Mr. Chair, I'd also like to take this opportunity to answer the question raised by our colleague, Mr. Savage.
Eligibility criteria are not affected in the least by my motion. For example, the minimum wage is higher in Quebec and Ontario. In terms of the budgets allocated to the regions, this creates favourable conditions for regions that pay a lower minimum wage in that they receive more, because funding is based on the national minimum wage, which is set at $8.58. In some provinces the minimum wage is set at $9 or higher. Therefore, the funding breakdown will not be based on the minimum wage paid in each provinces according to current rules. I'm not sure if that answers Mr. Savage's question.
Regarding Mr. Komarnicki's comment, the Conservatives' arguments do not hold water. They cannot put forward just any old argument. If Mr. Komarnicki's argument was rational, then the Conservatives would have applied it in the budget. For instance, the budget announces $2 billion in spending for infrastructures as a job creation initiative. At no time did the government say that municipal infrastructures should be targeted for cuts, or that jobs in the mining, forestry and other sectors should be eliminated. That's not how it works.
This budget is truly unique. It can be improved, just as the government acted to improve the budget in April 2007 when it suddenly announced, without prior consultation, an additional $10 million in funding to correct its mistake.
We are talking about an additional $7 million, and our argument is entirely rational and sound under the circumstances, namely the fact that a new minimum wage rate is set to take effect. Organizations and businesses that hire students find themselves in a position where they cannot compete from a wage standpoint. Since they are required to pay minimum wage, they have to make up the difference.