Human Resources Committee on June 12th, 2007

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Ruby Dhalla]

This amendment, as I've been informed, versus the other two that were ruled inadmissible, actually gives advice; there's nothing actually set out in terms of concrete restrictions.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I would like to ask, then, the officials—

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

It's not—

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Yes, it's not my turn.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Ruby Dhalla]

Mr. Lessard, you have the floor. Please continue.

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

Madam Chair, I have made my views on the matter known. It would be good to let our friends opposite express their opinion.

But I take the opposite view, Mr. Chong. This provision restricts the powers that are presently in the regulations even if it seems only to be amending Bill C-284.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Ruby Dhalla]

Mr. Lake.

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

I go back to the same questions I had the last time around. I'd be curious to hear from the officials today what the real impact of this is going to be, if this amendment is added to the bill.

[Luc Leduc]

I'd be pleased, Mr. Lake, to address your question, the first part of what we understand the provision to do, and then Ms. Frith will talk about the impacts of it.

When I read the amendment, with section 14 today, it clearly,

I see it clearly,

allows provinces to obtain the alternative payments without being required to set up their own Canada access grant. By bypassing subsection 14(7) and amending only the paragraphs in the way the member drafted it very specifically, it only amends two particular provisions of section 14 and they do not touch 14(7), the requirement to have a similar program in place. Without touching 14(7), that requirement, as I understand the legislation, will allow the province to obtain the alternative payments,

without establishing the grant. This gives the provinces even more power, because they do not have to establish a similar system. They can put no system at all in place, or one that is less than equivalent. Ms. Frith can explain it to you.

[Rosaline Frith]

Essentially, the non-participating jurisdiction could put in place a grant program, but that grant program could be targeted at a completely different audience from the Canada access grant target that has been set out by the government. We would still be obliged to make an alternative payment for a grant, which might not have the same outcome as the intended program outcome that has been put in place.

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

Would it have to be still a post-secondary program? Are there limitations at all? Could a province set up a universal child care benefit of its own and use money towards something like that? Are there any restrictions with this amendment?

[Luc Leduc]

I don't see any more restrictions in the way. Without section 14(7), it's totally.... The minister of the jurisdiction just says, “I'm opting out. I do not want to participate in those.” Then the formula that is currently in place would come into play and the minister would have to fund. There wouldn't be any need, the way I see it, for him to have a corresponding grants program.

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

So then the budget for the program could be used to pave a highway or to fund another program or....

[Luc Leduc]

Ms. Frith tells me that she believes the province—and I may have misspoken because of amendment BQ-3—has to have some type of program, but obviously it wouldn't have to be similar to the federal program.

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

It would be some type of program, but there would be no control for the federal government in terms of making sure that it actually accomplishes the goals of the original program.

[Rosaline Frith]

That is correct. It would not have to have the same outcome. So it could be any program that is similar to the example I gave earlier, where non-participating jurisdictions submit to us information on programs they are offering to post-secondary education but that are not substantially similar to the outcomes intended from the federal programs, and therefore no alternative payments would be made today under the current regulations. This amendment would remove that requirement.

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

So in terms of accountability on the federal government's part, how would we be able to assure the Auditor General, for example, that we're accountable, that the money we're spending on this is actually going to what we say it's going towards?

[Rosaline Frith]

There would be no assurance. There would be no formal mechanism in place by which we could say, here's the control we put in place in order to ensure we are meeting the same outcomes through the alternative payments as we are through our direct grants and participating jurisdictions.

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

Okay.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Ruby Dhalla]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

We have Ms. Yelich.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

That is more or less what I was going to ask. Does this get away from the purpose of the bill? Isn't that what happened?

What is the difference between the Bloc amendment and this amendment? Mr. Regan said there is a difference, but it doesn't sound as though there is much of a difference, other than that you can't pave a highway with this one and with the other one you could.

[Luc Leduc]

The difference is that amendment BQ-3—and I misspoke—doesn't require a province to set up any type of Canada access grant or anything. There is no access grant for low-income families and no access grant for disabled persons. Amendment L-1 requires that the province have some type of grant for low-income families and for physically disabled persons, but just some type of grant.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I want to go back to why this one has not been ruled out of order, because it's similar, really.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Ruby Dhalla]

In terms of admissibility of different amendments, I've been advised by our legislative clerk that admissibility is based strictly on procedural grounds and not on anything else.

Amendment L-1, I've been informed, maintains the status quo—it's simply advice—versus amendments BQ-3 and BQ-4.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I think a better way to say it, rather than that it's advice, is that it's interpretive. It indicates how you interpret the references in proposed sections 14.1, 14.2, and 14.3, for example. It's saying that every reference, etc., “shall be read as”. To me that's not advice; it's instruction on how to interpret the legislation, and that's the difference from Mr. Lessard's.