I'm also hearing an echo. Apparently, that happens a lot when interpretation is done remotely. So I hear myself talking and, I tell you, it is tiring. I'll wait until it's been resolved, Mr. Chair.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Madame Chabot. I'll ask the clerk to speak to that.

3:40 p.m.

The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Ariane Calvert

Members, we did verify, and I did receive confirmation that there is a bit of feedback, but it's within the parameters expected for the remote interpretation program.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON

When did we start having remote interpretation?

3:40 p.m.

The Clerk

My understanding is that the whips made the decision when they came back in 2024.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Seeing no further questions, you have heard clearly the amendment that was proposed by Ms. Zarrillo—

February 26th, 2024 / 3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Mr. Chair, I would still like to make a few comments. So I'm going to talk while hearing myself talking.

It's not that I'm against people having as decent an income as possible, but I just want to remind you of the objective of Bill C‑319. The bill has two parts. The first is about increasing the old age security pension by 10% starting at age 65. We know that this increase was granted to people aged 75 and over. So that's the first objective. The other objective is to increase the amount of income that those who receive the guaranteed income supplement can earn from work without seeing that supplement reduced. That amount had previously gone from $3,500 to $5,000. We are asking in the bill that it be increased from $5,000 to $6,500.

I would remind you that the purpose of this bill is not to require people who receive an old age security pension to work. However, we need to enable those who wish to do so not to be penalized. Sometimes perfection is the enemy of the good.

You will recall that, during the testimony, Ms. Zarrillo asked witnesses if they had any amendments to propose to the bill. However, these witnesses were clear: They want the committee to support Bill C‑319 so that it can go through the steps in the House.

So I am going to vote against Ms. Zarrillo's amendment.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

I see no further.... The amendment has been moved. I gave latitude in some discussion. As chair, I must rule on admissibility, as dictated by House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

Bill C-319 seeks to amend the the Old Age Security Act by raising the exemption for a person's employment income or self-employed earnings that are taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500. The amendment, as proposed by Ms. Zarrillo, attempts to increase further that amount to $13,000, which in turn would provide to some people access to a greater benefit than they would without the increased deduction, creating a new and distinct spending to be drawn from the treasury.

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.

As precedent dictates to me as chair, in light of the advice I received, in my opinion and for the above mentioned reason, the amendment proposes to increase spending related to the old age security benefits, which imposes a charge on the public treasury to a level superior to the one already provided in the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Seeing no further discussion, shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

Shall clause 2 carry?

Mrs. Gray.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before moving on, I'd like to move a motion. This has been circulated following all procedure. I move:

That, given that the Liberal Minister of Housing recently stated, “I think it's a generational moral failure that there are people sleeping without a roof over their head in a country as wealthy as Canada. I will not be able to say with a straight face that I have properly addressed the housing crisis if we still have to walk past people who are sleeping on the streets in Canada,” the committee concur in the minister's remarks and report them to the House.

This should be very simple. It's not asking for extra work on the committee.

Thank you.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

I'm going to stop the discussion at this moment. It's in order. However, as I'm moving from clause to clause, I had already called clause 2. We have to deal with clause 2. After we deal with clause 2, it's in order for you to repeat your motion.

Shall clause 2 carry?

(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Mrs. Gray, you have the floor.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move:

That, given that the Liberal Minister of Housing recently stated, “I think it's a generational moral failure that there are people sleeping without a roof over their head in a country as wealthy as Canada. I will not be able to say with a straight face that I have properly addressed the housing crisis if we still have to walk past people who are sleeping on the streets in Canada,” the committee concur in the minister's remarks and report them to the House.

This should be very easy to deal with here, Mr. Chair. It's not asking for a study by the committee. It is work that can be done in the House of Commons.

Thank you.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Mrs. Gray.

I've been advised that the motion is in order.

Is there any debate on the motion by Mrs. Gray?

Mr. Fragiskatos.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Thank you, Chair.

I have no problem with concurring with the minister's remarks. What I do have a challenge with is what follows after the last comma, which is “the committee concur in the minister's remarks and report them to the House.”

We all know, as experienced parliamentarians, that this is intended to generate a concurrence debate in the House of Commons, which takes away valuable time from the legislative agenda and stands in the way of valuable measures being passed for the benefit of Canadians.

