Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 3160
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 15:01
The government has announced that it would not apply before November 1, 2021. As a general rule, income tax amendments often apply as of the date of their announcement.
For example, Bill C-30 received royal assent on the same day as Bill C-208. It was the first budget bill for 2021. That had a number of measures that had application dates based on March 18, 2019, the day of the 2019 federal budget related to, for example, the foreign affiliate dumping rules, some mutual fund trust measures using an allocation redeeming methodology, and individual pension plans. Several amendments had their application dates based upon—
Mark D'Amore
View Mark D'Amore Profile
Mark D'Amore
2021-06-21 16:46
There are votes on the report stage of Bill C-30, so I believe there are two.
View Claude DeBellefeuille Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It is with some emotion that I appear before you this afternoon. Even though this is my third term, this is the first time I have had the privilege of defending a bill in parliamentary committee. I feel very privileged to do so this afternoon. I want to welcome all the witnesses. I would like to extend my greetings to all the members of the parliamentary committee.
You will understand that today I am primarily here to convince my dear Liberal colleagues to give royal recommendation to Bill C‑265. This bill was supported by the majority of the opposition parties in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, if it doesn't receive the royal recommendation of the Liberal government after committee study, my bill won't be able to proceed.
Today, I hope to convince you that 15 weeks is clearly not enough, but 26 weeks isn't enough either. I will try to convince you that 50 weeks is what is needed to be compassionate and to ensure that vulnerable workers who have not chosen to be sick can count on the financial support of EI special sickness benefits for 50 weeks.
The reason we're talking about 50 weeks is because several studies show that, on average, people need more than 26 weeks and others need more than 50 weeks. Some illnesses require an absence that goes beyond 15 weeks and 26 weeks. I'll give you a few examples. According to evidence‑based studies, it takes an average of 37 weeks to recover from colon cancer. If you are unfortunate enough to have rectal cancer, it can take up to 47 weeks. The cases are documented.
Since the data are known and conclusive, I don't understand, and neither do the citizens of Quebec and Canada, why the government doesn't want to move forward with my bill and allow sick workers who are fighting a serious illness to obtain not 15 weeks or 26 weeks, but up to 50 weeks. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has told us that we can afford it. He has already released two studies on this issue, and he confirms, not surprisingly, that we can afford to provide these vulnerable workers with the protection and the tools they need to fight their illness with dignity in order to return to work and, more importantly, to maintain their employment relationship.
Some employers have made it quite clear that increased premiums—either employers' or employees'—are, after all, reasonable. It could be offered to workers who cannot work temporarily because of illness and who need financial support to pay for their care and assisted medical transportation. These workers, who may have paid into the program all their lives, do not need the financial insecurity that the EI program currently creates by keeping special sickness benefits at 15 weeks.
You will tell me—especially my Liberal colleagues—that the government promised in the budget to increase benefits to 26 weeks. We know that 26 weeks isn't enough. The data already clearly show that. Moreover, this increase to 26 weeks could be in place through order in council by 2022.
I ask you to close your eyes and think about the people who are finishing their 15th week of benefits today, who have heard that they may receive 26 weeks of benefits, and to whom I will have to say that those 26 weeks won't be available right away. I'll have to tell them that the government hasn't provided for this increase in its budget in a binding way, which means that once the budget is approved and voted on through ways and means and through Bill C‑30, the government will have the discretion to wait until 2022 to implement this increase. I think this is playing with the hearts of people who are sick and want to fight the disease on a level playing field.
We don't choose to be sick, and we don't choose our type of sickness. We cater to workers who have no coverage, no collective bargaining agreement or private health insurance plan.
These people have often worked very hard in their lives. One day they get sick. It could be the person who works at your local convenience store and whom you have seen every morning for the past 10 years. She gets a little more than minimum wage, but not much more, and she doesn't have private health insurance. If she has rectal cancer and has to miss 47 weeks of work because of illness, she'll be paid for 15 weeks and receive 55% of her salary. Do you honestly think that a worker can live on 55% of their salary?
It's hard enough for someone who knows they have a long struggle ahead of them and that recovery is necessary to [Technical difficulty—Editor] get back to work, but it becomes even harder if benefits end after 15 or 26 weeks.
Today, we can say that, in total, about 150,000 people are dropped from the EI system each year. That's 411 new Émilie Sansfaçons a day who are struggling and are suddenly losing the financial support of EI special sickness benefits.
