You haven't said whether you have a ruling.
Evidence of meeting #39 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #39 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
As Yogi Berra said, “It's like “déjà vu all over again”.
Mr. Cullen, do you want to move NDP-13?
6:10 p.m.
NDP
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay.
The ruling is that Bill C-31 establishes retroactively a period for which civilian war veterans allowance applicants and recipients will receive a compensation. The amendment seeks to expand this period.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states, on pages 767 and 768:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on a public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment, by modifying the period of admissibility, infringes on the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible. This applies to NDP-13 and to LIB-13.
I will then move to discussion on clause 105.
Mr. Cullen.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have a question for Mr. Butler.
Is there a risk of setting a precedent? Regarding this court ruling, the government says it will change the compensation back to 2012. Could a group or a veteran potentially wish to bring the matter before the court again because the government is showing that the system can be changed? They may want to change the system not only back to 2012, but also back to 2006. Is this a risk the government must take into account regarding compensation for veterans?
6:10 p.m.
Director General, Policy Division, Policy, Communications and Commemoration Branch, Department of Veterans Affairs
Given the nature of the question, it's difficult for me to comment on any concerns around precedent setting of a decision of this sort. Obviously, every circumstance is unique in its own case.
This bill before the House today is very unique in this context, so it's very difficult for me to comment on hypothetical implications for other programming.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, I understand that.
Perhaps the government recognizes its mistake. It simply said it would make a change that would cost nearly $20 million. That is something the government may lose in the future. The error does not only go back to 2012, but also to 2006.
Does this rule stem from that decision? I understand this is not explicitly stated in the bill, but is there another measure, a rule or a new mandate for your department indicating that, in the future, you will resolve problems related to a given program in a specific way?
To be clear, because my French isn't so hot, what I'm interested in is whether, because the government.... Having watched what went on in Manuge, can you remind the committee what was spent by the federal government just going through the process in Manuge? Do we have a court figure?
6:15 p.m.
Director General, Policy Division, Policy, Communications and Commemoration Branch, Department of Veterans Affairs
The Manuge case fell under the mandate of the Minister of National Defence. It was a Department of National Defence issue. It was not a Veterans Affair Canada issue, at all. We were implicated only to the extent that it was the disability pension paid under Veterans Affairs Canada programming that was being offset through the SISIP program.
It's really quite different. To go back to a comment you made earlier, and with respect, it's really not a question in this context of an issue of error. Again, I think it's very important for the committee to consider that the decision to use the May 29, 2012 date, again, simply reflected a decision of government, as a matter of goodwill, to say that because of similar issues, similarities between the two, but in the absence of any legal requirement to do so, the offsetting would cease as of that date.
It was not a question of recognition of any error in how the programs were being administered, or indeed in terms of how the set-off was structured legislatively under those respective programs.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I understand what you're suggesting. It's just so rare for us to see governments pay out if they haven't made a mistake. Usually one leads to the other, so you can understand why someone might come to that conclusion. The government recognizes this and went back....
I'll leave off there, Chair.
I think we've made our case clear and known, and we'll allow the votes to stand where they stand.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Yes, speaking of which, I won't belabour the point too much other than to say it's too bad; I think the thrust of this should be to the year 2006, obviously in keeping with the spirit of the charter. I'm supporting this because I truly believe, and we believe, some compensation obviously is better than no compensation whatsoever.
Thank you.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
Shall we do a show of hands on this, or do people want a recorded vote?
(Clause 105 agreed to)
(Clauses 106 and 107 agreed to)
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. Butler, thank you so much for being with us tonight. We appreciate that.
We shall move now to division 2, colleagues, with respect to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
We have only two clauses under this division, clauses 108 and 109. As I'm very generous with time, I'm hoping we can perhaps group these clauses together.
(Clauses 108 and 109 agreed to)
Those clauses both carry unanimously.
We shall move to division 3, the Regulatory Cooperation Council Initiative on Workplace Chemicals. This deals with clauses 110 to 162. We do have a number of amendments in this division.
If I could, I would like to group certain clauses together. I will only proceed as quickly as the committee allows me. I do not have an amendment for clauses 110 to 113. Can I group those clauses together?
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
If you wouldn't mind, Chair, I wouldn't mind speaking to clause 110.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
NDP
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We're dealing with clauses 110 to 113, and we'll have debate.
We'll go to Mr. Cullen, please.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We have our officials here, and I thank them for coming and for waiting so patiently.
This question is in regard to the changes to Canada's Hazardous Products Act. Our concern is about whether the standards are being lowered or raised.
Through you, Chair, to our witnesses, has Canada signed on to the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals? Are we a signatory to this?
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Welcome to our officials from Health Canada. Thank you very much for being with us tonight.
Ms. McDonald, do you wish to respond?
6:20 p.m.
Suzy McDonald Director General, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Thank you.
The GHS is not a system that Canada would sign on to. It's a system that Canada did help to develop at the United Nations. We were one of the key countries involved, along with many other countries. It's a system whereby each country can choose to adopt the GHS or any portions of the GHS. So it's not something that we've signed on to, but we are choosing to implement it here in Canada.
Does that respond to your question?
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It does. Thank you.
Can you tell me what kinds of things are excluded, under Canada's provisions, from the GHS?