HESA#38: Committee debate on Bill C-31 Cost of Living Relief Act, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing

Oct. 24th, 2022, 8:35 p.m.

Liberal

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

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 remove the 30% rent-to-income threshold set out in paragraph 4(1)(g) and referred to in subclauses 4(2) to 4(6).

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 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 relaxes the eligibility criteria for the rental housing benefit, which would impose a greater charge on the treasury than is provided for in the bill, since more people could have access to the benefit in question. 

Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Bloc

A point of order, Mr. Chair. With all due respect, I challenge your ruling.

Okay.

Mr. Garon has challenged the chair. That's a non-debatable motion. 

The question for the committee is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained) 

We are now back at clause 3. I believe there are further amendments to clause 3.

Ms. Kwan, do you have an amendment?

NDP

I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The intent of this amendment is to stop the reduction of the rent claims of only 75% of the total payment for individuals who pay an unspecified amount for board or other services. This reduction would, in my view, penalize individuals such as students, people in supportive housing and seniors who live in these kinds of arrangements. If the rent is $1,000 and that includes an unspecified amount for utilities, let's say, the amount for rent the applicant could claim would only be $750, for example.

There are those who are living in a room-and-board kind of situation. In that situation, they would not have full coverage, so I think that this 25% reduction is steep. From that perspective, I would like to make an amendment for it to become 90% instead of 75%, so that it's only 10% for utilities and such.

Liberal

I'm going to rule on the admissibility of the amendment, so if it's a point of order, Mr. Doherty, go ahead, but if you want to debate the amendment, can you just wait until I make my ruling?

Conservative

I was just going to suggest that it's probably not admissible, given the previous one.

I'm not trying to take away your job there, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to help you out, sir.

Liberal

I can use all the help possible.

Mr. Doherty was clairvoyant. 

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 modify, in subsection 4(2), the calculation of the 30% rent-to-income threshold set out in paragraph 4(1)(g) by increasing the percentage of the payment to be taken into account for rent payments that include board or other services from 75% to 90%. 

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 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 relaxes the eligibility criteria for the rental housing benefit, which would impose a greater charge on the treasury than is provided for in the bill, since more people could have access to the benefit in question. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. 

Ms. Kwan, go ahead.

With respect, Mr. Chair, I challenge you. 

I challenge the chair on the ruling.

There is a motion to challenge the ruling of the chair. That's non-debatable. 

The question for the committee is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair overturned)

The chair's ruling is overturned. The debate is on the amendment.

Mrs. Goodridge, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess we can see the costly coalition at work here. 

I think this raises a really important question. If we have amendments that we have to submit in advance—and it is worth noting that we had to submit amendments before we even had an opportunity to hear from witnesses, which is highly unusual and I think is in contravention of the spirit of our democratic process here and the conventions we've established, but that is an aside—and you already have a pre-written piece saying that the amendment is not admissible, I am baffled as to why we even have the opportunity to bring forward an amendment that would be inadmissible based on the parliamentary practice and procedure manual. 

This entire system is broken. This is not what Canadians expect when they elect us to come to Parliament and to provide the best possible legislation. This is being rammed through. We can tell that this is a predetermined outcome already. At least I can, from my vantage point on this side of the table. It is baffling to me that we are sitting here debating this, and yet a pretty common-sense amendment that was brought forward by our colleague Mr. Garon wasn't even allowed to be debated. It was simply ruled out of order. I think this just goes to show that this entire process is an absolute sham. 

If you guys have a predetermined decision as to which ones are going to pass or not, why don't you just give us the green marker as to which ones you're voting on and save us the trouble of having these debates?

Mr. Doherty, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I can understand that there are people who could really use what Ms. Kwan is suggesting. My concern with this is purely procedural here. The Liberals and the NDP have just committed the government to spending more money without ministerial overview or permission, or was this already predetermined? 

If I might ask our witnesses who are here, what does that jump from 75% of the payment to now the approval of 90%...? What does that financial figure look like? The Liberals and the NDP have just committed a further 15% increase in this benefit. That is a significant cost to the Canadian government, and we don't have ministers here to answer that question. Unless this is, again, already...unless the agreement was cooked before we all came and sat here for the last four hours. 

I'd like to know whether the work has been done behind this because there is a significant financial cost to the government. It goes against your ruling and House of Commons Procedure and Practice on page 772.

Nadine Leblanc Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

The 75% threshold that was put in the bill is based on the Ontario energy and property tax credit, which has similar features around claiming rent payment. When it comes to boarding and other services, it does have a threshold of 75%.

