefit, housing, education, literacy, and all these other things as well. That will be part of our plan.

I just want to make sure there isn't any questioning of our motives on this. We support this motion's intent. We do not believe it is an appropriate thing to put those specific dollar figures into it. I will amend in such a way as to take it out. If it doesn't come out, we will not support this motion. If it does, we will support the motion. We believe there's a lot the Government of Canada is not doing that they should do, and we'll vote accordingly--or I will.

9:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

Ms. Sgro.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

Mr. Savage said it all.

9:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

All right.

I have to go with what's on the list.

Mr. Lessard, go ahead, sir.