Finance Committee on June 4th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

No, I don't take it personally, but the ruling has been challenged.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 124)

Now we're at CPC-14.

MP Lawrence.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

This is a furtherance of our suite of amendments meant to give relief to taxpayers and to artisans across the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

Members, if CPC-14 is adopted, CPC-15 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we're at CPC-15.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I will move and motivate this.

Once again, Conservatives believe that the affordability crisis, inflation, the cost of housing and the carbon tax have driven up the costs of nearly everything, so when given the opportunity, Conservatives will continue to fight for lower prices on everything, from beer to eggs to housing and all parts in between.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Shall CPC-15 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 124 agreed to on division.)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Now we're at new clause 125.1 and CPC-16.

MP Lawrence, would you like to move this?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I will move that.

This is yet another effort by the worker bees of Parliament to reduce the burden on Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

We have a ruling on this. Bill C-69 amends several acts, including the Excise Act, 2001, to add inflationary adjustment clauses. The amendment seeks to establish new amounts of fines related to certain alcohol offences. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, this addition is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Now we are at new clause 130.1 and CPC-17.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Once again, this is just a furtherance on reducing taxes on Canadians, so we'll move it. You never know. We might get a change of heart there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, shall CPC-17 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we're at CPC-18.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I move CPC-18.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

If you're not going to speak to that, MP Morantz, we'll go right to the vote.

Shall CPC-18 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 147)

We are now at CPC-19, if the member would like to move it.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Do you want to move it?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I'll move CPC-19.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Morantz.

I do have a ruling for that, which I can give you.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Can I give my commentary before you do?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Do you want to give a very short—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

It will be very short.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. Go ahead.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

There has been some debate with respect to the carbon tax over the last couple of years. The Conservatives look forward to a carbon tax election where we can, once and for all, put the carbon tax to bed and make life more affordable for Canadians again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

I'll give my ruling now.

Bill C-69 amends several acts, including the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, by providing authority, in certain circumstances, for the sharing of certain information amongst federal officials and for the public disclosure of certain information by the Minister of National Revenue. The amendment seeks to repeal the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act in its entirety.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771:

...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.

Since the sections of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act being repealed by the amendment are not amended by Bill C-69, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I would like to challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There is a challenge to my ruling.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

(Clause 147 agreed to)

(On clause 156)

Now we are moving to clause 156 and amendment CPC-20.

Would you like to move CPC-20?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Yes, we'll move CPC-20.

Along with the NDP, I believe, we have a series of amendments there to enhance this benefit to be more inclusive. We believe in the inherent importance of family physician assistants. Of course, they often do much of the difficult work of making sure we get better, so we believe the benefits bestowed in this clause should include family physician assistants.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

Now I'll give you my ruling.

Bill C-69 amends several acts, including the Canada Student Loans Act. The amendment seeks to add “family physician assistant” to the list of people who would be eligible for student loan forgiveness.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

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.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment alters the terms and conditions of the initial royal recommendation, thereby imposing a charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. This ruling also applies to amendment CPC-21, since it is consequential.

Members, I will move to NDP-1.

MP Davies, would you like to move this amendment?