When it comes to determining some of this data around the particular criteria at the federal level, it's quite limited, to be honest, because with Revenue Canada, as well as CMHC, we don't have visibility into how many people are claiming such rent and have such arrangements in their rent agreements. However, we do know that if you are increasing it from 75% to 90%, it will increase the number of applicants by default because you're increasing the rent level, which would increase the number people who are paying over 30% in rental expenses. By definition, if you're increasing the volume, you're increasing the costs. We don't have the precise number with us right now.

So, this hasn't been vetted. It hasn't been accounted for, and we're now signing the government up—not we, but members of this committee, the Liberals and the NDP, have gone against House procedures on this, committing the government to further dollars, a financial commitment.

Mr. Chair, perhaps you need to suspend so you can confer with the legislative clerk or whomever to see if this is even possible.

I don't. This will go back to the House, and it will be for the House to determine what happens next, including the same question on which I just ruled, so the final word hasn't been spoken. The House gets a say.

Mr. Ellis, go ahead, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Oftentimes in committees, we're very concerned about committee time and committee resources and all those things. I guess I would like to echo my colleague's comments. Once again, as we saw at other times in this committee, if there's a predetermined route in how we're going to go, we're wasting much committee time here.

I was in the SECU committee just before we came here this afternoon. It was on the deaths of 23 Nova Scotians, and they were talking about how they didn't have enough committee time to even bring the ministers in front of the committee. Here we have predetermined outcomes already, and my smug colleagues across the way don't want us to continue to have debate, or they want to debate in some sort of sham—

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

From that perspective, I would suggest that this is—

Just a second, Dr. Ellis. We have a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden. Do you have a point of order?

The name-calling is totally unnecessary.

Oh, wow.

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate that.

That being said, I think that moving on with respect to the serious business we have in front of us of spending now perhaps more than $1 billion, from the ridiculous perspective that we're unable to even have a debate here—that we're just wasting time in a committee—doesn't make any sense to me.

Once again, here we are. What kinds of games are we playing? We have no witnesses for a multi-billion dollar bill. We have the inability to even have the rulings of the chair respected. Is this really the type of parliamentary committee...?

I mean, I've said it once before, and perhaps I'll say it again. I thought we had a reasonably functioning committee here. This is utter ridiculousness with respect to this committee not being able to do its work. We have legislation now that has a guillotine motion. We have the inability to accept rulings of the chair. We obviously have difficulties in terms of what is right, what is left, and what is up or down. What are the rules of this committee? I guess that's the question that continues to be played out here.

From my perspective, as I said, if there really is a difficulty with committee time and all we're doing here is wasting committee time, I don't want to do that on behalf of Canadians.

I think we should be cognizant of spending $1 billion. In my mind, $1 billion is a lot of money. Now we're simply adding to the cost of this bill in a willy-nilly fashion, with rules that are being challenged on the floor—from one perspective. From the other perspective, it's “Well, no, that's fine. Let's go ahead and do it.” Wow. Is that really what Canadians expect from the Liberals on this committee? Is that what your constituents expect from you? If it is, it makes no sense to me.

Dr. Powlowski, go ahead, please.


Marcus Powlowski Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Liberal

I think you clarified this earlier. If something needs royal recommendation, then however we vote here, it's still going to go back to the House. It needs support from the House before it goes into the legislation. Am I not right on that?

That's correct.

Mr. van Koeverden, go ahead.

I don't have anything to contribute.

Dr. Hanley, go ahead.

Thanks. I just want to point out a few things.

One is bringing us back to the affordability crisis. I believe that there is some urgency to getting help to Canadians. We are in a crisis of affordability, and this is an opportunity to work together to move forward. I will point out that there were opportunities for anyone, any party, to bring amendments to this committee.

I also want to point out that, in this case, I think MP Kwan pointed out an area where there was an extra vulnerability. In changing the threshold from 75% to 90%, we have an opportunity, again, for that targeted intervention that Canadians need and I think are depending on us for.

I support this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Hanley.

Mrs. Goodridge, go ahead.

Mr. Chair, tonight I am thinking about my dad quite a bit, clearly because I'm going to share another one of the phrases he used to repeat to us all the time. It was, “A lack of planning on your part does not make for an emergency on my part.” I understand the timelines that are related to this bill, but we had literally 11 hours discussing this bill. If this was such a key, pinnacle piece of legislation, the government could have introduced it weeks earlier. It chose not to. It chose to use a guillotine motion. It chose to allow us to have two hours of witnesses before the committee to study this. 

