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.
Conservative
Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
I don't think that motion has yet been moved, has it? There's no point in ruling it inadmissible if it hasn't been moved.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Would anyone like to move it? I'm asking for the committee's consensus, or we can start back at BQ-1, at the first amendment.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Madam Chair, I wonder if we could move to L-1. I think it would resolve the matter Mr. Lessard is concerned about, not perhaps in exactly the way he has in mind, but I think it does so in the way that the present act already provides for.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Can we get consent from Mr. Lessard to proceed with L-1 prior to dealing with BQ-4?
Go ahead, Mr. Lessard.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
It's L-1 on page 9. Mr. Regan is asking if he can move Liberal amendment 1.
Just so we're all on the same page, I had asked that we move amendment BQ-4, which was going to be ruled inadmissible. Mr. Epp raised a point of order, saying that it hadn't been brought forward on the floor; the motion had not been moved. Mr. Regan then interjected and wanted to deal with Liberal amendment 1 on page 9. In order for us to be able to deal with amendment L-1, we would need the consent of Mr. Lessard, as we had brought forward the option of discussion on BQ-4.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I thought we had originally decided to do BQ-3 and BQ-4 together. No?
Let's get rid of BQ-4. We know it's out of order. Let's dispose of that. We can go to L-1 if we want, but let's do this in some way that makes sense here.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
As chair, I would suggest that we follow that format--that we deal with BQ-4.
Could we please have Mr. Lessard move it?
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Madam Chair, I think that we should not waste the committee's time. When you ruled—and the committee has supported your decision—that amendment BQ-3 was not admissible, I believe that you also automatically condemned amendment BQ-4 to the same fate. In fact, the latter was brought in to support the former. Madam Chair, amendment BQ-3 corrected a gap in the regulations. Amendment BQ-4 led us to discuss an even greater say for the provinces. It tightens things up even more. I suppose that you are going to declare it inadmissible too, and the committee, if it maintains its logic, will concur. We will respect your decision, Madam Chair, because the committee has dealt with the matter.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Thank you very much, Mr. Lessard.
Once again, BQ-4 is also inadmissible, along with BQ-3.
We were supposed to now start at BQ-1, which is on page 1, and now Mr. Regan has moved that we start at amendment L-1, which is located on page 9. In order to do so, I will require unanimous consent from the committee.
Do I have unanimous consent to proceed to amendment L-1 on page 9?
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Thank you.
Mr. Regan, could I ask you to please move your amendment?
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move that Bill C-284 in clause 1 be amended by adding after line 24 on page 3 the following:
14.4 Every reference in this Act to “to persons pursuant to regulations made under paragraph 15(p)” shall be read as a reference to “to persons pursuant to sections 14.1 to 14.3 and regulations made under paragraph 15(p)”.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Does any other member wish to debate or speak on this particular amendment?
Go ahead, Mr. Chong.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm surprised that the Liberal Party would be proposing such an amendment. Basically it allows no role for the federal government with respect to the Canada access grants or the Canada student loans program.
As it stands right now we have a program, a national program, that is directly administered in nine provinces and one territory by the Government of Canada. With respect to the other province and the other two territories, moneys are only released by the Government of Canada if the provincial programs are substantively the same as the national program.
What this is proposing to do is to eliminate those conditions on the release of moneys; in other words, why bother even having a national program if we're not going to have any standards with respect to these three programs?
I'm surprised that we would propose this, because that's in effect what it's doing; it's in effect proposing a new regime for provinces, so that they would be eligible for transfer of alternative payments by excluding the Canada access grants from the application of subsection 14(7).
Just so everybody on the committee is clear, subsection 14(7) as it currently stands requires a province to satisfy the Government of Canada that their provincially or territorially run programs are substantially the same as the Government of Canada's program, as the national standard, and only when we are satisfied as a government that those provincially run programs, that those territorially run programs, are in effect the same will we release those moneys to the province or territory.
In effect, what we are doing here with this amendment is getting rid of the application of subsection 14(7), thereby really throwing out the window any sort of national program when it comes to Canada student loans.
I was elected as a member of Parliament to act on behalf of all Canadians, not to get rid of programs of national import. I'm sure the witnesses in front of us today, from the department, can corroborate what I've just indicated to the committee.
Liberal
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Madam Chair, we had this amendment in our hands when we prepared our amendment. By its nature, this amendment tries to amend Bill C-284. The drawback, in our view, is that it has the opposite effect to the one that Mr. Chong claims. It restricts the power of the provinces when they are establishing grant programs that fall under their jurisdiction.
The reason why we presented a more clearly-expressed motion that...
Liberal
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
I wanted to get in line here. Is this amendment admissible?
Conservative
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
And yet it sounds like it's not any different from the ones we ruled out of order.