Health Committee on Oct. 24th, 2022

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, the costly coalition in the House joined forces and created a guillotine clause and forced their way through giving us a set of shackles here at this committee as to how we could proceed.

I think it is very unfair and disingenuous for Dr. Powlowski to say that it was them. “Them” is us. We are all members of Parliament who got to vote on that piece. We can't just pass off the buck. I'd be curious to know exactly how you voted. Wait, I already know how you voted. So you did vote for that guillotine motion. On this side of the horseshoe, we did not vote for the guillotine motion. But if you're so opposed to it, next time a guillotine motion comes up, you can vote against it.

I want to be exceptionally clear that what is being suggested by Ms. Kwan brings up some valid points. I think there are a lot of misconceptions when someone's rent includes room and board. What exactly is room and board? Room and board is not as defined by how much food it is and what meals it includes as it might have been perhaps 50 years ago. I think the substance of this amendment is actually a valid argument to be having and a worthwhile debate, because I know for many people their rent contract says they get room and board, but in actuality they might receive a continental breakfast and part of a dinner and no lunch. I do believe that there is some conversation that should be had around that.

However, the fact that we don't know what this cost is going to mean to Canadians, and that we're not going to have an opportunity to hear from the Parliamentary Budget Officer to see what the difference in cost is, I think just shows another space where this government would rather work in secret than out in the sunshine. It's said that sunshine is the best disinfectant, and yet this coalition is committed, in this bill, to removing as much sunshine as humanly possible and allowing this to stay in the shadows and darkness, as we're debating it, in darkness, at 9:15 at night.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Doherty, go ahead.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, if you will indulge me, I just want to speak to Ms. Kwan's intervention a few minutes ago.

Could you please read the standing order on page 772 and then cede the floor back to me so that I can explain what my argument is?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

It isn't really the Standing Orders, but on page 772, the passage that I quoted in my ruling was as follows:

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.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was not saying, Ms. Kwan, that through your work you are somehow skirting the rules and skirting the issues. Where I took offence to this is that the amendment that you're suggesting will come.... Again, I think I said in my preamble that I'm not doubting that there are people in your riding or in my riding who could benefit from what you are suggesting. However, I fail to see how seven members of this committee can commit the government to this financial commitment that you're suggesting.

There will be more. You said the intent was to increase the eligibility, which means more people. I'm not disputing that there will probably be people who are doing that. I just fail to see how we, as a committee, can do that. It will have to be debated. Where I took offence to it was.... It was like the deal was already done. We just had three rulings previously—or two at the very least—for Mr. Garon under the exact same ruling as to why it was ruled inadmissible.

We know this is going to pass, or it has already. We'll have our day on Thursday. Where I took offence to it, again, was not.... It was not that you usurped the rules or bypassed the rules, as you suggested. Conservatives are not against people getting benefits. It was the fact that you and your colleagues across the way have rammed this down, and you committed the government without any further discussion or any review as to what that cost is going be for the government.

I've never seen a piece of legislation like this before, where this has taken place, in the seven years that I've been a member of Parliament. As a matter of fact, it's always been ruled out, as the chair—rightly so—ruled it inadmissible. That challenge would take place. Obviously, I think democracy took place at that time. We're seeing a little bit of a different bent now. So be it. We'll have our day in the House on Thursday, where we'll bring this up again. For Canadians who are listening in, I think we'll see that the deal is done.

Mr. Chair, we have three pages left to go on this. We already know on this side that any of the comments we're going to make are going to be voted against. I would just say that we leave it at this, and it's time to move on. We know that the deal is already done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Ellis, go ahead.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

Part of democracy is that we all get to have our say. There are rules to be followed—understood.

I think there are two parts: One is transparency and one is about the spirit of the rules. I'll speak to transparency first.

Even though we've talked a lot about perhaps seven people in this room making this decision, we know that's not necessarily the way it is. I don't for one second believe—and no disrespect to many of my colleagues on the other side of the horseshoe—that they dreamt this up and then suddenly said that this is a great thing just this evening: “We should actually support this. That's something I never heard before. Let's do that, and let's move forward as a group. Let's not even talk about it on our side. Let's just use our telepathy to understand that this is what we should be doing.” We all know this is not true, and that points back to the lack of transparency of the costly coalition as well.

We've heard before in the House of Commons about this great and transparent government, how they were going to be the most transparent government in the history of governments in the entire world. Once again, we know this is just not true. That's a falsehood, and I will say that.

