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.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Yes, Mr. Regan, you could use that word.
After Mr. Regan, you're next on the list.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
So it would be the implications of this particular clause. I guess it's maybe answered by your former answer.
I'll defer for a few minutes.
June 12th, 2007 / 4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
Thank you, Chairman.
I want to go back to your ruling about this being advisory rather than “requiring” the government. I think it's something important for the Bloc to take note of, in the sense that the status quo of this bill wasn't good enough and was inadequate for that party a few weeks ago. If this suggested solution by the Liberals only adds an advisory, a suggestion to the government, and it respects the status quo.... That's what the chairman said: this is the status quo with advice on it.
Advice is not binding for the government. This is Quebec losing $5.4 million all over again, with, on top of that, a tidbit of advice saying it would be a good idea not to take $5.4 million from Quebec.
At the end of the day, this bill, if this amendment is successful, is still a huge loss for Quebec. I want to be very clear about that.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you.
I wondered what restriction is foreseen in subsection 14(7). Would we have to add to Mr. Regan's amendment, to achieve the goal you're suggesting, that it would have to be a similar program? Is there something we could add? Whether it's acceptable to the Bloc or not, I don't know, but is there something that could be added?
I'm asking, Madam Chair, through you to the officials.
4:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel and Group Head, Legal Services, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
Would there be various corrections, amendments, changes that could be made? I'm not certain it's proper, but if the chair wants me to speculate on what could be done, I could offer. I don't know whether the chair wants me to offer ways of improving. I don't think it's really my role.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
I would like to challenge the chair's decision—I'm allowed to do that, am I not?—on its being admissible.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Yes, you can challenge the chair in regard to the decision. That's an option that exists.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
Okay.
The challenge before the committee right now is in regard to the chair's ruling. The question I will put before the committee is whether or not the ruling of the chair shall be sustained.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
With respect to the admissibility of amendment L-1 on page 9, which I ruled admissible.
4:15 p.m.
An hon. member
Can we have a recorded vote?
4:15 p.m.
The Chair
It will be a recorded vote.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Ruby Dhalla
The ruling of the chair has been sustained.
Going on to resume debate, we have Mr. Chong.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I just want to go back to his point about why we're not supporting this amendment.
I'm actually astounded that members of the Liberal Party are supporting this. They talk a good game about programs of national import, like the Canada Health Act, for example. The Canada Health Act has restrictions on moneys that are transferred to the provinces. The Government of Canada does not transfer money through the Canada Health Act to the provinces unless the five principles of the Canada Health Act are met and unless certain other conditions are met.
The same exists with the Canada access grants. The Government of Canada does not transfer money to the provinces or to the territories unless they can assure us that they have a similar program in place, with standards similar to those that we've set out.
In essence, what you're doing here is getting rid of those standards. With respect to the Canada health transfer, it would be akin to getting rid of the Canada Health Act and the principles therein that make the funding contingent. In essence, what you're saying here is that the alternative payments will no longer be contingent on any sort of standard and that any province can do what it wants. Some provinces may have generous programs. Some provinces may have programs that don't address persons with disabilities or don't address those who are disadvantaged.
I'm quite astounded that you would, as federal MPs in a federal Parliament, put in place an amendment that would get rid of these standards that have been put in place and that have been in place, as a matter of fact, for decades. I'm not sure where this is coming from. As we've heard from the expert witnesses from the department, if you put this in place, in essence you're making the alternative payments not contingent on anything. With the exception of some sort of student program, there will be no standards across the country. Provinces can opt out and put in place whatever programs they want, and there will be no necessity for any of the standards that we currently have in place to ensure that Canadians, regardless of where they live in this country, have similar programs and similar access to social services.
So, again, I'm not sure where this is coming from, and I'd urge the members of the Liberal Party to take a second look at this amendment.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two things.
First of all, in relation to the suggestion that this provision is only advisory, I think it's important to understand that it is in fact interpretive. In other words, it uses the word “shall”. Something that's providing advice doesn't just say “shall”. This is basically directing the courts and others on how to interpret this legislation. That's what it's about.
We also know there are different circumstances and different education systems across this country. With universities, for example, we know that on the cost of a university education, tuition levels in Quebec are much lower than they are in other provinces. That has to be considered. But we've also heard from the witnesses today that a province that opts out would have to offer programs for low-income students, persons with disabilities, etc.
The point is that this does cover it. I disagree with Mr. Chong in terms of his interpretation, but I respect his view. He has the right to interpret it as he sees fit, but I disagree with the interpretation he's offering. This is a good way to solve the problem the government has tried to bring forward in an attempt to derail the bill.
I hope the members will support the bill when it comes to the final vote, and this motion as well.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you.
I feel that the amendment recognizes the principle of open federalism that many Conservatives talk about. It recognizes that education needs are perhaps different in Quebec. For cultural reasons, Quebec is in a specific situation that your party recognized by a motion some time ago.
If we see Quebec culturally as a nation within federalism, I feel that it is important to recognize education. For me, this motion balances what Quebec needs to operate in an area under provincial jurisdiction and what the rest of Canada wants.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think we're facing the same problem that we face over and over again in the committee. We have legislation that has a pretty big hole in it and the opposition is desperately trying to fill the hole. But of course it's like the kid who sticks his finger in the hole in the dyke; the next thing you know you've got eight other holes opening up and popping open.
This is the wrong way to go about this. We've heard from the officials that clearly by doing this we're bypassing 14(7). Clearly, we're going to wind up with unintended consequences here.
It's very interesting to hear some of the things I'm hearing from the other side, in the context of things that we've heard as we've discussed past bills. There is no consistency in terms of the approach. On the child care thing, it's all about accountability and reporting and everything else, and then on this we've totally thrown any kind of accountability out the window. There's no consistency.
I think as a committee we have to seriously consider the ramifications of this approach to all of the legislation we discuss as we go through this. It's not just about this legislation, it's about every piece of legislation. It's about our very effectiveness as a committee as we go through these processes.
I would encourage that the members of this committee really seriously consider voting against this amendment, and let's move on to some things where we can actually accomplish something.