Bill C-343 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave)

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code to allow employees to take unpaid leave from work for the following family-related reasons:
(a) the inability of their minor child to carry on regular activities because the child suffers a serious physical injury during the commission or as the direct result of a criminal offence;
(b) the disappearance of their minor child;
(c) the suicide of their spouse, common-law partner or child; or
(d) the death of their spouse, common-law partner or child during the commission or as the direct result of a criminal offence.
It also amends the Employment Insurance Act to allow these employees to receive benefits while on leave.

Ethics

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is also my understanding that I may ask for unanimous consent for the minister to table the documents. Is that right?

Taking into consideration the intention of transparency that this House has, it would just be the proper thing for the minister to do. The Minister of the Environment brought out these documents and brought out the fact that he wanted to have a point of order to explain his position, and that is fine. However, we are seeking transparency, presumably at all times in this chamber, so this is a good opportunity for him to participate in this transparency.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In response to the hon. member for Hull--Aylmer, it is my understanding that what he is seeking is the unanimous consent of the House that would require the minister to table those documents. Is that correct?

It is my understanding that that request goes beyond the scope of what the member can raise in a point of order. I am sure this decision will be reviewed and, if there is any change, I trust that the Speaker will return to the House with that.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to help clear this up. The Minister of the Environment was very explicit during his short statement on his point of order following question period. He did not quote from any documents. Perhaps that is creating some confusion in the mind of the member opposite. Therefore. if he did not quote from documents, he is not required to table them here in the House of Commons if requested.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall from the point of order made by the Minister of the Environment that he has done the right thing. At his earliest opportunity, he rose in the chamber and drew attention to this issue. He stated unequivocally that he has forwarded the documents to the Commissioner of Lobbying and to the Ethics Commissioner.

I do not know what more can be done. Obviously the Minister of the Environment has done the right thing.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for explaining that the minister was not quoting from any document. I was under the impression that he was reading from a document but he may not have been quoting.

As far as doing this at the best opportunity, we have been talking about this for the past two weeks. The minister must have known or should have known earlier than today.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I will restate what I said before, that this will be brought to the attention of the Speaker and, if there is any change, he will return to the House with that change.

Private Member's Bill C-343--Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader on December 10, 2009 concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave), standing in the name of the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this important matter, as well as the hon. member for Joliette for his remarks concerning the bill.

In presenting his concerns with respect to Bill C-343, the parliamentary secretary stated that, in his view, the bill infringes upon the financial initiative of the crown. Specifically, he pointed out that the bill seeks to modify the Canada Labour Code to permit employees to take leave without pay for a number of family-related reasons. He explained that the bill would also amend the Employment Insurance Act in order to allow these employees to receive employment insurance benefits while on such leave for a period of up to 52 weeks, thus resulting in new government spending.

In his intervention, the member for Joliette argued that a royal recommendation is not required since the funds in the employment insurance account consist of premiums paid by both workers and employers and do not constitute government funds.

The Chair has examined the bill carefully, and it is quite clear that Bill C-343 alters the terms and conditions of the existing program under the Employment Insurance Act. The argument put forth by the member for Joliette regarding whether or not funds contributed to the employment insurance fund constitute public revenue was addressed in a Speaker's ruling delivered on November 16, 2009, at Debates page 6751, where it stated:

In essence, all monies received by the government, regardless of source, are deposited in the consolidated revenue fund and become public funds, that is, funds of the Crown. The Constitution Act of 1867 and Standing Order 79 apply to these funds. Thus, a bill proposing a new or increased expenditure of public funds, that is, an appropriation, requires a royal recommendation.

The employment insurance program operates under this framework. The funds in question are public funds and their management is subject to the financial initiative of the Crown.

By extending benefits to employees taking an unpaid leave from work for family-related reasons, Bill C-343 is increasing the expenditures under that act. These expenditures would be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. As the House is aware, such provisions can only be put to the House for a final decision if they are accompanied by a royal recommendation as set out in Standing Order 79(1).

Consequently, the Chair will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received. Today's debate, however, is on the motion for second reading and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the current debate.

Statement by Minister of the Environment

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a usual practice of the House with regard to points of order. One of them, on a question of whether a matter is a point of order, has to do with whether it is inconsistent with our usual practices of the House. I would like to refer to an incident that occurred at the end of question period prior to routine proceedings when the Minister of the Environment rose and stated, and I am quoting from the blues:

“I rise on a point of order relating to a matter before the House and before one of its committees. I would like to inform the House that on Tuesday evening of this week, April 20, I was advised that in April 2009 a member of my staff in Calgary, Mr. Scott Wenger, was approached by Mr. Rahim Jaffer. Their discussion involved representations by Mr. Jaffer on behalf of a company. On my instructions Mr. Wenger has forwarded the details of those discussions and the documents relating to them to the Commissioner of Lobbying. The material was transmitted late yesterday, April 22. The same material is being transmitted today to the Ethics Commissioner. No contract was ever awarded to the company. I was not involved in those discussions in April 2009. Nor was I aware that they took place. As I have previously stated publicly, the only discussion I have had with Mr. Jaffer in the past one and a half years consisted of a 30 second discussion in this very building in early 2009, when I told him that I was not responsible for the administration of the so-called green funds. I felt it was my obligation, Mr. Speaker, to so advise the House today.”

What the minister rose to do was not to raise a point of order, but rather, in my view, to make a ministerial statement, which is a specific item under routine proceedings. Mr. Speaker, as you know, ministerial statements are usually accompanied by a notice to the other parties so that representatives of the other parties can make due representations and equivalent statements in the House related to the matter of the ministerial statement.

My point of order is that I believe the matter that occurred was in fact not a point of order, but rather, a ministerial statement, that it should be corrected and that the opposition parties should be given the opportunity to make representations to this place with regard to the statement by the Minister of the Environment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair appreciates the point of order raised by the member for Mississauga South. It will be considered and the Speaker will return to the House on this matter if necessary.

It being 1:37 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.