How many more?
Evidence of meeting #38 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #38 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
I would have to provide this number by Wednesday—if that number is changing.
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Seeing no further interventions, are we ready for the question?
Go ahead, Mr. Doherty.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, my question to you would be whether you see any infringement on the financial authority of the government through this if we're going to increase it. Would you rule this inadmissible?
Again, I'm just asking for the chair's ruling on that. Would it be inadmissible, because there could potentially be another financial cost?
9:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I don't. If I did, I would have ruled it inadmissible, but I don't.
Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.
9:45 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Maybe I can jump in on that.
Based on the answer from Ms. Leblanc, I think one assumption that a person could make is that the government's projection of 95% of the population who qualify and who would apply within the 90-day period might be a high estimation. It may be that 95% would not make it, so giving a 120-day period for people to apply may well mean that 95% of the people would be able to make it. Maybe it will be 96%. I don't know.
I think the estimation is already a very robust number. I fear that 90 days means that some of those seniors I talked about and some of those people with language barriers would not make it into the 95%.
That's perhaps the reason there is little implication in terms of additional cost. It's possible. I don't know.
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Thank you, Ms. Kwan and Mr. Chair.
I am not disagreeing with Ms. Kwan. As with the previous ones, all I am saying is that there should be a financial consideration, regardless of the fact that this committee cannot impose upon or infringe upon the government.
Again, we know this is going to pass, so we should go to the vote. We'll have the discussion, hopefully, and the witnesses can provide us with details on 90 days and 120 days.
It's the reason I brought it up when the minister was here. What happens if somebody misses it or isn't able to get their application in within the 90 days? It makes perfectly good sense in terms of getting your tax return back or filing it and, hopefully, getting it back in time to be able to apply for this.
9:45 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Thanks.
I don't profess to have technical knowledge on this, but I suspect the 95% target is the same.
However, as Ms. Kwan says, it allows individuals greater time to get to that same end. If there is an analogy that resonates with Dr. Ellis, I think it would be like vaccine uptake. There are only so many people who will come forward—5% probably will not—but it gives those individuals more time to get to that goal.
9:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Seeing no further interventions, are we ready for the question? Shall NDP-3 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Ms. Kwan, do you have a further amendment to clause 3 of the bill?
9:45 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I do, Mr. Chair. Seeing as I'm on a roll, let me give this one a try.
I asked the minister earlier about potentially extending this program beyond this year, in the anticipation that the cost of living will continue to increase and people will continue to struggle with their ability to make ends meet. To that end, the intention of this amendment is to allow the minister to issue another payment after the application period to provide additional support to Canadians who need assistance without going through the legislative process.
9:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Ms. Kwan.
Part 2 of Bill C-31 enacts the rental housing benefit act, which provides for the establishment of a one-time rental housing benefit for eligible persons who have paid rent in 2022 for their principal residence and who apply for the benefit. The amendment proposes, in clause 3, to add a new section, section 6.1, which would allow for the new rental housing benefit to be paid out in more than one year.
As 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.
The document further 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 goes beyond the scope of the bill, which only provides for a one-time payment of the rental housing benefit. In addition, by providing subsequent payment, the amendment would impose a greater charge on the treasury.
Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible
9:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Ms. Kwan challenges the chair.
The question for the committee is whether the chair's ruling shall be sustained.
(Ruling of the chair sustained)
The chair's ruling is sustained.
Seeing no further amendments to clause 3, the question is now on clause 3 as amended by NDP-1, NDP-2 and NDP-3.
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 4 to 7 inclusive agreed to on division)
Shall the short title carry?
9:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:50 p.m.
An hon. member
On division.
9:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:50 p.m.
An hon. member
On division.
9:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:50 p.m.
An hon. member
On division.
9:50 p.m.
Liberal