I was looking up, just for my own interest, Bill C‑11, which was almost verbatim to what it had been in the previous Parliament. It was studied in the previous Parliament. Parliament fell, and then it got brought back. It was allowed to have 80 witnesses come to committee. I think that perhaps that was a little excessive, but we were allowed to have two, and they were ministers. 

Frankly speaking, I understand that there is a timeline, but this is a timeline that was fully within the control of the Government of Canada. It was fully within the control of the ministers who brought this legislation forward. Had the government House leader done his due diligence, he would have brought this legislation forward much earlier and we would have had an opportunity to provide more meaningful contribution to and study of this bill rather than be pushed into an absolute corner. 

I'm sorry. I think this entire process highlights that this is broken. We're not even following our own Standing Orders. This is a sham and an absolute shame.

Go ahead, Mr. Doherty.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. 

To Mr. Hanley's comment, as I said, there's no disputing that. I think that there are people who could probably use that, but we have seven people here. I've never been part of a committee doing a legislative review where seven people can commit the government to a substantial amount of funds, not even the minister.

I get that it has to go back to the House, Mr. Powlowski, but it's crazy that.... Here we are. Cabinet obviously doesn't have a say in this. The ministers are not here—unless this was, again, as I said, preordained and it's already been put in place and everybody knows, except for those of us on this side, what's going on. What a waste of time. All these people who are here could be at home with their families. Mrs. Goodridge could be home with her son.

I could FaceTime him.

You could FaceTime him. 

Again, I hold out hope that we can have further debate on Thursday regarding this. I would ask, Mr. Chair, through you to our witnesses, that, prior to the further debate on this, the departments do the homework and can provide the members of this committee with the cost of the bump from 75% to 90% so that we can have an educated debate and discussion on this moving forward. 

I'm blown away that seven people on a parliamentary committee can commit our government to a substantial amount of money, when our colleague from the Bloc had reasonable amendments but, for the very same reason, they were voted down, only because he's not part of the Liberal-NDP coalition.

It is going to be costly. I'm trying to take a reasonable approach to this, but clearly reason and common sense are out the door because the deal is done. 

It's frustrating, because we are here to do a job. Canadians send 338 members of Parliament to do their job and to ask the hard questions, the tough questions, not to ram things down and not to have a false majority. It really is disappointing.

Go ahead, Mr. Garon.

Mr. Chair, everything is predetermined here. At least we know the Liberals were told how they should vote. This is a directive that comes from the top. Parliamentarians are physically present, but a higher authority has already decided when they should raise their hands or keep them down.

I would never reveal anything that was said in camera. That said, last week we agreed in public to hear witnesses for four hours, yet we haven't had any witnesses here today; the ministers don't count, because they're not answering our questions. By definition, a witness is someone who answers questions. We haven't had any answers today. So what has happened in the meantime? We're not allowed to say. In any case, we see that we haven't heard from any witnesses today. What has happened so that today we are debating an amendment that requires a royal recommendation?

I'm getting to the substance of the amendment, Mr. Chair. You'll see that it's relevant.

As we've said many times, the bill was poorly written. It's the result of sloppy work, done at the last minute, scribbled on a napkin at the end of the summer, when the NDP leader pouted and threatened the government that if there wasn't a dental program, they wouldn't support the government anymore and would end their deal. I can understand the NDP pushing because they have a fight to fight and they have every right to do so. The bottom line is that the work wasn't done well.

Let me explain what happened. First of all, we supported the principle of the bill. There are people who are familiar with the housing situation. I'm talking about people who represent housing groups or housing co-operatives, for example, and who deal with Quebeckers and Canadians in need on a daily basis. They probably called the NDP members to tell them what they thought. They were amazed at how poorly the coalition had done and how, after the NDP had fought for it, they had forgotten about the people who were struggling to find housing, the seniors and other categories of people.

As a result, today we are amending the rules. The bill already contains overly complex calculation methods. Don't tell me that the Liberal members, after consulting their cell phones, suddenly decided to vote in favour of the amendment. They received the text of the amendment several days ago. The decision comes from the top. My colleagues on the other side have made no decision; they're doing what they're told to do. That's what happens.

The chair first ruled that the amendment, because of its substance, required a royal recommendation. Then we voted to reverse that ruling, after which the Liberal member Mr. Hanley, whom I particularly like, said that it was because there was—in his words—an extra vulnerability. I find that frustrating.