You'll understand that my heart goes out to these workers. I've received a lot of calls and emails encouraging me to convince members of Parliament, especially my Liberal colleagues, to seek royal assent for Bill C‑265 and to listen to the 620,000 people who have signed Marie‑Hélène Dubé's petition. She's asking you to extend the duration of benefits to 50 weeks, because it's quite obvious that 15 or 26 weeks isn't enough.
I am ready to answer questions, Mr. Chair.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you very much, Mrs. Renaud, for that testimony.
Mrs. Dubé, a month or two ago, this committee studied Bill C‑24, and, as Ms. Dancho said earlier, I tried to introduce an amendment so that the employment insurance program would provide 50 weeks of sickness benefits.
The Liberals insisted that the NDP did not understand the software that processes sickness benefits, that it is really difficult to make changes to it, and, for that reason, they did not support my amendment. They considered that it would make no sense at all to provide a royal recommendation for the amendment.
In Bill C‑30, the government proposes to increase the benefit period from 15 to 26 weeks. It will be a year or two before that measure comes into force. The Liberals were opposed to my amendment because they said it was difficult to make changes to the software. Now they are committing to make a change to the software.
So why do they not extend the period to 50 weeks now instead of extending it to 26 weeks? In the coming years, they will once more be able to make the argument that it takes a lot of effort to change the system that pays the benefits.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay, thank you.
Does anybody else have anything to add? Is it Mr. McGowan with the Department of Finance?
I see quite a number of people have their cameras off—Ms. MacLean, Mr. McGowan, Ms. Smith, Mr. Shoom. You're quite free to leave them on. It's not like what we're doing with Bill C-30. Leave your cameras on if you like. You're quite fine either way, but it's better to see us. I see Ms. Smith is all smiles there.
Is there anybody else? Trevor, did you have anything you wanted to add?
Okay, with that, the lineup for the first round of questions is Mr. Kelly, Ms. Dzerowicz, Mr. Ste-Marie and Mr. Julian.
Mr. Kelly, you have six minutes
View John Nater Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Minister.
I would note that it is being remedied in a section of Bill C-30, which I know some people are referring to as the John Nater vindication act, but I won't go there.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I call the meeting officially to order.
Welcome to meeting number 53 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.
Pursuant to the House order of reference of Thursday, May 27, 2021, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021, and other measures.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25 of this year. Therefore, members are either attending in person in the room, or remotely using the Zoom application.
I sometimes hear those words in my sleep these days. We have repeated them so many times.
I hate to start without Mr. Julian, without one party here, but we will see where we are at first.
(On clauses 269 to 271)
The Chair: We had started a discussion—and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Clerk—on division 32, an increase to the old age security pension and payment. It was on page 286 of the bill. I believe the lead for the department was Kristen Underwood. There she is.
Welcome, Ms. Underwood.
The floor is open for further discussion on division 32.
Mrs. Jansen.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
I was just wondering about the fact that what we're basically saying here is that 75-year-olds and older will be getting a 10% pay raise.
Canadians put money into this pension plan, this is their money and their employers do the same. In this proposal, however, we are suddenly going to give a raise only to those 75 and older.
How can we legally change a program that is paid for by employers and employees? Suddenly the government is going to change the rules mid-game. How does that work? How is that possible?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Ms. Underwood, do you want to answer that?
We're not dealing with CPP. We're dealing with the OAS.
Kristen Underwood
View Kristen Underwood Profile
Kristen Underwood
2021-06-03 15:36
Yes, I was going to say for clarification, Mr. Chair, that we're talking about an increase to the old age security pension. The OAS is funded through the consolidated revenue fund and not by contributions from employees and employers.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
I'm sorry, my apologies. I'm totally mixed up.
Can you explain to me how it is possible that we can decide to split seniors that way? How does it make sense that you can say that those 75 and older need it more than those 65 and older, and we're, therefore, going to split them in half, whereas OAS starts at 65? Presumably, they are all on OAS for the same reason.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I don't want to put senior people in the bureaucracy on the spot. That's more of a policy question, Tamara. Can you find a way to ask it? It's the government that decides on the policy, so I think that's probably an unfair question for the bureaucracy to answer. They do the data, the details.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
Okay.
Why is the government proposing measures that would apply to all pensioners age 75 and older, rather than measures that would specifically target low-income seniors?
Kristen Underwood
View Kristen Underwood Profile
Kristen Underwood
2021-06-03 15:37
The measure is meant to target older seniors. It's a universal benefit for those 75 and older. We did some data analysis, and it does show that there are higher levels of vulnerability for those who are 75 and older.