There is no way that this happened this evening. There was no discussion on that side amongst them, and I don't believe for a second that they all have telepathy. I don't believe that. I could be wrong, but I don't believe that for one second, and I don't think they share their telepathy with Ms. Kwan. I don't believe that's true. I'm open to challenge on that. If any of you have telepathy, please let me know. I would like to speak to you about it, because it would be a neat superpower to have.

That being said, we know there's clearly a lack of transparency here. We know that the costly coalition, guided by the PMO, had input into this. As my great colleague pointed out, this was a foregone conclusion. I would suggest that this is, again, a banana republic that we're looking at—the foolishness coming up next. Please, indulge me and prove me wrong, and I would be happy to retract that. That's no issue.

The other part that is related is about the spirit or the gestalt of what we are to do here. I realize that there are rules. I get it. You like to bend the rules; you like to fiddle with the rules. However, clearly the gestalt of the whole thing—the idea, the spirit—is to understand that these rules should be applied justly and fairly and evenly. We, as parliamentarians, have an opportunity to partake in that in good faith, and to say, “Yes, that makes sense” or “You know what? I haven't done a clause-by-clause review before.”

When the chair brought forward the big book of words, as we might say, and said that this was important, that we can't be meddling with a bill that the government has said is a priority, and how much we're going to pay for it—which we already talked about almost ad nauseam—my colleagues across the way were saying, “Oh, well, it's not that much money.” Well, guess what. If you continue to add to it, your little tiny snowball, as it rolls down the hill, is going to run over your VW Beetle at the bottom. It started off as a snowball that you want to throw at each other, and now we're continuing to add to it willy-nilly, outside the spirit of everything we're here to do. I find that very frustrating.

Yes, I understand: You have your say. You can take it back to the House. You can do this; you can do that. That being said, it's outside the spirit of what we're actually called to do here. What regulations exist to guide us in the deliberations that we have? This is an utter travesty.

Again, it's a sham. It's ridiculous. I think that continuing on in this nature, as I said previously, is an utter waste of House time and resources that we continue to want to talk about being held so dear. I can't believe that my colleagues, with whom we have bargained in good faith—and I thought we were doing great work in this committee previously—continue to be disappointing in their approach.

Obviously, there's a scorched-earth approach, “my way or the highway” or whatever euphemism you'd like to use. That is where we are in this committee, and that is a shame. It's a darn shame. We're lacking transparency. We're lacking the spirit of the rules. When we get to that point, I am unsure of how to move back from the precipice in terms of moving forward as a committee.

I think that should weigh heavily upon my colleagues on the other side of the horseshoe.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Dr. Powlowski.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I don't think we're at a precipice. I think this isn't just a democratic process; this is policy-making in general.

My administrative law professor in law school, Professor Janisch, whom I had a lot of respect for, once said that, if you want in on policy-making, you have to be in early. Don't come once everything is done and want to change things. I think that's true.

Now that this bill has come to us, it's obviously gone through a lot of people, through a whole democratic process already before. It's hard to stop a train that's going full bore and all of a sudden pull the switch on it. That's the reality.

I would say, though, in response to where the democratic process is, that where we can add most to the democratic process is when we have studies and we look into issues, like the health care shortage, and when we're there early and we are part of the early decision-making process. We all have input at that point.

I would also say the things you're saying here, and some of the points.... I'm sad that Mr. Garon is going. What he had to say about having a provincial opt-out made some sense to me.

The democratic process isn't just about this bill, which has already obviously gone way down the road. Part of the democratic process is that the things you say here don't necessarily fall on deaf ears. Perhaps our words aren't totally lost, and we're not just wasting our time here, I would suggest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Kwan, you're next.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, I have a very quick comment, through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Doherty.

It wasn't him who said that what I had done is a sham; rather, it was his colleague Mrs. Goodridge.

Notwithstanding, I think that the rules are being followed here by all members. That—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I, in no way, shape or form, said that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

It's a point of debate, Mrs. Goodridge; it's not a point of order. You're arguing with the submission. If you put your hand up, you'll get a chance to make a full response.

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to prolong this debate. Suffice it to say that this is a process that's afforded to all members of Parliament at this committee. I followed that process. The matter will be referred to the Speaker of the House, and we will see how things unfold.

The government, the minister, will have a chance to look at these amendments. Then they will be able to make a determination. Ultimately for it to go through, it would require a royal recommendation. I am hopeful that some of these things can go through.