With that, I wish to introduce the following amendment.

It's that the words after the final comma in the last sentence, which are “the committee concur in the minister's remarks and report them to the House” be stricken. Everything else remains the same. The comma would be changed to a period after the word “Canada”.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

We have an amendment, so now the debate will be on the amendment by Mr. Fragiskatos.

I have Ms. Ferreri and Mr. Aitchison on the amendment of Mr. Fragiskatos.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think folks watching at home must just be a little bit stunned at what they've heard from the Liberal member, who says that it will waste valuable time in the legislature to talk about the housing crisis. This is exactly what we were elected to do, to my member opposite.

Absolutely, a concurrence debate is not wasting anyone's time, Mr. Chair.

To reiterate this motion that my colleague, Mrs. Gray, has put forward, these are the minister's words. These are the minister's words of the failure of this government. These are the minister's words saying that people are not housed: “I think it's a generational moral failure that there are people sleeping without a roof over their head in a country as wealthy as Canada. I will not be able to say with a straight face that I have properly addressed the housing crisis if we still have to walk past people who are sleeping on the streets in Canada.”

The Liberal member has now put forward an amendment to take out the next part of this motion, which says, “the committee concur in the minister's remarks and report them to the House”, because he doesn't want a debate in the House to talk about this Liberal failure.

This is the biggest crisis facing our country right now, and he thinks it's a waste of time to debate this in the House.

What a nonsensical amendment. I would challenge him and ask him.... The parliamentary secretary for housing, no doubt, should know that we should absolutely be spending our time talking about this and coming up with solutions. If it is our job and they are so collaborative, then bring it to the House. Let's debate it and let's solve this problem.

Those would be my remarks to the member opposite. Thank you.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you.

The debate is on the amendment of Mr. Fragiskatos.

I have Mr. Aitchison, Madame Chabot and Mr. Long.

Mr. Aitchison, you have the floor.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm not surprised by this amendment because it's become obvious.... I was in the House earlier today and they were talking about how they need to extend sittings because Conservatives get in the way by opposing the government. This isn't opposing anything. This is actually a discussion. We'd like to have a discussion in the House about what I think are fairly profound statements by the minister. We've tried to have him come here. That's no good. We don't like that because I still don't know why. My colleague has been instructed not to let the minister come here. We don't want to talk about this in the House.

My colleague, Ms. Ferreri, pointed out, and I think quite accurately, this is the challenge of our time. This is the crisis of a generation. We're talking about the number of homeless in this country being at record highs. The crisis exists at all points on the spectrum of the housing continuum. I appreciate that the parliamentary secretary to the minister is obviously eager to make sure we don't talk too much in the House about their record on the file, but perhaps a discussion about what the minister said in the House would reveal some new ideas for this government to propose in terms of working with the municipalities and the provinces to address specifically the homelessness situation and the growing number of Canadians who are unhoused and the growing number of people who are literally dying in the streets. The number of homeless people in Toronto who don't survive the streets is growing.

I just find it fundamentally flooring that the Liberals don't want to have a discussion about ideas, about proposed solutions. As a House of Commons, as an elected body where the issues of the day of this country are supposed to be discussed and debated—that is the purpose of the place or so I thought—why wouldn't they want to have those discussions? It smacks of deflection and cover-up, and frankly I'd be embarrassed if I were in his shoes.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Mr. Aitchison.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor on the amendment.

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with the amendment and I will explain why.

Everyone here agrees that there is a serious housing crisis in Canada, that homelessness is reaching record highs—in Quebec, it is unprecedented—and that there is work to be done. I don't want to be partisan, but I think the best way to find solutions to this crisis is to move motions for the committee to undertake studies that would enable us to get to the bottom of things. I don't think this motion will do that.

We can already report that the committee approves of the minister's comments. I think that takes into account the minister's comments. I imagine that, in doing so, we are conveying our comments to him. The minister has already come to testify on this subject. We hope he will be able to come back before us. There are other motions to that effect that we could consider. I think that, when he appeared, the minister admitted that one of the reasons we ended up in this situation today was that successive governments had not invested public funds in housing.

Many motions on housing and homelessness have already been moved. Instead of dealing with the motion currently before us, I think it would be more appropriate to conduct a study on the issues facing us today, in order to try to find solutions and resolve the situation.