Evidence of meeting #52 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clauses.
A video is available from Parliament.
8:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The interpreters are having difficulty picking you up. Do you want to give your mike a little test with the clerk?
Alexandre, could you test that mike and see if we can get better sound quality?
8:10 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Alexandre Roger
Hello, Ms. Damsbaek.
If you go on the bottom left mute and unmute button, there's an arrow pointing up. Do you see that?
8:10 p.m.
Director, Policy and Research, Canada Student Loans Program, Learning Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
I do not, but that might be because I'm on an Apple tablet.
8:10 p.m.
The Clerk
Right. That's why.
You were tapping your mike. Can you tap it again? We didn't hear anything.
At this point—I was looking with the IT ambassador in the room—there's not much we can do, Mr. Chair, because usually we asked for a wired headset. However, I see that she has earbuds. Those usually work better than Bluetooth, so perhaps if she tries those?
8:10 p.m.
Director, Policy and Research, Canada Student Loans Program, Learning Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Why don't I switch?
Are you receiving me better now?
8:10 p.m.
The Clerk
I have hands up in the air by the interpreters, which I think is a big difference. Thank you very much.
8:10 p.m.
Director, Policy and Research, Canada Student Loans Program, Learning Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Terrific.
8:15 p.m.
Director, Policy and Research, Canada Student Loans Program, Learning Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
I'll perhaps just back up momentarily to reiterate why I think it is wise to consider these together. The context at the time of drafting these amendments means we are now at a place in time in which we can narrow it down to exactly how three pieces of these amendments will have the effect of enacting the waiver of interest accrual on Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans.
I was indicating that members of this committee may recall that an initial one-year interest-free period was announced in the fall economic statement. Budget 2021 announced an extension on that initial waiver of interest accrual for one year, so these amendments in Bill C-30 were being drafted at the time when Bill C-14 , the act to implement provisions of the economic statement, had not yet received royal assent. In effect, what is now having the effect of implementing a two-year interest-free period is three subclauses of clause 267, which are the coordinating amendments, specifically subclauses 267(2), 267(5) and 267(8), which will modify the new provisions in the three acts governing Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans.
Those new provisions were created by Bill C-14 and will be replaced with the new language that makes the one-year interest-free period a two-year interest-free period, such that no students or apprentices would see interest accrue on their loans starting in April of this year and ending in March 2023.
I will pause there and be happy to take any questions.
8:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, I don't see any questions.
We will go to amendment NDP-11 on clause 264.
Peter, the floor is yours.
June 1st, 2021 / 8:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
As I mentioned earlier, grouping all three amendments will also have an impact on clause 267, so what I will be doing is proposing all three amendments. To enact the amendments if they passed, of course we would be voting down clause 267.
The three amendments propose that the interest waiver be made permanent, and as you know, Mr. Chair, we're all aware across the country of how hard hit students have been through this pandemic. Student debt has been increasing. Students are very hard-pressed to keep up, and they are paying interest on the loans that they have undertaken, so, given the student debt crisis and the size and scope of the struggle students have had during the course of the pandemic, what these three amendments do is propose that the interest waiver be permanent for both, starting on April 1, 2021—a couple of months ago—in all three of the pieces of legislation.
Amendment NDP-11 proposes that the interest waiver be made permanent for the Canada Student Loans Act. Amendment NDP-12 proposes that, for the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, the waiver be permanent beginning on April 1. Then amendment NDP-13 proposes that, for the Apprentice Loans Act, the interest waiver be made permanent.
Given the size and scope of the student debt crisis, this is a thoughtful and smart way of starting to address what is chronic student debt, doing that and stopping the process of the federal government basically benefiting through interest payments and interest charges from students having to indebt themselves to get the higher education that we all want them to have.
That is why I am moving these three amendments as a package, and if the committee supports that, we would also have to vote down clause 267.
8:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. I do have a chair's ruling on this, Mr. Julian, which I think you were expecting.
