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
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Thank you, Mr. Lake.
Are there any other members who wish to speak on the motion?
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
Yes, I would like to, and I again would like to refer to the officials.
First of all, I'd like to make the point that the effect of this amendment is that provinces don't need an access grants program. They just need a grant program, not the access grants program. The Liberals are saying they want to support the objectives of the Canada access grants, but they are doing so with an amendment that completely undermines the objectives of this Canada access grants program. So the provinces no longer need to show their grant program is an access grants program; that's what I see as the objective or the effect of this amendment.
I'm asking the officials if they agree with that, and if they also agree with Mr. Regan's challenge to Mr. Chong, where he said he doesn't agree that the advisory is important. I'd like you to please comment.
Senior Counsel and Group Head, Legal Services, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
I will deal with the latter part of the question, if the chair permits. I certainly don't want to go against the chair's ruling, but to answer the member's question, the type of amendment that is put there is an indirect amendment to section 14. It says anyone who reads the act from now on shall read those words.
It's a perfectly well-drafted, crafted, amendment. But it is whatever the member said. Advisory? I'm not certain what that means.
Senior Counsel and Group Head, Legal Services, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
It's much more than interpretive, in my view. It is a direction to read into section 14 those words that the amendment does not purport to say, but which it does in fact say.
Where it says, “Every reference in this Act”, that is a command by Parliament. It says:
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)”.
That is an indirect amendment. That is opening up section 14 of the act indirectly to say that you are obliged to read in those words when you read section 14. Section 14 is not a section that is currently part of Bill C-284.
I'm just answering the member's question on that first part.
Director General, Canada Student Loans Program, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
On the other part of the question, you're correct, this amendment would mean that the non-participating jurisdictions must put in place a grant—any grant. That grant doesn't necessarily have as its targeted audience first-year, first-time students. It doesn't necessarily have students from low-income families. It doesn't pick up 6% of student borrowers who normally would be receiving grants because they're coming from low-income families.
In the way it's set out, there's no requirement for the federal government to be able to ensure that the grant meets the intended outcome, whether it's for a low-income family or whether it would be for permanent disability.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just to build on what Madam Yelich was asking about, and just to be clear, this amendment would not require a province to have programs in place for persons with disabilities and for persons from low-income families. Is that correct?
Director General, Canada Student Loans Program, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
It's an access grant for those students who are specifically laid out in today's regulations. That is correct.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
So the provinces would not be required to have those programs in place to receive the alternative payment if this amendment passes.
Director General, Canada Student Loans Program, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
If this amendment were to pass, they would have to put in place some form of a grant program, but not necessarily the grant program the federal government has set out currently.
Director General, Canada Student Loans Program, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
For persons from low-income families and for persons with permanent disabilities.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Thank you, Mr. Chong.
We're going to go on to the question.
Shall the amendment carry?
Conservative
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Now we can start from the beginning of the package, as we had intended an hour and a half ago.
Mr. Lessard, please move your amendment BQ-1, which is on page 1.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Madam Chair, with your approval, I am going to withdraw amendments BQ-1 and BQ-2.
There is no longer any reason for us to propose amendments.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Mr. Lessard has withdrawn BQ-1, which is on page 1. He has also withdrawn BQ-2, which is on page 8.1.
We will now go to amendment NDP-1, which is on page 1.
Ms. Savoie, could you please move the amendment?
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you.
The first amendment is to delete lines 17 and 18 on page 2, and the intent was to respond to the need expressed by some of the witnesses who spoke about mature students.
But I also want to add that I think it's very unfortunate that the Bloc members have decided to withdraw their support for an amendment, because it in fact withdraws the possibility of a program for the rest of Canadian students.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
I would again like to ask the officials about this particular amendment. I would like to ask whether it isn't beyond the scope of the bill, when you start talking about mature students and not about the intent of the original access grants, for access for those who are disabled, in particular, and others who are in particular categories. But now we're looking at mature students. I would just like to ask whether or not this wouldn't be quite out of the scope.