We've talked about some of those statistics here before. I could talk about them again, but the issue we're trying to address here is the increased vulnerability of older seniors.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, thanks to my colleagues Mr. Kelly and Monsieur Ste-Marie.
I just came out of the House, where we were paying tributes to Bruce Stanton for his extraordinary career and his 10 years as the Deputy Speaker. I want to clarify exactly how you were proceeding with this particular section.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We've just started because we didn't want to start without everyone present, as much as possible.
We're on division 32, which has clause 269. We will get to you—you have an amendment on clause 272—and others as we go through it.
I don't think there's really any choice on division 32 but to go through it clause by clause. There are so many amendments that we pretty well need to go through it clause by clause, unless you want to block some of yours in the middle.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I would definitely be blocking the amendments to clauses 272 to 276. I'll flag that with you for our amendments that are coming up. Thanks for clarifying.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, colleagues.
I want to thank all the officials for being here today and for all their hard work.
I know you've given us some of the statistics, Ms. Underwood, but I do think it's important to have a little bit more on record in terms of the difference in challenges faced by seniors between the ages of 65 and 74, and the challenges or the data that we have for those who are 75 and over.
I know you talked about those who are 75 and over. We know they have some more needs and challenges, but could you provide some of the data you have on those between the ages of 65 and 74, and maybe a little bit more on the 75-plus?
Kristen Underwood
View Kristen Underwood Profile
Kristen Underwood
2021-06-03 15:40
I'm sorry. I am having some trouble with my computer. It's jumbling as people are speaking. I think I heard the question clearly, but if for some reason I crackle out, maybe my colleague Kevin Wagdin could take over for me.
Thank you for the question. I believe you were asking for a bit more detail on the statistics regarding differences between those who are 65 to 74 and those who are 75 and older.
As we've mentioned before, close to half of those over 75 have a disability and about 56% have severe disabilities. The majority of seniors over 75 are women, and those women tend to more frequently live alone and have lower incomes. Four in 10 are widowed, six in 10 have incomes below $30,000 a year and four in 10 receive the guaranteed income supplement, which is targeted to lower-income seniors. They face higher health costs. For those who are 80 and over, health costs are two-thirds higher.
Those are just a few of the figures we have on the increased risks for those 75 and older.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
As a follow-up, Ms. Underwood, and as part of the conversation we're having today, have you any specific data that you might want to share, that you think might be helpful for us to know, regarding seniors between the ages of 65 and 74?
Kristen Underwood
View Kristen Underwood Profile
Kristen Underwood
2021-06-03 15:42
We did share some data earlier for the committee's special study. We could share that again for the record, but I think the information I have given you is the same as what I gave before.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I have just a quick question, Mr. Chair.
We heard at the last meeting that 85% of Canadian seniors have incomes below $50,000 a year, so I am wondering if our witnesses have any more information now in terms of how that relates to seniors 65 to 75? These are low incomes, so what percentage of that 85% of Canadian seniors earning less than $50,000 are folks who are 65 to 75?
Kevin Wagdin
View Kevin Wagdin Profile
Kevin Wagdin
2021-06-03 15:43
In fact, thank you very much for that question and the opportunity to clarify.
I believe during our last session you had asked for the specific age breakdown of seniors 65 to 74 versus those 75 and over. I just wanted to clarify or to make sure to clarify for the record that, according to our most recent administrative data, we had about 3.7 million OAS recipients between the ages of 65 and 74, whereas 2.8 million were 75 and over. I wanted to follow up with that just to ensure it was clear.
With respect—
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I'm sorry. Can I just ask you what percentage, then, of those OAS recipients are under 75?
Kevin Wagdin
View Kevin Wagdin Profile
Kevin Wagdin
2021-06-03 15:44
Again, there would be 3.7 million OAS recipients in March 2021.
Kevin Wagdin
View Kevin Wagdin Profile
Kevin Wagdin
2021-06-03 15:44
It is 57% of the total client group who would be between the ages of 65 to 74.
Kevin Wagdin
View Kevin Wagdin Profile
Kevin Wagdin
2021-06-03 15:44
With respect to income distribution, while I don't have it broken down by 65 to 74, I can say, just to supplement our previous figure, 55% of all of our OAS pensioners have incomes below $30,000. That's just to add some more precision to the previous data we provided.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you.
These are important figures for us to know because we have a very important decision to make. You said 55% of Canadian seniors have incomes that are below $30,000.