For our part, we proposed an amendment specifying that this housing support left out some 87,000 Quebeckers. No one at that time said that it was an extra vulnerability. No one stood up or raised their hand to defend Quebeckers. No one has defended the Quebec model of social housing and low-cost housing, which allows us to house more people at a reasonable price. Why? Because the Prime Minister's Office told them not to support the Bloc Québécois to defend Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois amendment would have allowed even more people to be included.

I understand the Conservatives' reasoning that this would increase spending, but this is one-time assistance. If we're going to help people, let's help the most vulnerable. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that a ton of vulnerable and low-income people were being left behind. When I challenged the chair's ruling on my amendment, what did the Conservatives do? They just sat there. None of my colleagues dared look me in the eye. That's sort of a testament to their judgment, because it probably means that they're ashamed that they didn't stand up for Quebeckers.

Personally, I'm in favour of the amendment because it accomplishes a small part of what the Bloc Québécois amendment sought to do.

The NDP probably called the government, and it was decided to give in to cronyism, rather than provide universal assistance. That's where we're at today.

When we say that equity, justice, redistribution, social justice and access to housing are important values, we aren't giving in to cronyism. Instead, we're raising our hands to show that we're in favour of it. The resulting decision can then be debated in the House, and perhaps the approval of the two ministers in question will be required. In any case, we're raising our hands in favour of what helps people.

We are reduced to accepting this amendment. However, it must be made clear that this amendment will help fewer people, compared to the Bloc Québécois amendment, which would have helped more people and which no Liberal member showed their support by raising their hand. That is what we deplore, and that is what the Conservatives deplore, despite our ideological differences.

What are we doing in committee? We put forward reasonable amendments that took people's needs into account and that even reflected the spirit of the bill. Because the Liberals didn't receive an order from the top to vote in favour of these amendments, they decided to vote against the spirit of their own bill. In doing so, we are reduced to cronyism.

Do you know what? We're going to pass it anyway, because people are important to us. It's better to bring more of them into the fold than to forget all of them. However, we aren't happy with the result we are seeing today: we are reduced to cronyism. The chair's ruling was overturned in order to adopt these amendments piecemeal. In fact, we wouldn't even be discussing these amendments if we had deleted proposed paragraph 4(1)(g), because the content of these amendments would now be null and void.

I must admit that this is a deplorable situation for anyone who has the public good at heart.

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to say, in response to the suggestions that, somehow, we're not following the rules at this committee with this amendment and the challenge of the chair, that it's simply not true. There's a procedure that we follow. Committee members will vote on it. The results will go forward accordingly.

In a different committee.... I don't normally sit on this committee, so I'm a bit bewildered as to how this committee normally works. I don't know if this is how it always works. In any event, this is my first time sitting on this committee. In the committee I sit on, which is the immigration committee, there have been many times when the Conservative members challenged the chair. Sometimes they succeeded and sometimes they didn't.

All of that is to say that it is within members' rights to do what they wish to do and then follow the procedures accordingly. Nobody is usurping the rules here. We are following the rules as they are.

Getting back to the issue at hand, the purpose of this amendment is.... In my community of Vancouver East, for example, there are a lot of people who pay room and board. Sometimes they're students. Sometimes they're seniors. Sometimes the amount they pay is not the 25% that is deemed in this legislation. What I intended to do was come up with a number that better reflects the actuality of how much they pay, so that more people would qualify. I will admit that I am trying to get more people to qualify. That is my sin here. I am trying to do that.

If the Conservatives don't like that and don't support it, which is exactly where they are, they're entitled to that and to vote against it, accordingly. However, to somehow suggest that I'm trying to usurp the rules, Mr. Chair, is offensive and it is just not true.

Go ahead, Mr. Shields.

Thank you, Chair.

Back when we first had a couple of amendments, particularly the second one from the Bloc, I understood what you said in the two rulings. Then the ruling on this one, when you ruled against it and then they voted for it, really caused me a problem. When I looked at their second one, where they talked about provinces and their objectives, in a federation there have been lots of opportunities. 

Day care was the most recent one that I can remember, where the federal government said it wanted a day care program and then negotiated to have the day care program it wanted—the $10 myth day care—out there across the country. It negotiated with the provinces.

Carbon tax is another one where you either get in this one or get in the federal one—and they did that. Policing works the same way. You can be in the RCMP or you can be out of it. You can negotiate that with the federal government. There are lots of them out there that are negotiated.

