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 3160
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: 46 - 60 of 3160 | Page: 4 of 211

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

For more data options, please see Open Data