Kevin Wagdin
View Kevin Wagdin Profile
Kevin Wagdin
2021-06-03 15:45
Again, while I don't have a specific number there, what I can say is that for our guaranteed income supplement benefit, which is our targeted income supplement, of the previous figure that I had provided for you—the 57% who are between 65 and 74—about 50% of those recipients.... Pardon me, there were about 1.1 million who were on the guaranteed income supplement, so they had income low enough for that. Of the 2.8 million seniors who are getting an OAS pension who are 75 and older, it was, again, about 1.1 million who were receiving the guaranteed income supplement.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
An argument very clearly can be made that the needs are just as great from 65 to 74 as they are from 75 and over, and in fact we're missing the majority of seniors who are living under the poverty line. Thank you for that. That helps to clarify the facts.
We have an important decision to make soon about amendments, but I think it would be clear to all members of the finance committee that clearly we can't exclude most Canadian seniors living in poverty from a budgetary measure that is supposed to help all Canadian seniors.
Thank you.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
That's it for questions on this point.
(Clauses 269 to 271 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 272)
The Chair: On clause 272 there is an amendment.
Mr. Julian, I have looked—and I know you said you'd like to block these—and the rulings for at least two of them are substantially different enough that I'm pretty near going to go clause by clause with each amendment. Your argument can be made on the whole works, but I will have to do a separate ruling at least on clauses 272, 273 and....
Go ahead, Peter, on your amendment NDP-14.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, I think I will move all four of them, explain the rationale for all four of them and appeal your decisions as they come.
I'll start off by saying, of course, that this committee has the right to do the right thing in terms of this legislation. When we talk about royal recommendations, in the past in minority governments, certainly with the famous Jack Layton budget, the government provided the royal recommendation for substantial changes in the initial budget when it became clear that, without those substantial changes, it would not pass the test of getting through Parliament. I'm very confident in saying that it is up to the committee to decide whether these amendments should be voted on and carried forward.
The four amendments in question obviously address what we have just heard is a profound discrepancy, that 57% of Canadian seniors are under the age of 75, and that the majority of Canadian seniors live at what can only be stated as close to poverty level, $30,000 a year. That is a profoundly difficult income level, especially when we see the extent to which COVID and the pandemic has hit Canadian seniors.
There is simply no sense or logic to what the government is proposing, that seniors 75 and over get a 10% bump in the OAS and a $500 bonus, when Canadians under 75 need it as desperately. There's just no sense, no logic. I think we've heard from our questions very clearly that the statistics and the facts show that, for the committee to do the right thing, we must extend the OAS increase to all seniors and provide the one-time supports of $500 to all seniors.
That is a slam dunk. Canadians who are listening to us would all agree that this is the right thing to do. Canadian senior groups have all intervened, including at this committee, saying that this makes absolutely no sense or logic. It penalizes and hurts seniors who are under the age of 75. For us to force them to spend 10 years before they can get a slightly more adequate income.... It is beyond belief that a government would propose that and that a finance committee would say, “That's okay.”
I have certainly heard, from questions from my colleagues, that they understand the dynamic. We cannot discriminate among seniors. We now know that the imperative for seniors under 75, as well, is as deep and profound as it is for seniors 75 and over.
That is why these four amendments would provide the $500 support to all seniors and ensure that the OAS increase goes to all seniors. I think we've heard compelling testimony in the answers to our questions. Even if the government uses the procedural trick of saying that it's going to withhold the royal recommendation, we should be pushing it to provide that royal recommendation, as it has done in the past and as the government has the right, and I would say, the responsibility in this case to do.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
I thank my colleague Ms. Dzerowicz for her courtesy.
Mr. Julian, thank you for your proposed amendments. Indeed, the seniors and groups that came to the committee to testify about Bill C-30 told us that it was unacceptable to create two classes of seniors and that it was discrimination. The president of the FADOQ network, the Quebec golden age federation, reminded us that seniors aged 65 to 74 often have additional expenses. For example, these people, often women, do not have a private pension plan and are caregivers. They have to take care of their spouse, or even their parents or relatives. As a result, they sometimes have to go to the hospital, which results in additional expenses.
The statistics that senior officials have provided clearly demonstrate the importance of not creating two classes of seniors. I fully understand the opportunity for the committee to vote on these motions. Then the government can table a notice of ways and means motion based on that. So I fully support the motions that have been put forward. They are good motions.
However, I would like more clarification on amendment NDP-15. I would like Mr. Julian to explain in more detail what his amendment 15 is actually trying to do.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
NDP-15, okay.