You know, Mr. Chair, like so many things we do.... I still remember that back in 2015, when I first came to the House as an elected member of Parliament, the first bill was an immigration bill. I never thought in a thousand years, as an opposition member in a majority government, that I would be able to move an amendment to a government bill, Bill C-6, on immigration. That's exactly what I was able to do. I was floored. I had a say in democracy with some hope that, in opposition, we can make change.

This is what I'm trying to do here now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We have Mr. Doherty, and then Mrs. Goodridge.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I won't keep this any longer, other than to say that your amendment to that bill, Ms. Kwan, probably didn't commit the government to millions upon millions of dollars. It may have, I don't know, but I'll leave it at that. I think I've been very clear on the record as to where I stand with this. I think it's a reasonable amendment. I just don't believe it's for us to do that. I think it's for the minister and cabinet to make those decisions to commit the government.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I just want to ask our witnesses here if they would be able to get us the information on any projected increases in this and what the potential cost could be moving from 75% to 90%, and by what time.

Thank you.

[Nadine Leblanc]

Mr. Chair, we will get that information by the end of this week.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

If at all possible, Ms. Leblanc, as we're set to start debating this again on Thursday, could we have it potentially on Wednesday night?

[Nadine Leblanc]

We will commit to having it by Wednesday night. I just want to reiterate that it is a very subset component that we're talking about. We do believe that the cost will not be substantial. It will be modest. I just wanted to point that out. That was not a question posed, but I wanted to clarify and we will provide that information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mrs. Goodridge, did you wish to intervene?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Yes, and I apologize for my previous point of order that was actually a point of debate. I was not calling what Ms. Kwan was doing a sham. I was simply stating that given the predetermined outcome of the costly coalition between the NDP and the Liberals, who have already determined which amendments they will even allow to have debate and conversation on, this overall bigger-level process is a sham and is broken. I stand by those statements. I was not referring to the specific amendment or the actions of Ms. Kwan. This is much larger. This is the costly coalition's actions at play here.

It's terrifying to me that we are asked to vote on an amendment without having any understanding as to what the costing of this amendment is. I think it is absolutely inappropriate to ask parliamentarians to just trust that we're going to get numbers by Wednesday night. We as parliamentarians are supposed to do our due diligence. How can we in a reasonable space vote for an amendment that we know is going to add cost to the taxpayer, but we don't know how much cost it's going to add? Are we talking about $5 million? Are we talking about $5,000? Are we talking about $50 million? We have no clue. We can't even get a general estimate.

I don't blame the officials here. That goes beyond what would be expected because this was an amendment that was out of scope, so I would assume they probably did not prepare for amendments that were known to be out of scope. It is unfortunate that we're in this position here, debating a space on pieces that we just don't have all of the information to be debating.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That exhausts the speakers list. Is there any further debate in connection with NDP-1?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Colleagues, bearing in mind that we are not allowed to debate after 12 o'clock, I would like the direction of the committee on whether this might be a good spot to take a break for 15 minutes. If you're concerned with losing 15 minutes of debate, we can plow on, but if not, how do people feel about taking a break of about 15 minutes now?

There's no consensus. We're on NDP-2.

Ms. Kwan, do you have another amendment in connection with clause 3?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I do. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Hopefully I won't take too much of the committee's time.

On this amendment.... As the current legislation is written, the legislation assumes that all cohabiting partners have an income and are equally contributing to rent. I fear that this would penalize individuals who are paying larger portions of rent in their circumstances. For example, if only one spouse has an income and is paying 100% of the rent, and the other is not, under this provision they would only be able to claim 50% of their rent.

I think it would be better to change the language to reflect the actual total amount of rent paid by the applicant. Therefore, it's actually a reflection of how much they paid, as opposed to a decision of the 50% number. That's what my amendment speaks to, Mr. Chair, and I would move this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

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 to eliminate, in subclause 4(3), the rule that would reduce the amount of rent taken into account in the calculation of the 30% rent-to-income threshold, set out in paragraph 4(1)(g), paid in 2022 by cohabitating spouses or common-law partners living separately on the reference day.

As has now become common in today's meeting, I am going to cite House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, page 772. It reads:

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 relaxes the eligibility criteria for the rental housing benefit in a manner that would result in a greater charge on the treasury than is provided for in the bill, since more people could have access to the benefit.

I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I will challenge the chair on that one.