Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 3821
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 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.
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 Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Mr. Julian is next, followed by Ms. Dzerowicz.
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 Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay.
Then we will go back to questions for Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Dzerowicz.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Go ahead, Ms. Underwood.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay.
Is there any further discussion on clause 269?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Yes, go ahead.
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 Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay. I have a couple of people online for questions.
I would ask if you know what the cost of that might be. I'll go to Ms. Dzerowicz, if you want to think about that in the meantime.
Go ahead, Ms. Dzerowicz.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
It's up to you.
Go ahead, Mr. Ste-Marie.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
To respond to that question, we'll go to Ms. Dzerowicz and Mr. Julian. Could you explain NDP-14 a little further?
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 Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Are you satisfied with the answer, Mr. Ste-Marie?
Ms. Dzerowicz.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
That's for whoever wants to take it.
Did you hear that, Ms. Underwood? Go ahead if you did. I know your computer is just so-so.
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 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 Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
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 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 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 Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay, we've had a little debate on the ruling.
We will go to the clerk, and he will poll the committee on whether we uphold the ruling or not.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)
(Clause 276 agreed to on division)
(On clause 277)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Thank you, Ms. Underwood and Mr. Wagdin.
We will now turn to division 33, the Public Service Employment Act, and we have as the lead, Ms. Beattie.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Thank you very much for coming and waiting through a couple of nights, likely.
Do you want to give a quick explanation on division 33? Then we'll see if there are any questions.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We'll start with that one and see if there are any questions.
I believe we're on page 289, for those who are following by way of the bill.
Are there any questions on clause 277?
(Clause 277 agreed to on division)
(On clause 278)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Are there any questions on clause 278 by members?
(Clause 278 agreed to on division)
(On clause 279)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Are there any questions on clause 279? I hear none.
(Clause 279 agreed to on division)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay. We'll ask Ms. Beattie to explain all of these as a bundle.
I believe Mr. Julian has a question.
Do you have a question, Peter?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
It's good to see the official opposition and the NDP agreeing.
(On clauses 280 to 287)
The Chair: Could we get an explanation on the remainder of those clauses, Ms. Beattie? Then we'll go to a vote seeing them all as one.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay.
Are there any questions from committee members?
I have one myself, Ms. Beattie.
How do you see doing this? Do you have supervisors over the supervisors supervising the hiring officers? How do you do this? How do you police this?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I see that Ms. Dzerowicz has a question.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
If everyone is satisfied, then we shall go to—
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Thank you.
(Clauses 280 to 287 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 288)
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Beattie. I don't believe you're here for the next one. Thank you for being here all along.
Division 34 is on early learning and child care.
We have Ms. Karen Hall.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
If you want to give us an explanation, go ahead. You will have to hold your mike up for the interpreters.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
You guys in the public service round it higher than I do. I usually round it lower.
We'll have Mr. Fraser first and then Mr. Fast.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay.
Mr. Fraser, are you okay?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Fast.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We've noted that, Mr. Fast. I've been through a lot of Parliaments, as you know, but I'll make no further comment.
Ms. Dzerowicz.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Thank you.
Ms. Hall, I happened to be around when the negotiations were going on between Ken Dryden and the provinces in 2004-05. Those negotiations are never easy, but we did have an early learning and child care program at the time.
Mr. Fraser.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I see no further questions on clause 288.
(Clause 288 agreed to on division)
(On clauses 289 and 290)
The Chair: Before you're gone, Ms. Hall, thank you very much.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
For division 35, the lead will be Catherine Demers. It is on benefits and leave.
Ms. Demers, go ahead.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
That's not a problem. The clerk will bring them in.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Go ahead, Ms. Demers.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Yes, you can do clause 290, and then we have an amendment on clause 291. You can do clause 290 as well.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay. Is there any discussion on these clauses? I think we have agreement to go to clauses 289 and 290 at the same time. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Fraser.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay. I think that satisfies the question.
(Clauses 289 and 290 agreed to on division)
(On clause 291)
The Chair: We'll go to clause 291, if you want to give us a quick explanation. Then we have an amendment from Mr. Ste-Marie.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Are there any questions on that explanation before we go to Mr. Ste-Marie's amendment? We also have one from the NDP.
Mr. Ste-Marie.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Mr. Julian.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We've heard the explanation on the amendment and I will have to give a chair's ruling.
The amendment attempts to remove proposed subsections 8(1) and 8(1.1) in clause 291 of the bill. The effect would be to revert back to the existing text of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, which provides for a payment of $500.
Since the bill provides for a decrease of these payments, this amendment, if adopted, would result in increasing payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed is therefore inadmissible, as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury. As I think Mr. Julian and Mr. Ste-Marie mentioned, this ruling applies to both BQ-7 and NDP-18. The amendments are inadmissible under the rules.