I'm going to give a separate ruling on each, so I'll deal with NDP-14 first, and then I'll ask....
Okay, give it now, Peter. Give your response to NDP-15 now. Although it's a different chair's ruling, we'll have all the discussion now.
Go ahead.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I thank my colleague Mr. Ste-Marie for his question.
When we consulted with parliamentary counsel, they said that yes, the age of 65 should be specified in the provisions. That is what amendments NDP-14, NDP-16 and NDP-17 do. In all three cases, the intent is to specify that the provision comes into effect at age 65. Amendment NDP-15 removes a section of the law that prevents these three amendments from actually setting that threshold at age 65. Therefore, it is a consequential amendment since it is related to the others.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Look. Just in terms of the debate of these, there is no intention or desire to discriminate. I don't agree with the premise of what Mr. Julian has said. I think everybody knows that in every budget there are choices that need to be made when there are limited dollars. I think that we heard very clearly from our officials that half of those over 75 have a disability of which 56% are severe, and 75% of them are women, who live longer and have lower incomes. There is a desire to provide some additional support to this group.
I guess maybe I'll end with a question to officials that I hope will be helpful in this discussion. Is there research that shows how the costs for seniors increase once they pass the age of 75 and why financial assistance is useful at this moment?
Kristen Underwood
View Kristen Underwood Profile
Kristen Underwood
2021-06-03 15:56
I did hear it, but I may turn to my colleague Mr. Wagdin. We have done some research.
Kevin, do you want to give it a go?
Kevin Wagdin
View Kevin Wagdin Profile
Kevin Wagdin
2021-06-03 15:57
Again, some of the research that we looked at as part of this proposal I think my colleague Kristen has touched on. With respect to specific percentages, we do know that the percentage of OAS pensioners with incomes below $30,000 is about half of seniors 65 to 74, but it's actually 59% for those who are 75 and older. We know that 39% of seniors 75 and over receive the GIS, whereas only 29% of seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 receive the GIS.
As we have spoken about, there are also the added issues that come into play with experience with disabilities and then the fact that older seniors are less able to supplement their incomes with paid work. The median employment income for a senior between the age of 65 and 74 is $10,000, whereas for a senior over the age of 75, it's only $720. That was the evidence that we looked at with respect to this proposal.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
That's excellent information.
Can I just clarify, Mr. Chair?
You mentioned something about 59%. Could you just repeat the data that you gave on the first one? I missed it.
Kevin Wagdin
View Kevin Wagdin Profile
Kevin Wagdin
2021-06-03 15:58
Sure. According to the 2018 Canadian income survey, the percentage of OAS pensioners with incomes below $30,000—so, the percentage of seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 with an income below $30,000—was 52%. That percentage increases for seniors 75 and over to 59%.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I believe we've completed the discussion on several amendments.
I will give the ruling on NDP-14. I'm bound by procedure and the rules of the House of Commons, so I may be a stick in the wheel.
The ruling is this: The amendment attempts to apply the 10% increase of pensions mentioned in the bill to people who are 65 years old, where 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 does impose a new charge on the public treasury, so I rule it inadmissible.
I will deal with these one at a time.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
As I mentioned at the very beginning of this process, the government has the responsibility to apply a royal recommendation when very clearly they've erred. They have erred in this case. We have seen in the past, and precedent shows, that the government can provide a royal recommendation and can choose to do that.
It's not a question of being out of order. It's a question, I think, of the committee responding appropriately to what is a significant error in judgment. I would challenge your ruling on that basis and allow the committee to decide whether we should move and vote on these amendments.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
All right. As I said, I will have to deal with them one at a time, because they are somewhat different rulings.
Mr. Clerk, there's been a challenge to the chair's ruling. If you would like to poll the committee, go ahead.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)
(Clause 272 agreed to on division)
(On clause 273)
The Chair: Is there anything more you want to say on NDP-15, Mr. Julian?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
All right.
The ruling is this: The amendment attempts to remove the limit of increase of pension that is in the Old Age Security Act. If adopted, the amendment would provide for an increase of pension for people aged 70 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. Therefore, the chair's ruling is that this amendment, NDP-15, is inadmissible.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
With respect Mr. Chair—and I haven't done this on all of the amendments, but this is a particularly egregious error in judgment by the government—the government has the ability to provide a royal recommendation. I believe our duty is to consider the amendment and to push the government to provide that.
I will challenge your ruling, with respect.
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?
Results: 1 - 60 of 3160 | Page: 1 of 53

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

For more data options, please see Open Data