Finance Committee on May 31st, 2016

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

No. I think the officials have made the case that we have had extensive consultation. The minister has testified. Officials have testified. We have consulted stakeholders broadly.

So I would think the comments from Mr. Caron on that are just not accurate. The facts are quite different, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Sorbara and then Mr. Caron.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would just like to add, and we need to put it on the record, that this has been a multi-year process evolving from the global financial crisis. There has been extensive consultation with the Canadian financial institutions and with global financial institutions.

As the minister stated last night, similar legislation in terms of winding up a failing bank or anything to that extent exists in a number of countries. We're just adopting similar legislation, really, and evolving legislation to where the U.K. or the United States and many of the European countries are. Is that not correct?

[Glenn Campbell]

Yes, I would affirm that statement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Caron.

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

I am going to say this in English, because I believe that government members are simply not understanding what I am saying in French.

Mr. Campbell, you did amazing work explaining what this part of the bill is about, and thank you for that. It's been really informative. The work the department has done on this is no reflection on the work of the department. You're saying there's been consultation, but there has been no consultation in this committee. This is what we're responsible for. We're the ones who are going to be voting on this on behalf of our constituents.

Mr. Campbell, the department is not voting on this. We are. We need to do our work and by this thinking, this rationale, we don't even need to discuss it here. We just need to vote because why should we have extensive study of this legislation not only with the department, and not only with the officials, but in broad consultation? If the banking institutions have been consulted, I would like to know exactly what was said in those consultations, because I was not part of them.

I am sitting in this finance committee. I have the responsibility to study, analyze, and bring scrutiny to what's being proposed by the government in this legislation. This is the role of the MPs on the government side as well, and we didn't have a chance to do it on this bill because it's been integrated into 179 pages of legislation.

I'd like everyone here to reflect on what their role is in this committee. Our role is to hold the government to account on what it's proposing. If everybody here is satisfied with just having assurances from the department, the minister, and the officials, why bother to have consultations with witnesses? There is no need, because we have assurances. This is not something we should be accepting at face value. This is technical. This is important for the future of our banking system, and we've only superficially addressed it over the course of the study. This is far from being the way things should be. I am hoping this is not the taste of what we'll be facing in the next four years because honestly this doesn't reflect well on our democracy. This doesn't reflect well on our roles as members of Parliament. It doesn't reflect well on the role of this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Caron. I could have ruled you out on relevance, but I figured it was relevant to what the committee does.

You're off the list now, Mr. Champagne.

Mr. MacKinnon.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I have a lot of respect for my colleague from the third party, and we must all respect Parliament. However, we refuse to be lectured to. During our work so far, including our study of this bill over a number of meetings, and in other areas, we have shown that we are willing to work hard. The same is true for upcoming studies, and you are aware of the scope and details of them.

That said, we also have a responsibility to those same stakeholders, the same interested parties, to bring Canada up to par with other countries as regards a regulatory framework that has been discussed internationally, that industry has been consulted on, and that will serve to reassure people making deposits in our financial institutions. It is also our responsibility as parliamentarians to make regulations so as to ensure that our financial system is on par with global financial institutions and with those in other countries.

I object to the member opposite lecturing us. The wording or bills that we put forward on a regular basis are broad in scope and we are confident that their intent is fairly clear.

Like you, dear colleague, I would like to thank the officials and those who explained the various provisions of the bill to us.

Nonetheless, eight or nine years after the financial crisis, we are now implementing measures that we hope we will never have to review, and I hope this is the last time we discuss this.

That said, I have some difficulty with being accused of not taking our responsibilities as parliamentarians seriously. I object to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're going to have to come back on that track.

Mr. Caron, I'll give you one last comment and then we're going to the clauses. Go ahead.

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

My comments do not pertain to the content of the bill or to the fact that such measures have been adopted in the rest of the OECD. I know that and recognize that. I am not saying that we should not adopt such a measure. This measure might in fact be extremely good, and I might even vote for it. That is not the issue.

My concern is that a bill of over twenty pages is contained in another bill of 179 pages. No witnesses have appeared before the committee in this regard. In every other committee, however, there are six witnesses for the study of a bill, even for bills that are very often only three or four pages long.