On Bill C-30, I'll read the one for clause 264 first. The other rulings on the other two amendments are basically the same, only with different acts.
Bill C-30 seeks to amend the Canada Student Loans Act to temporarily suspend interest and interest payments with respect to guaranteed student loans during the period that begins on April 1, 2021, and ends on March 31, 2023. The amendment attempts to suspend interest and interest payments by a borrower for an indeterminate period of time that begins on April 1, 2021, therefore extending the time the government would assume the payment of interest to the lender, which would result in increasing payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed is inadmissible as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury.
That relates to NDP-11.
The same wording, basically, relates to NDP-12, as it deals with the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. It would be the same wording for NDP-13 on clause 266 as it relates to the Apprentice Loans Act.
On all three, I rule them inadmissible based on the need for a royal recommendation, since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury.
8:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, as I mentioned when we started this process last week, there were some amendments where I believed we needed to challenge the traditional government purview on a royal recommendation.
As you'll recall, I mentioned last Thursday that with the famous Jack Layton budget, what the government did at the time, because they wanted to stave off an election, was to allow the royal recommendation. They basically allowed the budget to be recrafted, because at the time the Paul Martin government saw the thoughtfulness of the Jack Layton amendments—
8:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes. I'll just finish briefly. I haven't taken a lot of airtime over the last couple of days.
Given that it is the historical ability of the finance committee, with the government being pressed to provide a royal recommendation, I will appeal your decision to the committee, and the committee can decide whether they choose to overrule your decision and ultimately adopt these amendments. That, of course, increases pressure on the government to do the right thing and provide the royal recommendation.
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
All right.
I will ask the clerk to go to a recorded vote on the chair's ruling.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)
(Clauses 264 to 267 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 268)
Thank you very much, Ms. Damsbaek. That was much appreciated.
We will turn, then, to division 31 and first nations elections. There is only one clause.
We'll go to Christopher Duschenes.
Does there need to be an explanation on this? I guess we had better. We might as well.
Go ahead.
8:20 p.m.
Christopher Duschenes Director General, Economic Policy Development, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indigenous Services
It will be quick. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The health and safety of first nations has been the primary concern of Indigenous Services and our minister since the outbreak of the pandemic. A wide range of efforts have been made with first nations to ensure the health and safety of their membership is protected.
In March of 2020, it became clear that there were no regulatory provisions to allow chiefs and councils to postpone or cancel their elections, thus no way to avoid community gatherings during the electoral process and thus potentially exposing members to COVID.
As a result, regulations were put in place to allow chiefs and councils to postpone their elections. These regulations are entitled, as you mentioned, the first nations election cancellation and postponement regulations, regarding prevention of diseases. These regulations have been very well received and used since they came into force in April 2020.
However, the legislative base on which they sit has been questioned. This clause simply serves to retroactively validate these regulations to ensure that they are valid and that the community government decisions made pursuant to these regulations are not put into question.
Thank you very much.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you very much, Mr. Duschenes.
We're on page 286 of the bill, for those who are following on the bill.
It's Mr. Fast first and then Ms. Jansen.
8:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Is this clause time limited? It's focused on one particular regulatory measure that is effectively being fixed after the fact.
8:25 p.m.
Director General, Economic Policy Development, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indigenous Services
The regulations themselves were time limited. The first set of regulations was for six months, and they have been extended to October, 2021. This piece of the budget implementation act is not time limited.
My colleagues, Yves Denoncourt, the director of government operations, and Karl Jacques from the Department of the Justice, are in the waiting room if there's anything more technical.
The regulations are for a very specific purpose and are time limited. This clause in the budget implementation act is more general.
8:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
This is the second time today that we've dealt with a regulation that was passed and had to be fixed after the fact through legislation. I'm concerned that the government not get into the habit of doing this. I recognize there were emergent circumstances in which this happened. I understand. It's probably justifiable, but this cannot be a practice that the government gets into.