This one, too, didn't cost any more money. There was no money difference in this one. The one the Liberals voted for—and the NDP this time—was a money difference. I would understand the first two in the sense of how it went on the vote and why they said they supported that because it's a change of money. It wasn't a change of money. This one was a change of money. Of the three, the rationale for it didn't make sense. 

That's where I have a problem with what's going on here. I would suggest that this has all been decided. Everybody knew what the ruling of the chair would be on each one of these ahead of time. They knew how they were going to vote, either for or against the chair on each one of these, before the meeting started.

It still doesn't take away from the fact that the rationale makes no sense, for the second one in particular. The first one I agreed with, but for the second one, we're in a federation. The Liberals as a party, in the things they have been implementing, have been working with partnerships, like with day care. With this one, they're not. 

On the one you voted to overrule the chair on, you changed the monetary one on that one. It's going to go through. We're going to have a third reading in the House. You've been around here long enough to know this goes back to the House without asking that, and you'll vote on it. The NDP and Liberal bloc will get together and pass it. You know that.

Mine was with the rationale that it was pre-decided. You knew. I've been around long enough. The chair knows his ruling. He's seen these before. You've decided you're going to go this way. You'll vote for this one; you'll vote against that one. 

Think about the Bloc's number two and what that means in provinces, in the sense that we're in a federation. You have just kicked the federation. I'm not talking about Quebec. I'm talking about the other nine provinces and territories. You just said that it's not important. 

That, fundamentally, causes me a problem. We have a federal government that's willing to not work in partnership with the provinces, but becomes dictatorial. That's when you're going to face problems in this country. You're going to face them from more than one province. That kind of dictatorial decision-making is not how this federation works.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Powlowski, go ahead, please.

I'd like to respond a bit to that, in that there have been a lot of accusations that we're not following the democratic process. 

The House was elected by all Canadians. It was in the House where all representatives from all the ridings in Canada voted on this. They decided to limit the number of days we had to do this. They're the ones who decided when the amendments had to be in by. It's not up to us 11 people, elected by people in 11 ridings, to make the rules for all of Canada.

Really, you lost your fight over in the House, not here. We are obliged to follow the rules given to us by the House. Rightly or wrongly, that is the democratic process.

As for changing and making amendments that have financial implications, again, that's a matter that requires royal recommendation. Again, that has to go back to the House. It can't be done by us. 

I do believe we are following the democratic process, which certainly isn't unflawed.

Mrs. Goodridge, go ahead.

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.

Mr. Doherty, go ahead.

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?

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. 

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.

Mr. Ellis, go ahead.

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.

Go ahead, Dr. Powlowski.

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.

Ms. Kwan, you're next.

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—

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

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

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?

Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

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.

Mrs. Goodridge, did you wish to intervene?

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.

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?

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.

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.

I will challenge the chair on that one.

Ms. Kwan has challenged the chair. That is a non-debatable motion.

The question for the committee is whether the ruling of the chair should be sustained.

(Ruling of the chair overturned)

Therefore, the debate is now on NDP-2.

Mr. Doherty, go ahead.

I'm going to spare everybody. I think you heard the arguments that I had for the last hour on the last one. I'm going directly to our witnesses to ask if they could give us the estimated financial cost for moving this from 50% to 100%, if at all possible by Wednesday evening.

Thank you.

Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can answer the question, but we can also commit to providing—

Oh, you have it. Okay.

It extends the eligibility, potentially, doesn't it?

Go ahead.

Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In our calculation of the 1.8 million low-income renters who would be eligible for this program, it includes people who paid their rent. That change would not have an impact on the cost, unless somebody would directly or indirectly falsify their attestation. That remains a risk to the attestation process.

The Chair Sean Casey
Liberal

Dr. Ellis, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

I guess to the witness's comments, this is an absolute unknown. There's no way to understand who's going to say, “I paid 63% and you paid 37% of the amount.” There's absolutely no way to figure this out. For our witnesses to say that it's not going to add to it.... They have no idea. There's no way to figure that out. Nobody knows what evil lies in the hearts of men. When you think of it that way, people can say whatever they want. I realize it's an attestation. I understand that point, unless I'm missing something here with respect to this amendment. If I am, please enlighten me. I'd love to know.

Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

Mr. Chair, there is a check and balance through an upfront validation and through the attestation process, as well as some audit and compliance steps to this program. 

I will pass it over to my colleagues at CRA should we want to hear more around that.

Is there anything to add from CRA's perspective?

Assistant Commissioner, Assessment, Benefit and Service Branch, Canada Revenue Agency

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to respond to questions specifically regarding validation, but I have nothing further to add based on the response from my colleague from CMHC.

