Evidence of meeting #80 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Director General, Canada Student Loans Program, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
That is correct.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
You can build a highway with it if you want. You can do whatever you want with it.
We have a legislative clerk here, and I'd like to ask her advice on whether this is in order.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
We can proceed with debate and get back to Mr. Lake on that. The chair can rule it out of order.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Okay, but as we proceed with the debate, it's kind of important to understand right off the bat whether it is in order or not.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
We'll let Mr. Lessard speak, and then the chair will make a ruling.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Okay, but what if more people want to speak after Mr. Lessard? Are you going to wait until after debate is done before you make a ruling?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
I think after Mr. Lessard speaks we'll have a discussion by all parliamentarians.
Does anyone else wish to speak, in addition to Mr. Lessard?
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
We won't know until after Mr. Lessard speaks because we don't know what he's going to speak about. But you can put me on the list if you want.
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Madam Chair, I assumed that our amendment was admissible. This will perhaps give the clerk some time to look at the matter. In our view, it is totally admissible.
My question is for Mr. Leduc and Ms. Frith.
You have just told us that, with the present wording, provinces would be under no obligation to have a similar scholarship program. At the moment, the act provides for a similar formula.
Is it correct to say that the effect of our amendment is to reflect the situation that is provided for in the act?
3:45 p.m.
Senior Counsel and Group Head, Legal Services, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
Section 14(7) of the act that you refer to is very specific. Let me read you a short extract. This is what it says:
The following amounts shall be included in the calculations described in the definitions "net costs" and "total program net costs" in subsection (6) only if the government of the province satisfies the Minister, by written notice received by the Minister before the beginning of the loan year in question, that, in relation to the matter in question, the provincial student financial assistance plan has substantially the same effect as the plan established by this Act and the regulations:
Amendment BQ-3 goes beyond this provision. It simply says this:
14.4 Where a government of a province has, at least 12 months before the beginning of a loan year, notified the Minister in writing that it does not wish, or no longer wishes, to participate in the plan [...]
The minister must then—and I see it as an obligation—pay the money to the province according to the formula. There are no preconditions.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Madam Chair, I am going to continue.
In Quebec, our understanding has always been this. First, education is a provincial responsibility. Most provinces have their own loans and grants programs—at least this is the case in Quebec—and reciprocity or equivalencies are already established. The regulations do not say that the federal program takes precedence because this is a provincial domain.
So we cannot give an amendment a meaning that would take away provincial powers. With all due respect, Mr. Leduc, I think that the way in which you are drafting things changes the tone of the regulations.
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Canada Student Loans Program, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
Let me give you a current example. The province of Quebec provides some grants for which there is no compensatory payment because the grants are not...How shall I say?
They're not significantly similar to the federal program.
Where the essence of the program is not really similar to the federal program, there is no compensatory payment under the current system.
This gives us a control mechanism to make sure that a grant access program is established by the province.
In this case, the amendment completely removes this precondition.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Madam Chair, I just have one question, to make sure that I really understand.
Which present grant program in Quebec would not meet these conditions, since they are student grants?
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Canada Student Loans Program, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
The program for students from low-income families does not exist in Quebec in the same way as in the federal program. Part of the program is for people with disabilities. That part corresponds, but the other does not.
Some Quebec programs do not match the federal program.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Over the years, has the federal government refused to pay compensation because a program was not similar?
3:50 p.m.
Director General, Canada Student Loans Program, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
Yes, absolutely.
Quebec makes a request each year. Their agencies give us information and we analyze it. We go through all the information available.
In some years, we may have to ask for more information. We do the analysis as the act requires and, at the end of the financial year, we decide on the amount we are going to pay to Quebec.
In some cases, we do not pay.
3:50 p.m.
Director General, Canada Student Loans Program, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
Refused? At the end of the financial year, we send a statement in which we highlight the parts of the program that conform to the act and we show the payment.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Relatively speaking, in terms of the amount due, have you ever refused to make payments to Quebec?
3:50 p.m.
Director General, Canada Student Loans Program, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
Quebec receives the proportion of payments for all similar programs that they are required to received under the law.
It has to be a significantly similar program in order for us to make the alternative payment to any jurisdiction that is a non-participating jurisdiction.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
I will yield the floor to others, Madam Chair, but I am not convinced.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Thank you, Mr. Lessard.
You may not be satisfied with the response I'm about to give, but Mr. Lake has raised a point of order in regard to admissibility.
Since the amendment is focused on the opting-out provision, it is not a part of Bill C-284; hence I'm going to have to rule it inadmissible, as it is beyond the scope of the bill.