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.
Liberal
Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON
I believe that's a motion I'm willing to support, but I'm not sure if that is a motion she has moved. Is that to be voted on?
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
You need unanimous consent to move a motion.
My question is, do we want to vote on amendment NDP-2? That's what's before us.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
No, that one was defeated. This is a new one.
I will remind everyone that we voted against it the last time, but here we are at amendment NDP-2.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Mr. Chair, I'd like to hear the officials' response to the suggestion made by Ms. Charlton.
NDP
Director, International Policy and Agreements, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Social Development Sectors Branch, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
If I understand it correctly, you would end up providing sponsored immigrants with income-tested benefits on a prorated basis, in the same way that you would—
Director, International Policy and Agreements, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Social Development Sectors Branch, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
—non-sponsored immigrants.
You may end up levelling the playing field in terms of persons, but from the financial side, it's not something we've assessed from a departmental perspective. I'm not quite sure....
It comes back to the financial obligation of the sponsor as well.
Director General, Canada Pension Plan Disability Directorate, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
I was just going to say that the intent of sponsorship is that the sponsor takes on the financial responsibility. It's a relationship with the sponsored immigrant, and if I'm understanding your point correctly, the effect of your proposed change would be to basically undo the amendment that was brought in back in 1996. That's how I hear the effect of what you're suggesting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Are there any other comments?
We don't have a formal motion or amendment before us, because that does require unanimous consent.
The second point I'll add is that if we're going to add more benefits, there is a chance such a proposition could require royal recommendation. Once again, I haven't seen a motion, so if there is no more discussion, I'm going to go back to what we have before us, which is amendment NDP-2.
NDP
Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, sir.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings])
February 27th, 2007 / 5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Motion BQ-14 is the same, so we will strike that.
We had motion BQ-12, which was negatived; BQ-13, which was out of order; and NDP-2 which was defeated. So we go back to clause 19.
(Clause 19 agreed to)
(On clause 20)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We are now going to clause 20.
We have before us motion BQ-15, which is on page 17 of the handouts and page 18 of the actual bill.
Mr. Lessard, again, this is a “shall”. Do we want to deal with that in the same way we have in the past?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you very much, sir.
That is defeated.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
