Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 46 - 60 of 3210
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Oh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. It's a good job you're paying attention.
On NDP-16, is there anything further you want to say Mr. Julian?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Very clearly, what this would do is provide for 65 years of age. With the compelling evidence, and our witnesses have all said the same thing, it's important to adopt this amendment.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
This is the same ruling as related to clause 272. That's why I was trying to ignore it, but I will read it in any event so that we're all clear on the record.
The amendment attempts to apply the 10% increase to pensions mentioned in the bill to people who are 65 years old, whereas the bill provides for the increase at 75 years old, which would result in increasing payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment, as proposed, is inadmissible as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury.
I'll go back to you, Mr. Julian.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It would be a new charge that would be welcome and that the vast majority of Canadian seniors want to see.
With respect again, this is a procedural tool the government is using to repress amendments that improve where errors were made in the legislation, so with respect I will challenge your ruling.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We're on clause 276 and there is amendment NDP-17. Do you want to add anything further on that one, Mr. Julian?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay.
This ruling is a little different but it amounts to the same result.
The amendment provides for a unique $500 payment to pensioners who are 65 years old, whereas the bill provides for the same payment for pensioners 75 years or older. This would result in increasing payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed is inadmissible as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury.
We'll go over to you, Mr. Julian.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
All four of these rulings stem from the fact that the government doesn't want to provide seniors with the equitable supports they need and wants to discriminate.
It's bad legislation. Each of the rulings you made, Mr. Chair, has the same optics—that the government is refusing to do the right thing and is withholding a royal recommendation.
In this case, as with the others, our responsibility as committee members, I believe, is to listen to the powerful testimony we've heard from seniors' groups across the country who have said that this discrimination should not be upheld. That's why I challenge your ruling.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think my colleague just said that the government made this ruling. I think it was you who made this ruling, and I just want to put that on the record.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
On a point of order, the reality is, as Ms. Dzerowicz knows very well, if the government provides the royal recommendation, the amendments are not out of order. It's ultimately a government decision that the chair has to enforce.
Results: 46 - 60 of 3210 | Page: 4 of 214

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data