Evidence of meeting #59 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lessard.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you, Mr. Chong.
Mr. Lessard, do you have a final word before we hold the vote?
4 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chair, we've said twice that the French text didn't correspond to the English text. If that's the case, I'm going to ask that we suspend our proceedings. Checks must be made.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
On a point of clarification, the present law on the books is not consistent in its English and French versions, so what the proposed legislation here in front of us wants to do is to make that wording consistent in both official languages. That's the purpose of this portion of the bill.
In other words, the existing legislation, while it doesn't have consistent wording, also doesn't put a limitation on the time the government can collect those debts. What you're proposing to do is to place a restriction on the time period the government can collect those debts. That has not been costed out by the government and has financial implications.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I have the list here: Mr. Savage, Mr. Gravel, Ms. Yelich, and then Mr. Lessard.
We're at 30 minutes on this one. We have 22 amendments. We'll be another 11 hours at this pace.
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
February 27th, 2007 / 4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
We'll miss the entire trade deadline, Mr. Chair.
I have one question. Is this amendment in order, Mr. Chair?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
The amendment is in order. So the fact that there might be spending implications is okay.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Legislative counsel has indicated that this particular one is in order.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Suzan Kalinowski Senior Economist, Department of Finance
Yes, just on a point of fact that was mentioned at one of the previous discussions of this bill by one of the witnesses, and that's just to remind committee members that CPP is a federal-provincial program, and changes to the plan require a formal consent process from two-thirds of the provinces.
The two principal amendments to the CPP that are in this bill were put forward by federal-provincial finance ministers. The other proposed amendments in this bill that are of a technical nature were discussed as well with the provinces.
We haven't discussed with the provinces ever these issues of interest, retroactivity limits, etc., so while there may not be financial implications for the central reserve of the government, there certainly would be for the plan. It's an issue that has not been discussed with the provinces, and we may not likely get their consent. I can't speak to that.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay, thank you.
I have on the list Mr. Gravel, Ms. Yelich, and then Mr. Lessard.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Raymond Gravel Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chong said that the bill had been designed to improve the correspondence between the English and French versions of the acts. I understand that very well. However, there's nothing preventing us from improving this bill. That's what we're doing. If we improve the English version as well as the French version, so much the better. This is a bill aimed at senior citizens. In my opinion, these are vulnerable people.
If we're here simply to make the two acts correspond, I think we're wasting our time. As consideration of the bill is conducted, there will be improvements to make, and so much the better. We have the opportunity to do so.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay, thank you, Mr. Gravel.
We're going to move to Ms. Yelich, followed by Mr. Lessard.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
I guess I won't ask what are the potential implications because I'm sure there are lots that have to be assessed, so I just don't ask that. Mainly I want to mention to Mr. Lessard that the Auditor General has, under her observation, also asked us to make improvements to our collection methods. That's solely why this clause is there, besides making it consistent with the languages, which I said at the onset.
I really find this amendment hard to vote on if we don't know the implications. I think there would be serious implications.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay, thank you, Ms. Yelich.
We're going to move to Mr. Lessard for the final comment, hopefully, but we'll soon find out.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
You didn't intend to limit my...
There are things that are hard to understand here. In my opinion, our mandate isn't to study bills—and in this case, this is a government bill—by asking ourselves whether the provinces would or wouldn't agree. We have to make amendments in accordance with the rules specific to the House. For your part, you must tell us whether this is admissible or not.
Today, out of three decisions, two were that it was admissible, which constitutes a majority.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
There were only two. The other one was the House leader's. That was two for two. We're two for two.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
If it's admissible, Mr. Chair, that means it's consistent with our responsibilities.
Furthermore, I don't think that as elected members of the people, in view of the fact that our primary responsibility is to pass the best laws possible, we need to ask ourselves whether this will cause problems for those who will have to administer it. I believe that, with new technologies, including computer technologies, it can be administered.
I was surprised to see that the government—and I tip my hat to the Conservatives on this point—were implementing machine processing in order to enforce certain measures. Things will be even better once that's done. Processing can then be done more quickly.
I'm not going to address the merits of the issue once again, Mr. Chair. That's quite clear. I hope my colleagues here agree to what is in fact a fairness measure. We're talking about weighing in the balance what the government and individuals can respectively do.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you, Mr. Lessard.
We're going to move to Ms. Kalinowski before we have Mr. Chong.
4:10 p.m.
Senior Economist, Department of Finance
Yes, I have just a point of fact. Usually when we go to the provinces after a bill has received royal assent and there are provisions in that bill for which provincial consent is required, we cite those provisions, and we ask for their consent on the entire package of provisions.
So, in general, we don't ask. The changes in the bill go with a package, so it's not “yes to this, no to that”; it's the package of changes.