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.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I do. Mr. Chair, you can challenge a decision by the chair, but you cannot challenge an interpretation by the chair or a pre-interpretation of something that's going to happen in the future. I would suggest that Mr. Brison's challenge is not a challenge at all that is available under the rules.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I'm going to again, just for clarification, explain exactly what happened.
The motion that was adopted by the committee was distributed to all the members for reference again, and then I clarified some points on the motion to ensure that we had clarity in terms of how we were proceeding with respect to the three items I raised.
Mr. Jean then raised a point of order and asked for clarification of my interpretation. I presented my interpretation. He presented an alternate interpretation. I ruled. So the ruling is this: my ruling was that his interpretation was incorrect, and that's when he immediately challenged me, as you're supposed to do if you choose to challenge the chair. So he challenged my ruling.
My initial thing with respect to the three items was not a ruling; it was an explanation to the committee. So he presented an alternate interpretation. I ruled that his interpretation was incorrect. He challenged the chair. A challenge to the chair is not debatable. That challenge carried the day, so we are proceeding with Mr. Jean's interpretation. That is the best advice I am getting here from procedural clerks in terms of how to proceed.
Now, it is a very unusual situation. It's also an unusual situation that it seems you don't want to vote on your own amendments, Mr. Brison. So it is an odd procedural matter here in the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I am proceeding as well as I can with the best procedural advice that I am given, and I suggest that we return to clause 2 and proceed with your amendments.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, the committee has made a decision as to how to proceed, and our members did not change that. It was the Conservative members who changed that midstream. I would challenge your decision that the decision of the committee to repudiate your ruling automatically means—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I made a ruling. That ruling was challenged. The ruling was overturned. So there's no decision.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I don't believe that the interpretation, or the assumption, or the corollary would be that we would simply go on to these procedures, as Mr. Jean has suggested. That does not make any sense in parliamentary—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I don't know if I can make it any clearer than I already did by reading the process I went through. The process was very clear. I've outlined it here. My ruling has been overturned, and I am proceeding, as was mentioned. The implication of overturning my ruling was that amendments are deemed moved, and we are now dealing with clause 2. We are now moving to the five-minute clause-by-clause.
Mr. Brison, you have amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. You can address any one of them.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Certainly, Mr. Chair. Again, I would assert that we ought to simply revert to the initial proposal, and that is that we debate the clause-by-clause and the amendments without a time limit.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
You're on your five-minute time now, because the committee has made a decision to overturn the decision of the chair.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
As we discussed earlier, there will be a challenge at the House as well.
Mr. Chair, to begin with, on clause 2 we have proposed several amendments. Two amendments remove provisions related to group sickness or accident insurance plans. We also have five amendments that delay provisions related to group sickness or accident insurance plans.
Clause 2 deals with income from office or employment. Section 6 of the Income Tax Act provides for the inclusion of an employee's income of most employment-related benefits, other than those that are specifically excluded.
Mr. Chair, paragraph 6(1)(a) of the act provides for the inclusion, in computing the income of a taxpayer from an office or employment, of the value of employment benefits received or enjoyed by the taxpayer in respect of or in the course of employment, subject to a number of specified exceptions in subparagraphs 6(1)(a)(i) to (v). The first of these exceptions is subparagraph 6(1)(a)(i), which describes benefits that are derived from an employer's contribution to various types of plans for employees.
As a consequence of the introduction of PRPPs, or pooled registered pension plans, for the edification of members, and income tax rules to accommodate them, subparagraph 6(1)(a)(i) is amended to add a reference to an employer's contribution to a PRPP. Generally, therefore, benefits derived from such contributions are not included in an employee's income from employment.
For further information regarding PRPPs, Mr. Chair, please see the commentary on the new section 147.5. This amendment will come into force on the day of the coming into force of the PRPP, the pooled registered pension plans act.
Mr. Chair, new subparagraph 6(1)(e)(i) of the act includes the amount of an employer's contributions to a group sickness or accident insurance plan in an employee's income for the year in which the contributions are made, except to the extent that the contributions are in respect of a plan that provides wage loss replacement benefits paid on a periodic basis.
In those cases, paragraph 6(1)(f) will apply with respect to benefits received by the employee. For example, this new paragraph would apply to critical illness insurance or dismemberment insurance, which provides benefits paid in lump sum payments—for instance, similar to a committee chair's authority being amputated by Conservative members.
Mr. Chair, this amendment applies in respect of an employer's contributions made after March 28, 2011, to the extent that the contributions were related to the coverage after 2012, except that such contributions made after March 28, 2012, and before 2013 are included in the employee's income for 2013.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, in the C.D. Howe report on pooled registered pension plans, as of June 2012, it refers to the PRPPs of Bill C-25, which contained, of course, the regulatory framework for pooled registered pension plans. It also included a new kind of retirement savings vehicle, described by the government at the time as an effective and appropriate way to help bridge existing gaps in the retirement system.
According to the report of a federal-provincial research working group on retirement income—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you. Unfortunately, your five minutes are up, Mr. Brison.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you very much.
Any further comments on clause 2?
Ms. Glover, please.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to express my happiness about the fact that we are actually going to proceed and look at these amendments.
I find the comments Mr. Brison made fairly disturbing. This seems to reflect—and I'm glad I have five minutes to explain this—the randomness of 3,000 amendments being submitted and the Liberals not wanting to actually look at any of them. It's odd.
All members of this committee, including the NDP and Conservative members, voted to look at these amendments. We take them seriously. It's odd that a member who submits 3,000 amendments would try to force the committee, when he's the only one who's voted not to look at them, to actually not look at them. It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
It reminds me of when we voted on sending this to committees. We wanted fulsome debate. We wanted all interested committees to have an opportunity to look at this and to allow witnesses to come. The Liberals were the only party that voted not to send it to committee. It boggles one's mind.
Nevertheless, I'm going to proceed with the amendments that have been put forward. Out of the 3,000, we're proceeding with the ones under Liberal amendments 2 and 6. These motions would actually delete the amendments related to group sickness or accident insurance plans. This measure addresses a non-neutrality in the taxation of benefits related to the provision of insurance.
With regard to Liberal amendments 3 to 5 and 7 and 8, these motions would delay by one year the implementation of the measure relating to group sickness or accident insurance plans. In commenting on this measure, Mr. Chair, stakeholders did not express concern that the timing of its implementation would pose administrative challenges. So to delay would actually have a fiscal cost.
For those reasons, we will not be supporting the amendments put forward by the Liberals.
But again, I question the sincerity of the Liberals issuing 3,000 amendments that they then vote to not look at. It's the craziest thing I've ever seen. I don't know why they didn't want to study them in subcommittees either. I want to put that on the record.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I will move to the vote on Liberal 2.
If Liberal 2 is adopted, Liberal 3, Liberal 4, and Liberal 5 cannot be moved, as they are along the same lines.