Evidence of meeting #59 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 lessard.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chair, I want to concord this with the clause we saw earlier.
I move that Bill C-36, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 12 the following:
(1.1) Paragraph 11(7)(a) of the Act is repealed.
[Technical difficulties—Editor]
Mr. Chair, what would be repealed is the paragraph that I've just pointed out to you, which states:
(ii) a person in respect of whom and undertaking by a sponsor is in effect as provided under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Mr. Chair, I believe another party has introduced the same amendment. Is that possible?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Mr. Lessard, I've been informed by the legislative clerk that this motion is inadmissible, and I can give you the long answer or the short answer as to the reason. The short answer is that it requires a royal recommendation, because of the fact that it would waive that eleven months.
I could read the whole page, or we can keep this short and you can just trust me on this one. In fact, it does require a royal recommendation, so the motion is inadmissible.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We are now going to move back a page in your book, to page 7 of the amendments. We're still on page 12 of the bill.
We have an amendment, NDP-1. Ms. Charlton, would you like to read the motion and maybe just briefly discuss it?
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
The motion reads that Bill C-36 in clause 16 be amended by deleting lines 19 to 24 on page 12.
This subsection deals with the attempt, I believe, to create greater equity in terms of benefit entitlements, but it does that by ratcheting down the entitlements for everybody. I'm proposing that we go back to the status quo ante in the bill.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Again I'd like to ask the officials to comment on this.
4:40 p.m.
Director, International Policy and Agreements, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Social Development Sectors Branch, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
From the perspective of what was discussed originally, there's a notion that benefits under the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan are not subject to nationality restrictions. In other words, you should not advantage or disadvantage someone simply because they happen to be a permanent resident or a Canadian citizen. As I've explained before, Canada is one of the few countries where that equality of treatment provision is built into its pension legislation. This is something that is rare around the world, and it's something that I'm exposed to in my negotiations internationally on social security agreements.
I take your point in terms of ratcheting it down, but the provisions already exist within existing legislation to have that different category of person established. The concern is that if you don't make it on par--in other words, if you don't ensure that Canadian citizens and permanent residents in terms of their sponsorship are treated the same way--then it opens it up to a difference of treatment. I think this is something that is the intention here to avoid.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I would have preferred if you had expanded the category of who's entitled to the benefits. We should be really clear about what we're doing here. We're taking entitlements away, and we're reducing the number of people who are entitled. I have three amendments that all speak to the same thing. I would have preferred that it be broadened. Since I can't do that under this act, I'm suggesting we just go back to the previous category.
Thanks.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
February 27th, 2007 / 4:45 p.m.
Director, International Policy and Agreements, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Social Development Sectors Branch, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
The only thing I would add to that is that the financial obligation of the sponsor is in play. If the financial obligation of the sponsor is in play, and a person only through social security agreements would be entitled to a prorated income-tested benefit--I'm preaching to the converted I think on this one--it does afford that difference in treatment. The only thing I would say is that opening it up does lead to the potential that you would have a sponsored immigrant who, granted they would be a Canadian citizen.... But let's just talk about sponsored immigrants. You could have a situation where you'd have prorated income-tested benefits, you'd have the financial obligation of the sponsor, and then in turn they would be receiving foreign pension benefits from another country. It's a parity issue as well.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I want to clarify something Ms. Charlton said. She said that we're taking something away.
Can you clarify this? Are we taking away benefits that people are actually receiving now with the changes here?
4:45 p.m.
Director, International Policy and Agreements, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Social Development Sectors Branch, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
No, it would be grandfathered, so--
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Okay. I just want to clarify that we're not actually taking any benefits away from anybody right now.
4:45 p.m.
Director, International Policy and Agreements, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Social Development Sectors Branch, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
No.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
I just want to mention this. Wouldn't it create a burden for the sponsors and make them vulnerable if something happened that these sponsors were made vulnerable to the clawback of the benefits?
4:45 p.m.
Director, International Policy and Agreements, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Social Development Sectors Branch, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
If there's a sponsorship breakdown, or if the sponsor happens to be incarcerated, or if the sponsor I think goes--which one did I say first?--bankrupt or there's incapacity, for example, then there would be entitlement to prorated GIS benefits for the sponsored immigrant.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Are there any other comments?
We are voting on NDP-1, a recorded vote.
(Motion negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay, so NDP-1 is defeated.
We have BQ-8, which is exactly the same amendment, so we're going to strike that.
We had BQ-6; we said no. We had BQ-7, which was out of order, and NDP-1, which was voted no.
Shall clause 16 carry the way it is?
(Clause 16 agreed to)
(On clause 17)