Finance Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The consolidated revenue fund is actually the backstop. That's where you get to.

Mr. MacKinnon.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The chair has been challenged. Does anybody want to call the question?

[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?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Could we...?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I call the question.

[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.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Liepert.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Could you reread your ruling for me, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes.

Are there officials who want to come to the floor to answer that question?

[A voice]

I'm not sure.

[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.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That's all it requires.

Mr. Duvall.

[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”?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

You have full control.

[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.

[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—