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.
10:15 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
He said “you”. I think he's asking you, Chair. When did you first hear of the mistake?
10:15 p.m.
Conservative
10:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Look, I'm going to rule on this. The fact is, as the chair, I have to accept the amendments. It's on page 998 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:
Normally, there is no requirement to give notice of amendments moved at committee stage. However, to ensure an orderly and comprehensive consideration of a bill, a committee may adopt a motion requiring that Members submit their amendments to the committee clerk before the beginning of the clause-by-clause consideration; such a motion does not prevent the tabling of amendments once clause-by-clause consideration has begun, unless the committee decides otherwise.
We did set an administrative deadline. I think that is the best way for me to put it. So I'm going to rule the amendments in order.
They're in order but I would agree with some of the comments that it's not very good. The reason we have deadlines is, frankly, for the chair and for the functioning of the committee. I would just point out that I hope this is not a precedent for future bills, that the opposition copies.
10:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's an admonishment, then, but a warning to us, I think, is how that worked out.
10:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
No, it's something that I don't want to see practised because as the chair it's easier for the chair to have everything done in an orderly process. So that is my ruling.
10:15 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Chairman. I think we all accept that.
I just want to be helpful. We do have the part of the act up that it would change. Mr. Allen has it on his iPad and perhaps he could read exactly to the opposition members how it affects this.
10:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I thought we were going to have Ms. Martel speak to it. That's where we left it off.
Is that agreeable to the committee? I think that's how we should proceed.
10:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
10:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Ms. Martel, could you speak to the three amendments?
There is obviously some concern about the fact that members don't have the OAS Act in front of them. Obviously, some of them do, but some of them don't.
10:20 p.m.
Director, Old Age Security Policy, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
What the amendment does is very simple. The only thing that is new here is proposed paragraph (a), and it's the same for clauses 371, 372, and 373. Paragraph (b) already exists; it's already in the act.
Basically, as Mr. Saxton indicated, it's to protect current GIS beneficiaries. I'm going to give you an example.
I would think it would be very rare, but not impossible, that someone who has recently immigrated to Canada, reached 10 years of residence in Canada—for example, last year—but is still under a sponsorship agreement. This is possible if the person were in Canada previously and accumulated a period of residence at that time. For example, if they came in the seventies to undertake university studies and then they came back to Canada under a sponsorship agreement, they would reach the 10 years of residence in Canada while their sponsorship were still on. After they reach 10 years, under the status quo, they can start receiving the GIS, but in 2017, once the amendment kicks in, they would lose the GIS because they're still sponsored.
We don't want this to happen. We want to protect these individuals so this is what paragraph (a) does here, which is to make sure that people in receipt of the guaranteed income supplement or the allowances—in the case of clauses 372 and 373—are protected by the time the provision comes into force. They will not see their benefits cut. So it's simply a protective measure.
10:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
Are there any questions on this?
Okay, then I think we'll proceed in order, clause by clause.
(On clause 371)
10:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We better come back to the actual bill, if you don't mind.
10:20 p.m.
A voice
You're moving the amendment.
10:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Unless there's further discussion, we'll deal with the amendment to clause 371.
Is there further discussion on the amendment?
Mr. McKay.
10:20 p.m.
Liberal
10:20 p.m.
Director, Old Age Security Policy, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
I'm not comfortable to call it a mistake, because it's your choice to decide if you think these people should be protected or not.
10:20 p.m.
Liberal
10:20 p.m.
Director, Old Age Security Policy, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
It happened as part of briefings with our minister's office, when we discussed these amendments.
10:20 p.m.
Director, Old Age Security Policy, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
I'm not comfortable talking about when we meet with our minister's office, the recommendations we give, the briefings we give, etc. I'm just not comfortable talking about it.