Thank you.

Ms. Kwan, go ahead, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think Ms. Leblanc really spoke to that, because in other parts of the bill, there are provisions for verification with the attestation process and CRA random checks or spot checks or however they do the checks. All of those measures are still in place.

All this provision does is that, instead of coming up with an arbitrary number of 50%, it reflects the actual amount of rent that people paid. That's all. There's nothing untoward about that. It's just to say that the benefit should reflect what people actually paid. That's it. There are no secrets.

Mrs. Goodridge, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

I think having an amendment that stipulates that you can only get what was paid is a reasonable space to be in, but it comes back to how this could potentially change the overall cost to government. I wish we had full financial information that we could be basing our decision on.

While I believe the intent is very clearly good, any time you're dealing with attestations you're opening yourself up to some abuse and to some potential where people can fall somewhere in the middle. That's always a spot that makes me a little bit leery, but I won't belabour that point.

I see no further interventions requested. Therefore, are we ready for the question on NDP-2?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Ms. Kwan, do you have a further amendment to clause 3 of the bill?

I do. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The next amendment I would like to move is to change the application period from 90 days to 120 days. I just fear that 90 days is a very short time frame for people to make an application.

Earlier I asked the ministers about the process and what they intend to do to notify people. For example, in my riding, Vancouver East, I fear that I have a great number of seniors who are not necessarily technology-literate or even able to access technology, so they rely on a lot of help from the community and volunteers to help them do all kinds of stuff, including getting their taxes done and what have you. I also fear that there are individuals who may have a language barrier in getting the information and then understanding how to go about applying for this benefit.

I think extending the period of time so that it gives more time to make that application would be beneficial to the community. To that end, I am making the amendment to change the 90-day period to 120 days, Mr. Chair.

I'm sure everyone here will be pleased to know that the amendment is in order. The debate is now on the amendment.

Mr. Ellis, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess the question I would have for the witnesses is this. 

Obviously, every bill has built into it the necessary difficulty that many people won't apply for the benefit. I guess I'm wondering this: What is the number that would normally be used to understand how many people might not apply for the benefit—whether they don't know about it, care about it, think about it, or whatever the reason might be?

Of course, adding days to that time will add more people. Again, we are adding, potentially, to the cost of this bill. Is there an estimate from our witnesses about that?


Nadine Leblanc

Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

We are estimating that there will be a 95% pickup on this program, so that is built into our current numbers.

Just to be clear, you're saying that the original estimate for a 90-day period is 95%. Do you have an estimate that this is going to change that, or is this just something we shouldn't even bother with? If it's not going to change it, why are we amending it?

Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

Extending the period will allow Canadians to get their income tax filed for this period, and allow Canadians to access this program for a longer period of time. Again, we believe there would be a 95% participation rate in this program, and our numbers—the 1.8 million—include everybody who would be eligible for this program.

Your cost estimates were for 100%, if I understand you correctly.

Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

They were for 95%.

Maybe you're misunderstanding what I am saying. If we're creating an amendment, and the idea or the spirit behind the amendment is that more people will be able to apply, does that change your 95% to 95.2%, 96.8%, 99% or 100%? Where are we?

If it doesn't change it, why are we even bothering with it?

Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

Thank you for the question.

The 95% was based on the overall population of the 1.8 million. Extending it would allow more people a chance to file their income taxes in due course.

How many more?


Nadine Leblanc

Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

I would have to provide this number by Wednesday—if that number is changing. 

Thank you. 

Seeing no further interventions, are we ready for the question?

Go ahead, Mr. Doherty.

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?

I don't. If I did, I would have ruled it inadmissible, but I don't.

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

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. 

Go ahead, Mr. Doherty.

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. 

Go ahead, Dr. Hanley.

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. 

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?

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.

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

I challenge the chair.

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?


Some hon. members

Agreed.


An hon. member

On division.

Shall the title carry?


Some hon. members

Agreed.


An hon. member

On division.


The Chair Sean Casey
Liberal

Shall the bill as amended carry?


Some hon. members

Agreed.


An hon. member

On division.

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?


Some hon. members

Agreed.

Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?


Some hon. members

Agreed.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

Thank you to all of our officials for their patience in sitting into the evening.

To the legislative clerks, the procedural clerks and the good folks from the Library of Parliament, we very much appreciate your service to the committee and your patience in sticking it out.

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?


Some hon. members

Agreed.

We have consensus. The meeting is adjourned.