Mr. Chair, I have a question.
Evidence of meeting #9 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mclean.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #9 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mclean.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Should we be going clause by clause and considering amendments as we go along, or are we now just gathering all the amendments before we go clause by clause? Is it possible for us to just continue with the clause-by-clause and consider amendments as we go along?
Conservative
Legislative Clerk
We were in between clauses. Since we just stood clause 1, we are in between clause 1 and the next clause.
I had a question for Mr. Blaikie, because somebody has to draft the amendment in the background. Since it wasn't clear that there was another amendment, to NDP-4, that was my question for Mr. Blaikie.
Mr. McLean jumped in between to provide another amendment that would be considered after 10 p.m. if we don't get to clause 18 before that.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
On a point of order, I don't think we can consider any amendments after 10 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
I asked Mr. Beech two days ago if the amendments in the package would be considered after 10 p.m., and the answer was yes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We'll move forward.
We already voted on clauses 2 to 4. We grouped them by unanimous consent, and I believe they passed on division.
That takes us to new clause 4.1 and NDP-5.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Chair, this amendment, again, addresses the issue of the guaranteed income supplement clawback, but it also introduces language that would prevent the clawback on the Canada child benefit, in addition to the guaranteed income supplement.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
There is no further discussion.
Mr. Blaikie, I will now give my ruling. This amendment is inadmissible, and here's my reason for it.
Bill C-2 provides for further support in response to COVID-19. The amendment seeks to remove several amounts or benefits from the calculation of taxpayers' income for the purpose of determining their eligibility for a benefit that is based on their income when these amounts or benefits are presently taken into account. 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, the amendment is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill and that would also require royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
For reasons that I elaborated on earlier, I'm not exactly satisfied with the ruling, but I do recognize that we did already have a challenge to the chair on this point in relation to the benefit clawback, so I don't intend to challenge you again. I think the committee made its will clear on that point.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you very much, Mr. Blaikie.
From here, we are moving to clause 5.
(On clause 5)
We have NDP-6, which is on page 7 of the package.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Early on in the pandemic I think many Canadians felt that $2,000 a month—$500 a week—was a very sensible amount. Since July, when the government unilaterally reduced the amount from $2,000 to $1,200—a 40% decrease in the amount of the benefit—anyone who's been trying to live on $1,200 a month knows that it's just woefully inadequate.
If the government actually wants to plausibly claim it's trying to deliver meaningful help to people, I think it's important that the benefit amount correspond to that. That's why I'm moving this amendment on behalf of the NDP, to raise the lockdown benefit amount from $300 a week to $500 a week.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.
Is there any discussion on this?
I will give you my ruling. This amendment is inadmissible, and here is my reason for it.
Bill C-2 provides for further support in response to COVID-19 in the amount of $300 weekly as part of the lockdown benefit. The amendment attempts to increase this amount to $500 weekly.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following 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 proposes a new, superior amount for the lockdown benefit, which imposes a charge on the public treasury higher than the one contemplated in the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I do understand there is a royal recommendation required for this one. It's a pretty clear-cut case of raising the amount of an expenditure by the Crown. I wish that people could take your ruling to the bank and pay their bills with it. Of course, they can't. I think it's unfortunate that we have a holdover from the days when the king would requisition money to spend on himself and that legislators in 21st-century Canada can't make sensible proposals to help people, but I accept your ruling in this case.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm happy to motivate this amendment.
Sorry, do I have the floor?