Are there any challenges to that? Everyone seems quiet. There's no challenge?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Polite or not, Mr. Julian, you speak from the heart.
Ms. Dzerowicz, there's a challenge to the chair, so I'll take that up first and then go to you.
Mr. Clerk, could you poll the committee on the chair's decision?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yes 9; nays 2)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Are there any questions on that? No questions.
(Clause 293 agreed to on division)
(On clause 294)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Are there any questions on clause 294?
(Clause 294 agreed to on division)
The Chair: We're on clause 295.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Absolutely.
(On clauses 295 to 302)
The Chair: We'll get an explanation from Ms. Demers on them all. Then we'll see if there are any questions, and then we'll go to a vote collectively.
Ms. Demers, go ahead on clause 295 through to clause 302.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Ms. Moran on the rest, go ahead.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay. Are there any questions on that? I see none, and nobody is up.
(Clauses 295 to 302 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 303)
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Demers and Ms. Moran.
I believe we have Mr. Rae and Ms. Nandy here, who are ready for the next one.
We will turn to division 36, which is on benefits and leave related to employment.
Ms. Nandy, you're up to explain clause 303.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay. We're on page 300 of the bill. Are there any questions on clause 303? I don't see any questions.
(Clause 303 agreed to on division)
(On clause 304)
The Chair: Could you give us an explanation on clause 304? Then we have NDP-19.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I have an NDP-19, Mr. Julian, if you want to go there.
I know, Elizabeth May, that you have an amendment here as well at some point, so don't let me miss that.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
It came in late, so I don't have it in my notes.
Mr. Julian, if you want to explain your NDP-19, I'll give you a ruling.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
If there's nothing further to add there, then my ruling is this, which you're expecting: The amendment attempts to reduce the number of insurable employment hours necessary to obtain benefits under the Employment Insurance Act from 420 to 360 hours. The effect would be that more people would have access to these benefits, 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, so I rule it inadmissible.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We have a point of order from—
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay, Mr. Fast, you had a point of order.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay. The reality is that it does require a royal recommendation when it's about money out of the federal treasury, so the challenged ruling—
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay. I thought it was Mr. Fast. Go ahead.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I don't think it's a point of order. I think it is debate. I don't mind being challenged, so we'll leave it at that and not get into a strenuous debate. I have to follow the rules, and that's what they are.
We'll move to a vote on the challenge to the chair, Mr. Clerk.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay, wait until we vote on 304 first.
(Clause 304 agreed to on division)
(On clauses 305 to 307)
The Chair: Do I see any disagreement on bundling clauses 305 to 307? I see none.
Could we get an explanation on those, Ms. Nandy or whoever? Then we will vote on them.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Are there any questions on those three clauses?
(Clauses 305 to 307 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 308)
The Chair: On clause 308, could we could get an explanation? We have two amendments on that, I believe.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Maybe you can finish the clause and then we'll come back to each of the amendments, so that we're done with the discussion on clause 308 before we get to the amendments.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Thank you very much for that fairly lengthy explanation.
We'll turn to Mr. Ste-Marie on amendment BQ-8.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.
The chair's ruling on this amendment is that the amendment attempts to extend the duration of the pilot project number 21 until September 2022. The effect would be that more people would have access to an increased number of weeks for a longer period of time, which would result in increased 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 rule it inadmissible.
Can we go to amendment NDP-20?
Mr. Julian.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
The amendment attempts to extend the number of weeks of benefits for prescribed illness, injury or quarantine from 26 to 50, which would result in increased 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.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay. Whatever ruling I make here will apply to amendment BQ-9 as well.
Does Mr. Ste-Marie have anything to add to the argument for either NDP-21 or BQ-9?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Thank you both.
The amendment provides for a different method of calculation of weekly insurable earnings such that the insurable earnings would be divided by 14 in all cases rather than a number between 14 and 22, which would result in increased payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed in inadmissible, as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury. That ruling applies to BQ-9 as well.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We'll go to the witnesses, but as I understand it, there's separate accounting on both and it is the consolidated revenue fund.
Go ahead, Ms. Nandy, or whoever else from the public service who wants to answer this.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Mr. Rae, if you're not in, the clerk will let you in.
Mr. Rae.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
As I understand it, Mr. Julian, it was always a separate accounting. I could be wrong on that.
Mr. Rae.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
That's right. You are correct. Thank you.
(On clause 309)
The Chair: Is there an explanation here?
Results: 1 - 100 of 3821 | Page: 1 of 39

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

For more data options, please see Open Data