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.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
I'm trying to understand what this thing is trying to do. When you talk about special allowances under the Children's Special Allowances Act, you're not dealing with a 50-year-old there, I wouldn't think. It's a strange way of defining an income level, in my view.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I think you would find similar kinds of definitions in other legislation.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I'll comment that if you actually read this, it uses the words “eighteen years of age”, but it talks about how it “is payable or would be”. It doesn't actually define it by age.
I'd just like to talk to the witnesses and ask them if they could speak to the impact of this amendment, of taking this out.
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Canada Student Loans Program, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
This amendment essentially removes any requirement for grant recipients to be eligible based on family income, as was just described. That means all students, irrespective of family income, may apply. I would say a rough estimate of the cost for this would likely be an additional $100 million annually in grants that we would be giving out.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Madame Savoie is going to make a point, so I'll let her make the point in response to that. I think it's all about the next amendment.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
That's right. I was going to say that the next amendments will circumscribe that amount. Nonetheless, I think some of the members wanted to speak, and I'd be very interested to hear why they're voting against a bill that basically would help students. We know from the employability study that students are increasingly indebted and are increasingly facing challenges when they leave university. Why would the members opposite be voting against a bill that would facilitate their accessing a more affordable education?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Ms. Chair. I just want to respond to that.
It's ironic that we have a member of the New Democrats criticizing us for not supporting what is a very poorly crafted bill. On the one hand, she has said we should respect the specificity of Quebec. Then, when the two members of Parliament who are from Quebec decide to exercise their specificity, she criticizes them for not supporting this very bill. I thought that was a bit ironic.
This is a poorly drafted bill as it presently stands. This bill is going to have repercussions in terms of funding for Quebec. We have a raft of amendments here that are trying to untangle this mess, and those amendments are in fact creating a bigger mess. For that reason, we are not supporting this bill. It's quite simple. It's a poorly drafted piece of legislation, and the amendments are actually making a bigger mess of it. That's why members of the government are not supporting this bill.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Thank you, Mr. Chong.
I'm going to call the question.
My apologies. We have someone else.
Mr. Lessard.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I bring the matter up again out of respect for my colleagues who have tabled this bill. Mr. Savage rightly said that a lot of work went into the bill. We are well aware of that and we have recognized the effort. Unlike our Conservative friends, we feel that the bill is perfectly warranted, and that it is well drafted, with one omission. Of course, the omission makes all the difference for Quebec. It means that provisions are written into the bill that disappear when the regulations are enacted.
I feel that the Liberals understand our situation very well. Let us not overlook the fact that the Bloc Québécois has made an effort by introducing four amendments, two of which specifically tried to correct the omission, and of course the amendments on indexing which demonstrate our interest in improving the bill. The Liberals tried to introduce an amendment that would correct this oversight. But the discussion that took place makes it clear to me that their amendment, as far as I can see, does not adequately address the matter of the provisions in the regulations.
Let no one misrepresent our position on this bill. We think it is excellent, except for the one deficiency that we pointed out, and that put the opting-out clause in jeopardy not only for Quebec, but for all the other provinces as well.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Thank you for that intervention, Mr. Lessard.
I'm now going to be calling the question on amendment NDP-3 on page 3.
(Amendment negatived)
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
We're now going on to page 4 and amendment NDP-4.
Prior to commencing, I gather that Madame Savoie understands that there is some conflict in regard to amendments NDP-4, NDP-5, and NDP-6.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
That's right, Madam Chair, so what I was going to propose in this amendment—given the track record the rest of the amendments have had, I'm not very hopeful—is the idea of adding a provision for middle-income students, more money for low-income students, and an indexation or escalator clause that would move along with the cost of tuition. If that were to fail, then I was going to go to amendment NDP-4, NDP-5, and so on.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Would you like to withdraw the amendments or would you like to proceed?
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
I'll proceed with amendment NDP-4, and then I may take everybody out of their misery and move to the end.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
It's never a misery at committee.
We're going to proceed to any individuals wishing to speak on amendment NDP-4, which is on page 4.
Are there any members who wish to speak? No?
We'll call the question.
(Amendment negatived)
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
I think the fate of NDP-5 is sealed, so I'll withdraw it. I will go directly to the last amendment I was proposing, Madam Chair, and that was NDP-6.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
The purpose of amendment NDP-6 was simply to provide more funds for low-income students. I think there is a recommendation in our employability study, but I won't go into details about it.