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.
4:35 p.m.
Senior Counsel and Group Head, Legal Services, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
It does change the scope of those who....
We're talking about amendment NDP-1 right now?
It does expand on the original bill. I'll leave it there.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Once again, in terms of admissibility, it's nothing personal against anyone; the admissibility decision is really based on procedural grounds. It's not made on legal grounds, and it's made on the advice of the legislative clerk, who has extensive experience. If anyone wishes to challenge the—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Well, what is the ruling? What are you ruling?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
The ruling is admissibility. I was just commenting on her.... But if anyone wishes to challenge the chair's ruling in terms of admissibility or not, they're free to do so.
This particular amendment will be admissible.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
This is beyond the scope of our original Canada access grant and its mandate; it's quite beyond it.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
On a point of order, I think the officials have not said it's beyond the scope; they said it expands, which is different.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Once again, the amendment NDP-1 is admissible.
Is there any further debate?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
We will now go on to the second amendment, NDP-2, which is on page 2.
Could I please have Madame Savoie move the amendment?
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you.
Well, rolling merrily along here, it is replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 2 with the following:
has never completed a program of studies described in paragraph (b);
The purpose for it was that the way the access grant reads now, it really puts students who have started and are perhaps two years in the program and decide to change from arts to science.... It basically eliminates them from this grant. So it seemed pretty straightforward.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Are there any other members wishing to speak on this particular amendment?
Then we are going to call the question.
(Amendment negatived)
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
I have a feeling we're going to.... It seems a little pointless to continue: the vote seems to be written from the beginning.
Shall I just continue?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
In all fairness, what we were talking about is not really beyond this, but it is a bill. It is a new program, and if I remember correctly.... I would ask the officials to again comment on how much we know about it. Do we have any way of measuring this bill? How much do we know about the bill and its successes? There's no track record.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Madam Yelich, there's no amendment on the floor. Once an amendment is put forward, at that time we can resume discussion and debate.
Madame Savoie, would you like to put forward amendment NDP-3?
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
The amendment deletes lines 21 to 25 on page 2. I think we all heard that rather than have income-based grants, the majority of the students' associations have asked that the grant system be needs-based, as is the loan program. That is the point here.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I don't want to harbour unrealistic expectations, and I share Ms. Savoie's concern about this. This clearly was a bill that we thought was good for students. We tried hard to work with the Bloc to get their support, with a couple of different amendments. It appears that's not going to be the case, but I would implore the Bloc nonetheless, as a last-minute cause, to give due consideration to what this will do for Canadian students and to support the bill. I'll support this amendment.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Thank you.
I have a question about this whole clause whose deletion is being proposed, and I think it's germane to the debate here. The way I understand this, it says students would be qualified for a grant if they're a “person in respect of whom a national child benefit supplement, or a special allowance under the Children’s Special Allowances Act, is payable”. We're dealing here with people who are in elementary or high school; otherwise, they wouldn't be eligible for this. It continues, “is payable or would be payable if the person was less than eighteen years of age”.
If you have a 50-year-old, would they be eligible? To me, this is terribly ambiguous. I don't know. I don't understand why that criterion would come in there at all. I would like to have Mr. Regan comment on that if he can.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I'd be happy to do that, Madam Chair.
This is basically how you define someone as a low-income person. Is my honourable colleague Mr. Epp really saying that a person...? Let's say a person is 50 and they have a very low income. They're ready and they want to go back to university to get an education so that they can improve their lot in life. Should there be no assistance for them to do so? Should we exclude them because of the fact that they're 50?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative