Evidence of meeting #94 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Ted Cook  Senior Legislative Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Mike MacPherson  Procedural Clerk
Chad Mariage  Procedural Clerk
Jean Michel Roy  Procedural Clerk
Paul Cardegna  Procedural Clerk

8:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Chairperson, not to test your patience or anything of that nature, I'm going to first address it in the form of a point of order, before we go on to the clause, because I think this is a very important point.

In procedures—and I've had some experience in dealing with procedures in the past—the Standing Orders are very important. They supersede such things as Beauchesne's. These are rules.

Having been here for just under two years, I've had the opportunity to participate with other standing committees. On those other standing committees, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, I have seen other members address the committee, even though they weren't necessarily committee members and didn't get consent of other members.

When I look on page 90, at Standing Order 119, and read it, I think the reading of the Standing Order is fairly clear. I quote from it:

Any Member of the House

—and I am one—

who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.

As a common courtesy, Mr. Chairperson, what has happened in the past is that individuals have been afforded the opportunity, and it's just to save time more than anything else, because at the end of the day there are only five minutes for any given clause. Whether it's member X or member Y who poses the question, I suspect that it's much more advantageous to allow members to contribute, even if they're not necessarily members of the committee.

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I'm going to rule on your point of order. Thank you for your contribution here tonight. I'm going to rule on his point of order.

I very clearly stated in the last Parliament the practice we follow. Mr. McCallum knows this very well, as does Mr. Brison, as do all the members. When an extra member of the governing party or of an opposition party shows up, we ask for consent as to whether that person can ask questions. In reference to the section Mr. Lamoureux just referred to, every clerk in this room has indicated to me that this is the correct ruling.

Now, I suppose we could assume that the chair and six clerks of the House of Commons are incorrect, or we could assume that six clerks of the House of Commons plus the chair are correct. Therefore, the easy thing for the Liberal Party to do is either to ask for consent if they don't have it or to substitute in the member they wish to have speak at this committee. That is my ruling, and I'm not going to entertain further points of order on this issue.

I will therefore ask Mr. Lamoureux, who is a subbed-in member, to address clause 8.

8:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

But with all due respect, Mr. Chair—

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

With all due respect, Mr. Lamoureux, we're on clause 8.

8:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

But as a member of the committee, I have the ability to challenge the ruling of the chair.

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

The chair's ruling has been challenged. There is no debate, as you know from earlier today, on a challenge to the chair's ruling.

The question is that the chair's ruling be sustained.

8:20 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

I would like a recorded vote, please.

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

We want a recorded vote.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 10; nays 1)

Does anyone wish to speak to clause 8?

Is this on clause 8?

8:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

It is on clause 8, Mr. Chair.

8:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Okay.

8:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

We're talking about employment insurance, specifically about contributions. With employer contributions, there is a huge impact.

The Liberal Party has made it clear that we have concerns about the government's putting so much into this budget bill that it's going to have a significant and profound impact. I think the committee members need to reassess this as we go through the different clauses. That's one of the reasons we felt that it would be in the government's best interests to rethink clause 8. We like to think the government wants to improve the bill by going through clause by clause, and deleting this particular clause would make the bill a better and more productive piece of legislation.

I don't claim to understand every clause and how it's going to have an impact, but I know that there is a need for us to have a good understanding of each clause. In going through clause by clause, I understand there is the opportunity for us to ask questions. We have civil servants here who could provide answers to questions we might have. I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, if it would be appropriate for me to ask questions on this clause to the civil servants.

8:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

That's been the common practice in all of our meetings on Bill C-45.

8:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

My question, then, would be in regard to this particular clause. Can you explain specifically what this clause will be doing, if in fact it passes?

8:25 p.m.

Senior Legislative Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Ted Cook

This clause relates to the implementation of pooled registered pension plans. It provides two things.

Subclause 8(1), the amendment to paragraph 20(1)(q), would allow employer deductions for contributions to pooled registered pension plans.

Subclause 8(2), relating to paragraph 20(2.2)(a), is an exception from the definition of life insurance policy. That allows a deduction for interest for money used to make employer contributions in respect of life insurance policies issued under a PRPP.

8:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

When we think of the pooled registered pension plan, the government earlier in the year introduced legislation that created a pooled pension plan. What impact does that have on that particular piece of legislation? Are we familiar with that legislation?

8:25 p.m.

Senior Legislative Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Ted Cook

I think the simple answer is the amendments—and there's a whole suite of amendments throughout part 1 of the bill—implement the taxation rules that ensure that a PRPP is operated in the way intended, for Income Tax Act purposes.

8:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

If this were not to pass, what would be the outcome if we were to delete this?

8:25 p.m.

Senior Legislative Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Ted Cook

If we deleted this one specific clause, it would throw into question the ability of employers to make deductions for contributions to PRPPs on behalf of their employees.

8:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Do we have a sense of what sorts of costs we would be looking at? How much would be coming through donations? The pooled pension plan through businesses is relatively new, from what I understand.

8:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Give just a brief response, Mr. Cook, please.

8:25 p.m.

Senior Legislative Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Ted Cook

Certainly.

I believe that there has been no specific fiscal figure booked for the PRPP changes included in part 1.

8:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

8:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Is the five minutes up?

8:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

It is, yes. Time moves fast.

Shall clause 8 carry?

(Clause 8 agreed to on division)

8:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Chair, if I could have a recorded vote, that would be appreciated.