Human Resources Committee on May 31st, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Tuesday is June 5 and Thursday is June 7.

Did you have a comment, Ms. Yelich?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Not anymore, thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay.

Are there any other comments on that? Are we okay with that before we go to clause-by-clause?

Mr. Temelkovski.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I was just going to suggest that maybe you defer this to the fall, because it looks like we're going home any time. Schedules may be changed in the fall, as it is already. So changing it now—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Do I have unanimous consent to defer Mr. Savage's motion?

No, never mind. I don't think I'll go there.

The scheduling is okay, we've dealt with the motion, so now let us get into clause-by-clause.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 22, 2006, Bill C-284, An Act to amend the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act (Canada access grants), we will now look at going clause by clause.

I'll take a list here. Mr. Brown, Mr. Lessard, and then Madame Savoie.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the close of the last meeting there appeared to be a bit of confusion on how Quebec would suffer financially under this bill. I thought maybe the officials could shed some information for us on how this bill affects alternative payment systems.

At the last meeting I suggested that Quebec could lose up to $5.4 million under this. How are Quebec and the two territories that received alternative payments going to be affected by this proposal?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Leduc.

[Luc Leduc, Senior Counsel and Group Head, Legal Services, Department of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Chair, I'll take the question. I'm with the Department of Justice. I just have to say that I can't provide legal advice to the committee, but I am pleased to provide my comprehension of the bill and the effect on the transfer payments.

The way Bill C-284 operates, there would no longer be the possibility of provinces opting out and getting compensation. It's a very technical reason, because the act presently lists all of the various programs from which provinces can opt out. It's very specific in section 14 of the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. Right now, these particular programs are listed as regulations made under paragraph 15(p). That's a general enabling authority to make these particular programs or subventions. Bill C-284 takes the regulations made under paragraph 15(p), repeals them, and then enshrines them in the legislation as section 14, I think. By doing so, these new programs, or the programs brought into the legislation, are no longer listed in section 14 and cannot be used technically for the opting out formula. It's as simple as that. It's just a question of a cross-reference not having been made.

The net result is that clearly the amounts of money--and the officials can speak--for the province of Quebec for that particular program...they have one going right now where they're getting the transfer payments, but it would no longer operate. And if they made a program for low-income families in the future, they couldn't get the transfer payments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Thank you, Mr. Leduc, for the clarification.

On the list I have Mr. Lessard, followed by Madame Savoie.

Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chairman, it is very appropriate that we are starting off with this question because at last Tuesday's sitting, Mr. Brown voiced his concerns about section 14. If references to the regulations were not included in Bill C-284, two regulatory provisions would be excluded de facto, resulting in a loss of rights not only in Quebec but in other provinces as well in so far as the withdrawal clause is concerned.

Meanwhile, we have done some research with the help, naturally, of departmental officials. They provided us with the information to complete our assessment of the matter. We now know that the concerns expressed by Mr. Brown last Tuesday are very real and must therefore be taken into consideration. We thought about moving an amendment. In order for it to be admissible and useful, it would have to apply to section 14 of the act. The problem here—and the clerk can either confirm and refute our contention—is that Bill C-284 does not affect section 14. Therefore we cannot amend this provision. We came to the conclusion that an amendment would be ruled out of order.

At this point, I have two things to say on behalf of my party. We still feel that the aim of this bill is laudable as well as desirable. However, the wording has the opposite affect, not only for Quebec but for the provinces in general. For that very reason, we would be compelled to vote against it if it is not amended.

Because we consider this bill to be a laudable initiative, I would like to propose to my colleagues on this committee that, in a spirit of constructive cooperation, we spend a little time considering whether the committee would like to bring in some amendments. If so, we need to look at how we could do this while at the same time honouring our procedural obligations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

Madame Savoie is next.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are also wondering if, in a spirit of cooperation, it might be possible to defer our consideration of this bill. We support the proposed legislation, although we would have worded it differently. Besides, this exemption was an integral component of our bill on early childhood education and day cares. For the sake of cooperation, we are wondering if consideration of the bill could be deferred to give us time to look into possible amendments that could help to solve this problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Madame Savoie.

I have Mr. Savage and Ms. Yelich on the list. Sorry, did you...?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I also had several amendments to table. I had discussed them with my colleagues. However, I think I will wait until this matter has been resolved before I move them. Alright?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. Let's hear from everybody first.

Next is Mr. Savage, and then I've got Ms. Yelich on the list.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have a situation here that we obviously have to deal with. Mr. Brown made a good point the other day; it caught us all off guard, but I commend him for doing that. Clearly the situation is that we have a bill that people want to support, but we have some technical amendments now that have to be made in order for the Bloc to support it.

What options are open to us as committee members to get more time to make this happen?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I know the clerk is working on that right now as we speak. We'll go to Ms. Yelich and then we'll have something for you.

Next is Ms. Yelich, followed by Mr. Lake.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Because this is not a bill we can support, I would like to ask the officials, wouldn't you say this is what is fundamentally wrong with this, that it is legislation and a bill and this kind of thing could have been done through regulation? Would you say this is why we should probably not have this as legislation but in fact leave this program or any expansion or...?

Would you agree, or do you care to comment?

[Luc Leduc]

I am not sure I understood correctly.

If I understood the question, it's asking whether this piece of legislation takes regulation and puts it in the act, whereas it should be more properly left in the regulations.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Yes.

[Luc Leduc]

It's a choice for the committee. Leaving it in the regulations obviously gives more flexibility, and you wouldn't have that particular--

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I think that's what I'd like you to expand on. That's why this bill...these kinds of programs are delivered through regulations, which is how it should rightfully be done. Would you agree that it would be better not to have legislation for this, because it already is handled through regulations and we don't need legislation?

[Rosaline Frith, Director General, Canada Student Loans Program, Department of Human Resources and Social Development]

Normally, in the current legislation framework we have, all our particulars with respect to grants and loans are laid out clearly in the regulations, and we're able to make changes as appropriate with a fair degree of flexibility; one can make an adjustment as needed vis-à-vis interest rates, cost of living, or other such issues.

Putting it in the legislation will simply make it take a longer time to make any changes that would be necessary to this particular grant, and it would make this particular grant dealt with in a manner that is completely different from any other grants or loans the program is responsible for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lake, did you have some comments?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'm not sure exactly what Ms. Savoie was asking. Was it whether we would just adjourn the meeting and come back some other time? What was the request? We're sitting here; we're supposed to be doing clause-by-clause consideration on this, and it seems that there is a pretty major issue.

I would note that we have many very important things we should be doing as a committee, and this is the third time we have been dealing with a bill that has some serious issues associated with it. We had the Bloc's Bill C-257. We had the NDP's Bill C-304. Now we have the Liberals' Bill C-284. All of them had things in them that were clearly not completely thought out before they came here. In every case there is an urgency for discussing these bills.

Of course, I understand that a private member's bill is never going to be perfect and there are always going to be things that you have to deal with in committee, but in each of these cases they had major flaws that probably should have been discovered by the parties sponsoring the bills.

It comes down to the fact that we have this employability thing that we're supposed to be doing. We have a poverty study that we're all on side with and want to get into. If we adjourn this meeting and then come back and have to have another meeting on this, it just seems like a crazy way to go about it.

I'm not sure what Ms. Savoie is talking about. Is that what your suggestion was, that we put this on the side and come back? If we do that, does it end the meeting and we waste another two hours?