I still maintain that we have not done our job. I am not saying that our work, if we had done it properly, would have produced a different result. I am simply saying that we have the duty to thoroughly analyze such an important bill, and we have not done that.

This is no reflection on the work of the officials or of the department, or on the quality of the bill. Regardless, I am certain that the other countries that adopted similar laws reviewed their provisions much more thoroughly than we have done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

(Clauses 108 to 188 agreed to on division)

There is a proposed new clause 188.1, according to amendment BQ-1.

Go ahead, Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, last week, we learned that the federal government intends to go ahead with automatic enrolment for the guaranteed income supplement for seniors aged 65 and over, but not until 2018. The minister also confirmed this in the House yesterday, during oral questions.

Under our proposed amendment, automatic enrolment would take effect immediately after Bill C-15 is passed, and not in 2018. Looking back in time, I note that the federal government has known since 1993 that seniors have been shortchanged on their right to GIS benefits, seniors who have slipped through the cracks and ended up at food banks.

For 15 years, the federal government has said it would move forward on automatic enrolment, but that is not what it has done. It has implemented automatic renewal. That's a good step but there are still 19% of seniors who do not receive what they are due.

My amendment says one thing: enough waiting, it's time to take action now to automatically enrol seniors for the guaranteed income supplement to which they are entitled.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Madame Pauzé.

I will have to rule this amendment as inadmissible. Amendment BQ-1 seeks to amend section 11 of the Old Age Security Act. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766-7, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Section 11 of the Old Age Security Act is not being amended by Bill C-15, so it's the opinion of the chair that this amendment is inadmissible.

(On clause 189)

We will go to amendment NDP-8.

Mr. Caron.

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

Thank you.

The next three amendments, numbers 8, 9, and 10, pertain to the same same matter.

We are of course pleased to see that the government has taken action to fulfill a commitment that was initially made by the NDP. The Liberals' commitment was different, but it still increases GIS benefits.

We are also pleased that the government has taken action to reduce the OAS eligibility age from 67 to 65, which required a legislative amendment, contrary to what the Prime Minister stated initially.

We maintain nonetheless that the government must fully live up to its promise and commitment regarding the GIS. During the election campaign, it promised to increase the GIS for seniors who live alone, immediately after the election. Unfortunately, this bill would not increase the GIS until July 1, which is eight or nine months after the election.

The three amendments are intended to make the increase in the GIS retroactive to January 1, in order to fully live up to the government's promise and to help the seniors in greatest need.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

On NDP-8, in the opinion of the chair, the amendment would impose a charge on the public treasury; therefore, I'd rule the amendment inadmissible.

As you know, Mr. Caron, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states, on pages 767-8, “Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”

I declare that this amendment is inadmissible.

(Clause 189 agreed to on division)

(On clause 190)

We have amendment NDP-9.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm not trying to anticipate anything and I'll certainly defer to your judgment in making various interpretations and rulings on amendments, but I'd just like to clarify, is it your intent to rule on these after the amendments have been explained and put, as opposed to ruling on them prior to? I'm just thinking of the efficiency of the committee's time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, it's normal practice that the amendment is put by the mover, the promoter. As is the practice, they have the right to explain why they believe the amendment should go forward, and then a ruling is made on the amendment at that point.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll move to NDP-9.

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

This amendment has the same effect, namely, to make GIS benefits retroactive to January 1. This is to hold the government to account on its promise to increase this supplement immediately and not wait until July 1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Caron, I have the same ruling on this. It's the opinion of the chair that the amendment would impose a charge on the public treasury; therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. I'll now go to the same section I mentioned in the previous amendment.

I would also say that NDP-10 is inadmissible as a result.

(Clauses 190 and 191 agreed to on division)

There are no amendments from clauses 192 to 206.

(Clauses 192 to 206 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 207)

Is there anybody here to speak to PV-3, the Green Party amendment?

Mr. Marcil.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

The Green Party representative is not here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The Green Party isn't here, so it's not been moved. Therefore—

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I suspect she's talking about the long-tenured worker and having to look into the definition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Anyway, she's not here, so it's not moved. It doesn't stand.