Finance Committee on Dec. 13th, 2021

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

All right. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't jumping the gun.

We've had this conversation around the table. The government has said that one of the purposes of this bill is to narrow the scope of existing pandemic supports, at least as they were until October, and to focus on particularly hard-hit industries. Of course, one of the big conversations around this table has been about the fact that within those hard-hit industries.... I'm speaking particularly of tourism and hospitality and arts and culture. We know the industries I'm talking about, because they're very clearly laid out in part 1 of the bill. These are the industries for which the government has said the wage subsidy should continue to apply. But workers who don't work for a company that's eligible for the wage subsidy or that sees fit to apply for the wage subsidy, or who work for themselves, don't have access to any kind of financial benefit.

This amendment would simply say that the Canada worker lockdown benefit.... Incidentally, I didn't propose an amendment with a better name than that, one that rolls off the tongue. If anyone has any suggestions, I would be open to such an amendment.

This simply says that people who work in any of those industries that the government already identifies in this bill as requiring exceptional support should be able to qualify for the Canada worker lockdown benefit whether there is a lockdown order in their region or not. It would mean that self-employed workers like independent travel agents, for instance, or some of the folks we've been talking about in the arts and cultural sector, or those who don't work for an employer that would get the wage subsidy under the terms of Bill C-2 would be able to apply directly for $300 a week of support under the Canada worker lockdown benefit program.

That's what this amendment would accomplish.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

I will give you my ruling that this amendment is inadmissible. Again, here's my reason for it. Bill C-2 provides for further support in response to COVID-19 with the lockdown benefit available to people meeting the criteria established in the bill. The amendment attempts to allow the lockdown benefit to be accessed under specific circumstances even if a lockdown has not been called.

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 lockdown benefit that would make it available to people not presently eligible under the bill, which would impose a higher charge on the public treasury than the one contemplated in the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

If I may, Mr. Chair....

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

In this case, I'll have to respectfully disagree. The amendment doesn't modify anything outside of the bill itself. As legislators, what are we here to do if not to perhaps propose some changes to the qualifying rules for the program?

The amendment doesn't go outside of the bill in order to establish this new criterion. It simply says that workers in sectors that are already outlined within the bill itself would be eligible for this. We all know that these are workers who don't qualify under the wage subsidy. If they did qualify under the wage subsidy, they wouldn't be able to access the worker lockdown benefit, because they would have employment income, and you can't do that. You can't access the worker lockdown benefit unless you've lost employment income.

I don't know what the role of a legislator is if we can't talk meaningfully about modifying the criteria of the program that the government is laying out in legislation. Of course, there may well be a financial consequence to this, but it's only as a consequence of better defining certain program criteria. I mean, that has to be what we're here to do. Otherwise, it's just rubber-stamping what the government has already decided; it doesn't admit any kind of amendment.

Because this is crafted in such a way as to only appeal to criteria within the act, I would dispute that it needs a royal recommendation. This is really just about modifying the criteria of access to the program within the considerations that are already within the bill. I would appeal to my colleagues on the committee to agree with me and overturn your ruling, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. Blaikie, I will go to the clerk for a vote on the challenge to the chair's ruling.

I have Monsieur Ste-Marie.

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

Can we discuss the chair's ruling or do we have to vote on it right away?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Monsieur Ste-Marie, there cannot be debate on a challenge to the chair.

The legislative clerk would like to help with providing an answer to Mr. Blaikie.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To your point, Mr. Blaikie, in terms of the royal recommendation, the amount of money counts, of course, when it goes up and there is more money coming out of the CRF, but also, the terms and conditions under which the money is spent count as well. Sometimes you can have a situation where there is not any more money coming out of the treasury but the way the money comes out of the treasury is different, and that would also require a new royal recommendation. That's where the problem is here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Far be it from me to get into debate, Mr. Chair, but one does wonder. We've had private members' bills that do many things, and some of them obviously need royal recommendations. I know that I wasn't able to get a royal recommendation for extending—

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I have Mr. Beech on point of order.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I just wanted to ask a question. I might be unclear on the rules. My colleague Daniel knows more about this stuff than I do, but there was a challenge to the ruling of the chair. Are we not supposed to proceed directly to a vote, or is that something we should be discussing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, you are correct.

We will proceed, Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk]

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

The ruling is sustained.

Shall clause 5 carry?

(Clause 5 agreed to on division)

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Is that the last clause of the bill other than clause 1?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That was clause 5.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Is there a clause 6 to come?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There is a clause 6.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I want to have a recorded division on at least one of the clauses, Mr. Chair. I didn't want to miss the opportunity to have a recorded division on at least one of them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Sure.

We don't have any amendments before us now from clause 6 to clause 17. I ask for the unanimous consent of the group to move all of these amendments at one time, in one grouping.

(Clauses 6 to 17 inclusive agreed to on division)

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chair, if I may....

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, Mr. Blaikie.