Finance Committee on June 4th, 2024

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes. Similar to the amendments moved by my friend Mr. Lawrence, I think the fate of this is foreshadowed, but I'll just motivate it very quickly.

The NDP believes that occupational therapists should be added to the student loan forgiveness program for underserved rural or remote communities along with other allied health professionals. Occupational therapists are in just as short supply. Their services are just as valued, and the principles and purposes of the forgiveness program apply, in our view, as strongly to occupational therapists as they do to the other groups the government has listed. That's why we would ask they be added.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

I will now give my ruling.

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

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. The ruling also applies to amendment NDP-2 since it is consequential.

(Clause 156 agreed to)

(Clause 157 agreed to)

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

Was there not an amendment for that one?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

No.

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

Was it not CPC-21?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

They were eliminated because of CPC-20.

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

Did it eliminate all of them?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

If CPC-20 did not pass, then CPC-21 was eliminated. It was the same thing with NDP-1. NDP-2 was also taken out.

(On clause 158)

Now we're at CPC-22.

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

Given your earlier ruling, Conservatives would withdraw, with unanimous consent, CPC-22 and CPC-23.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You can decide not to move them, MP Lawrence.

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

Okay. We'll just not move them then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You have decided not to move them. Okay.

Members, you can always decide not to move something when it comes up.

Now we are NDP-3.

MP Davies, go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, given your previous ruling, we will not be moving that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you

(Clause 158 agreed to on division)

Shall clause 160 carry?

In your notes, it may say CPC-23 and NDP-4, but again, because of what just happened, the amendments were consequential to CPC-22. That's why we don't have CPC-23 any longer. There was also an amendment that was consequential to NDP-3, so that's why we do not have NDP-4 now.

(Clause 160 agreed to on division)

(On clause 197)

Members, we are at clause 197. This is NDP-5.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will move this and speak briefly to it.

This is an amendment recommended by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which represents our hard-working and talented civil servants in Canada. Essentially, the legislation as it's currently drafted only requires that the minister consult with the Minister of National Defence if the amount that is recalled from the pension investment board to the consolidated revenue fund is in relation to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. Also, the minister has to consult the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness if the amount is in relation to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

The NDP's amendment would require that, when an amount is recalled from the Public Sector Pension Investment Board to the consolidated revenue fund in certain circumstances currently defined under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act—you'll notice the addition of that—and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the bargaining agents who represent the employees covered by pension plans under those acts be consulted.

In short, obviously, pensions and pension management are very important to workers. Frankly, pension contributions are very often exclusively, or at least in large part, the employee's deferred salary. It's their money. This would simply require that, if there's a recall of funds from the pension boards to the consolidated revenue fund, their bargaining agents at least be consulted about that. Their approval is not required, and there will not be extensive negotiations, but they should be consulted, in our view.

I would move that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

I have MP Ste-Marie and PS Turnbull.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Davies for proposing this entirely reasonable amendment, which required more information and consultation. I'm going to vote for his amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Ste-Marie.

I have PS Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I just wanted to express our concerns with regard to this amendment as written. I made Mr. Davies aware of these comments in relation to this.

Bargaining agents already have a role as part of the public sector pension plan advisory committee and are required to be consulted on matters such as setting the contribution rates and the handling of non-permitted surpluses. This would add the requirement that every time the government recalls funds to pay for member benefits, it consults with the bargaining agents. This would go against the spirit of the measure, which is intended to clarify the administrative process. We think it would add significant new steps to it.

For those reasons, we'll be opposing it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, PS Turnbull.

Is there anyone else? Shall NDP-5 carry?

(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 197 agreed to on division)

(On clause 198)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, we're at clause 198 and CPC-24.

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

I'll move that, Mr. Chair.

This has been raised within the fintech industry and by other financial institutions. There's a concern that there is an omission for small businesses within the framework for open banking. We sought to add clarity through this amendment and would encourage all members to vote for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

Is there any further debate?

PS Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

In view of the time, I know the Conservatives have put forward a whole package of amendments related to the consumer-driven banking framework. I'm glad to see they're supportive of a regime that we're intending to stand up.

Consumer-driven banking enables consumers to securely use data-driven financial services that can help them better manage their finances and improve their financial outcomes. For example, through consumer-driven banking, people could access services that allow them to build their credit by reporting their on-time rental payments to credit bureaus, thereby making it easier to qualify for a mortgage, which is something we've proposed in our housing strategy.

However, the amendments proposed by the Conservatives are, in some cases, unnecessary and, in others, damaging to the framework we're bringing forward. For example, this amendment attempts to include small businesses in the framework, despite the fact that the bill already notes that “consumers”, for the purposes of the bill, includes small businesses.

For that reason, we're opposed to the whole package.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, PS Turnbull.

I have MP Ste-Marie and then we'll go to this. After that, we'll suspend because we have question period coming up.

MP Ste-Marie.