Evidence of meeting #54 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:30 a.m.
Director, Self Employed and Other Initiatives, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
It’s about the claimant, yes.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
My point of order is in response to Mr. Lapointe's comments on the French and English in regard to challenging the chair.
I want to clarify this matter for myself. When I vote on a challenge to the chair, the outcome, if you're defeated, is that you are removed from the chair. Is that correct?
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
No. It means that you overruled my ruling, and your ruling takes precedence and stands.
The chair remains to rule again, if he wishes to. The chair may find that having been overruled is something the chair doesn't like and he might not want to sit again. It's possible for the chair to be overruled by the committee, and then the committee stands and the chair will go on to the next battle. Hopefully the reasoning will be such that he will be upheld more often than not.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
I appreciate that, because many chairs left the chair in previous committees when the chair has been challenged. They automatically just got up and left.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
I wouldn't do that on the first challenge, but I might if it was becoming obvious that confidence in the chair had been lost. The chair would obviously need to then remove himself.
I don't think challenging the chair Mr. Speaker means loss of confidence in the chair. There may be a legitimate reason. The chair may legitimately err as a human and may get bad advice.
9:30 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
In that event, it would be up to the committee to correct the situation.
We have some more speakers here yet.
Mr. Cuzner, do you have any further comments?
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
I want to say that Mr. Sullivan is correct in that the medical certificate for critically ill children is with regard to the child's illness. If the child has passed away, the sickness benefit as well as the compassionate care benefit are for that parent, who would seek a certificate for bereavement, essentially. Those are granted routinely for parents who require sickness leave because they're not able to function in their place of work because of a psychological challenge they may have.
It's open to families whether the child passes away or not. The parent may find they have extreme stresses because a critically ill child has come home.
The benefit is available to the parent after the child exits hospital, is no longer critically ill, or passes away. There are multiple scenarios. Then it does go to the parent.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
It's that the medical certificate is based on the parents.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that it wasn't automatic. Your first comment seemed to indicate—
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
—the 15 weeks was something that was automatically available to the parent.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
And the six weeks of compassionate care leave can't go beyond the death of the child either, so that doesn't cover that two-week period.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Thank you for that clarification.
With that, shall clause 5 carry?
(Clause 5 agreed to)
(On clause 6)
We're going to NDP-4, which relates to page 5 of the bill. It wants to strike the sentence that says “'child' means a person who is under 18 years of age”.
Who is moving that amendment?
Mr. Cleary, do you want to say something about the amendment? Do you want to deal with the amendment or just move it?
9:35 a.m.
NDP
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Okay, give the background in short, because I'm going to make a....
In fact, hold on.
I have a copy of the amendment and I'm advised that it is out of order. I probably should just indicate—
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
It's out of order. I'll indicate why, and then I suppose you can appeal a decision of the chair, if you wish.
Clause 6 of Bill C-44 defines a child as a person who is under 18 years of age. Amendment NDP-4 proposes to extend this definition of child to persons over 18 years of age. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:
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.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment NDP-4, which enlarges the definition of “child” to persons over the age of 18, is beyond the scope of Bill C-44 and is therefore inadmissible. At this point you can, if you wish, appeal the chair's decision or challenge the chair.
