It is coming up.
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.
9:20 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I'm just excited. I know everyone else is, and I didn't want people to miss the opportunity to hear about it.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Shall clause 19 carry?
(Clause 19 agreed to on division)
That brings us to new clause 19.1 and NDP-8.
Mr. Blaikie, go ahead.
9:20 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This amendment simply stipulates that for folks who are being asked to repay CERB amounts, if they're already under the low-income measure, which is the measure that determines whether somebody is living in poverty or not, they wouldn't be entitled to repay pandemic benefits, up to the low-income measure. Any income they have above the low-income measure would be clawed back at a rate of 50¢ on the dollar. That would at least allow people to hang on to enough income to meet the poverty line, which isn't a lot of income but makes a big difference in people's lives.
When we talk about people who have committed fraud.... There's been a lot of talk about the FINTRAC report. Obviously, one of the features of the reporting out of FINTRAC was that in many of the cases that were identified there were people who were receiving CERB payments under a number of different names into the same account, for instance. These are people who are going to get well above the low-income measure.
Some of their victims don't. For example—and we talked about this example before—folks went into a seniors home, signed up a bunch of seniors and took 10% or 20% of their CERB payment. Those seniors were taken advantage of and they didn't realize what was going on. They're not necessarily in a position to repay the money. We're just saying that those folks who were taken advantage of should only have to pay money back on what they have above the poverty line so that they're not becoming homeless in order to repay that debt.
We heard from Campaign 2000 about the importance of a CERB low-income repayment amnesty. We know that this is affecting a lot of folks who are legitimately in a tough situation. I've raised, on many occasions, the situation of foster kids who graduated out of care in Manitoba. They were told by the provincial government that they had to apply for CERB and they got it. These are some of the folks who would benefit from a measure like this.
It was a huge oversight of legislation designed to structure Canada's recovery that those folks are getting left behind. This is an attempt to make sure that they're not left behind and that they are included in the fundamental recovery framework that the government is advancing.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Mr. Blaikie, I will now give you my ruling that this amendment is inadmissible, and here is my reason for this.
Bill C-2 provides for further support in response to COVID-19. The amendment attempts to create a mechanism allowing people who have received certain benefits they are not entitled to to reimburse 50% of the amount instead of the full amount, as provided in the respective acts. If adopted, the amendment would force the government to reimburse people who have already paid back any amount above the 50% threshold from the consolidated revenue fund.
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 scheme for the reimbursement of payments of benefits unduly received, which would impose an increased charge on the public treasury not envisioned in the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
9:25 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
What I would say is this. We know that typically you don't need a royal recommendation for the Crown to forgo revenue. For instance, if I wanted to present a private member's bill that would raise the corporate tax rate from 15% to 16%, that wouldn't be allowed. I'd need a royal recommendation for that, because that would be revenue coming in. If I wanted to propose a private member's bill reducing the corporate tax rate from 15% to 14%, I could do that, because that would be reducing the amount of revenue that the Crown brings in.
In this case, on a low-income CERB repayment amnesty, it's about forgoing revenue, in that people who would have to pay something back would no longer have to pay it back. The perversity is that because some people already paid some of that money back.... Again, we're talking about the destitute. I'm waiting for a conversation to happen like the one we had around dividends, where everyone rushed to defend the complexity and the hardships of companies. I'm looking forward to that conversation, which is no doubt about to happen.
These are folks who are already in dire straits, and because some of the most well-meaning people would stand to benefit under this by perhaps having a bit of a reimbursement.... However, that's not explicit in the amendment. It doesn't explicitly create a requirement to repay those folks. I agree that, as a matter of justice, this would be important, but it's not what the amendment does; it's only implied. It would be a government decision to reimburse those funds. They wouldn't be legally required, which is why I think the substance of this amendment is about forgoing revenue; it's not about repaying revenue. The last part of your ruling is an interpretation that says that the government would be obligated to repay those who have already repaid. I might think that's a good idea—I do think that's a good idea—but I don't think it's a legal obligation stemming from this amendment.
Now here we are, because some people have put themselves in an even worse financial position because they're honest and they're trying to repay some of that money. We're in a position where we're being told that we can't do what we can normally do, which is to have a proposal that would see the Crown forgo some revenue. That's why I think.... Well, I don't think you are perverse, Mr. Chair, and I don't think that perversity is the intention of your ruling, but there is something perverse about it. We're being told that we are denying help to people for a reason that I just think is rather convoluted and rests on the fact that people have been acting in good faith to try to meet what I take to be an unreasonable requirement of the government in the first place.
It's on that basis that I would challenge your ruling, Mr. Chair.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.
I go to the clerk for a vote on the challenge to the chair's ruling.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6, nays 5)
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Mr. Poilievre also has an amendment at this same place, new clause 19.1.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it's 9:31 p.m. Don't we have a directive to go back?
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Yes. This is to go back to your clause, Mr. Blaikie, at 9:30 p.m.
Yes, we do have that. We will go back to clause 1.
(On clause 1)
Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.
9:30 p.m.
NDP
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Do we have a proposal from the legislative drafters, from Ms. D'Souza?
9:30 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Yes, we do. I'm just going to send it to my colleague. Since I don't have the distribution list, he will—
9:30 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
That's right.
Mr. Chair, the email you will receive from the clerk is a draft for NDP-3. If the language is adopted by the committee, they will draft something similar for NDP-4.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Well, first we're waiting for it to be distributed. It's coming to our P9s, I believe.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Chair, can I suggest that we take a two-minute break, just a bio break? Is that okay? We're working right to the end.
Okay, we'll suspend for a couple of minutes and for distribution.
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
This meeting is called back to order. I hope members have received Ms. D'Souza's work on drafting or redrafting Mr. Blaikie's NDP-3.
