Yes.
Evidence of meeting #60 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #60 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Okay. I'm reluctant, and I certainly don't have any skin in the game on this one because we're against the bill in its present form, for reasons I've given earlier, but there is no charge on the public treasury, because CPP is not under the direct direction of the government and it is not the actual monies collected by government in forms that would establish that criterion.
The premiums are drawn from the public, both from personal contributions as well as employer contributions. Thus, while I understand the rationale you've put forward, I don't think it necessarily gives us as a committee full comfort that it's in order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The consolidated revenue fund is actually the backstop. That's where you get to.
Mr. MacKinnon.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
That's what I was going to say. There are guarantees about the Canada pension plan from the Crown, from the Government of Canada. Changes to the Canada pension plan could therefore affect the consolidated revenue fund.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The chair has been challenged. Does anybody want to call the question?
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I'd like to raise one more point.
On that point, is there anything in the CPP act that actually says that the federal government will backstop any losses of CPP?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The question has been called, but we can ask officials to come forward and answer that question if you so wish.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Yes, I'd like that, if it's possible. We have officials sitting here, so it would be good just to know. I might learn something.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Yes.
Are there officials who want to come to the floor to answer that question?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The ruling, Ron, is:
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.
That's from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at pages 767 and 768.
I ruled that the amendment does propose to increase the value of the said benefit, which could impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I ruled it inadmissible.
NDP
Scott Duvall NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
In saying that, when we were in committee we talked to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, and that question was asked, was there a cost analysis done? I'm hearing that we think there might be a cost; we don't know. When I asked that question of the investment board—was a cost analysis done?—the answer was no, so how did we come up with “there's a cost”?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
As Mr. Albas said, the Canada Pension Plan is paid for by employers and employees. However, the consolidated revenue fund is a backstop to that if there's a shortfall and, therefore, it could impose a charge on the public treasury. Therefore, it requires a royal recommendation and I had to rule it out of order.
The question has been called. All those in favour of the challenge to the chair?
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, we did ask questions of officials, and rarely do we have an opportunity to ask a question when they're in the room. You yourself suggested that, so I'd like it if we could take a look at that, please.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I've already started the vote, and I don't think I can stop it after starting it. Two hands went up.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll ask if there are any officials in the room who can answer that question in terms of how the consolidated revenue fund is a backstop to the Canada Pension Plan and its enhancement.
Is there anybody here who can answer that or do we have to get them from somewhere?
Do you want to take a seat, Mr. Purves?
Glenn Purves General Director, Federal-Provincial and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Thanks very much.
I just want to point out one element. If there's an increase in the contribution for CPP and it's shared by both employees and employers, think of it from the standpoint of public employees. There are many public employees who are part of the federal government but also of provincial governments, so if you increase the contribution rates, that will then, by definition, have an impact on the finances of a government.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, that might be incidental, but it's not consequential. This is not under the administration of the federal government. The funds are not held in the consolidated fund.
To me, it sounds like there's nothing in the CPP act that says the federal government will backstop any shortfalls. In fact, in the nineties, when they actually saw the correction in that, it was at the expense of the people who were giving premiums and the people who were receiving them—it was the beneficiaries who took the wash.
I would make the suggestion, again, that your ruling in this case is in error, and I don't mean it intentionally, Mr. Chair. I just don't think the ruling applies. Hopefully, other members—