Finance Committee on May 29th, 2014

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Go ahead.

[Nathalie Martel]

I'd like to make clear right off the bat that this measure, which is in the budget, isn't new. The Old Age Security Act currently includes a provision that prevents a person who is subject to a sponsorship agreement from receiving the guaranteed income supplement.

But now, after having resided in Canada for 10 years, the person can begin to collect the guaranteed income supplement whether they are being sponsored or not. The only thing the amendment is changing is removing the reference to the 10 years. This amendment will mean that if the person is still being sponsored, they will not qualify for the guaranteed income supplement, no matter how long they have lived in Canada.

This is being implemented to ensure consistency with the new sponsorship rules that came into force on January 1, 2014 for immigrants in the parent and grandparent category, which raised the period from 10 years to 20.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

That doesn't necessarily mean we supported the measure that was previously proposed.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Caron.

Mr. Saxton, please.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Regarding this particular clause, it has been brought to the government's attention that there was a minor technical drafting error that could impact the intent of the OAS change.

The government's intent has always been that this change impact new applications only and ensure that no senior currently receiving the GIS benefit will be impacted.

In order for this to be the case, I am submitting three minor technical amendments that are required to ensure no senior receiving the GIS will be impacted. I'd like the committee to vote on these amendments at the appropriate point.

I will read the three amendments to the committee right now. I also have—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do the amendments deal with clause 371?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

This is clause 371.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Yes, they're all with 371. Is that correct?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Correct. They all deal with.... Hang on, let me see, no, clauses 371, 372, and 373 as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Can I accept them as tabled? Can I recommend we take a five-minute break and we'll share them with the other members? Is that agreeable?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

That's agreeable.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, I'll suspend for about five minutes and we'll share the amendments. We'll get the law clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order. This is meeting 37 of the Standing Committee on Finance, and we're considering Bill C-31.

Colleagues, we are on division 27 of part 6, dealing with the Old Age Security Act. There are three amendments. The first amendment amends clause 371, the second one amends clause 372, and the third one amends clause 373.

Perhaps we could ask the official to....

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, as you know, I'm not a member of this committee, but I had understood that all amendments had to be submitted prior to a particular date. They're described as “minor” amendments, etc., but we have no idea whether that's true. Actually, it's almost impossible to find out, because we have 45 minutes left of sitting and then everything is deemed moved anyway.

I don't know why the government, 45 minutes before the end of the sittings of this committee, is moving amendments when none of the rest of us could ever even contemplate doing that. It does seem to be contrary to the rules of this committee as already set up, so I'd invite a ruling that these amendments are entirely out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

On the same point of order, Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I have some sympathy for what John has raised here, and we'll hear a ruling from the chair if that's what's required.

It's difficult, because this is an attempt to try to understand what the implications are, and that's why we have an administrative deadline, but it's not a hard deadline, as far as I'm aware, of bringing a motion up until the moment of.

I don't know if the government would contemplate bringing them at report stage, or even if that would be in order, just to give us the time to figure out what the implications are. This affects OAS, from my initial understanding, and that matters to people. It's not one of those things you want to rush at the last second and get wrong.

If that's not possible procedurally, and I seek that through you, Chair, then I suspect that it is in order. But we're sitting here looking through, on our BlackBerrys, the actual act itself to try to determine what the impact will be. It's fine that we have an official here, but it's a trust exercise that we're eventually into. You can forgive us for having some level of mistrust when it comes to Conservative omnibus bills.

So I think it's probably in order, but it's not very good. It certainly asks for a lot of faith that hasn't been earned with respect to just what the changes will be to our social security system.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

On the same point, I have Monsieur Caron, Mr. McKay, and then Mr. Saxton.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I'd like to add to what Mr. Cullen just said.

We are currently bound by the motion preventing us from debating amendments or main clauses after 11 p.m. So nothing would prevent the government from proposing amendments as late as 10:58 p.m., without our being able to discuss them. In that respect, then, I think Mr. Cullen's proposal is entirely warranted and reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have Mr. McKay on the speakers list, and then Mr. Saxton.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Could the government tell us when they established that this was a problem?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to address some of the comments made by my colleagues across the way. First of all, as I mentioned earlier, these are minor, minor amendments. They do refer to the subject at hand. And there isn't anything stopping a member of this committee from table-dropping amendments of a minor nature as long as they are dealing with the subject at hand.

With regard to understanding these amendments, I mentioned earlier that—whether you trust it or not—really it's to reverse an unexpected consequence so that people who are currently receiving the GIS will not lose that right. In fact it's to some extent watering down what was put forward, making it have less of an impact.

If there are other questions or specific questions, then, as was mentioned, we have the official here from the department. You may not trust me, but you can trust the official, I'm sure.

We also have the act. The act is available online. We have it on the iPad here.

Look, as mentioned, we're not trying to pull any wool over anybody's eyes. It is what it is. We're being open about it and clear as to what the intention was, and I'm sure you would understand that.

Mr. Chair, I would ask that you allow these amendments to be put to the committee now.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

[Technical difficulty—Editor]...further on a point of order?

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I didn't get an answer. When did you identify the mistake, and why weren't we notified earlier?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, is there any further point on that discussion, Mr. Saxton?