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.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Okay.
All right, so then we will go to amendment NDP-5. Can you identify that for me? NDP-5 relates to page 6.
Move NDP-5, and I'll indicate what it says. It asks:
That Bill C-44, in clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 6 on page 6 with the following:
“(2), on the day on which the employee has taken the last of the 104 weeks to which he or she is entitled, or
(ii) in the case of leave under subsection (3), on the day on which the employee has taken the last of the 52 weeks to which he or she is entitled.”
This amendment would relate to the flexibility of being able to take those leaves, and I'm advised again that this particular amendment is out of order. Clause 6 of Bill C-44 states that leave of absence ends 104 weeks after the day of the death of a child occurs or 52 weeks after the day on which the disappearance occurs. Amendment NDP-5 proposes that these periods be 104 weeks or 52 weeks, notwithstanding these restrictions in the bill.
Again, House of Commons Procedure and Practice 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, amendment NDP-5 represents an extension of the period during which the leave of absence may be taken, which is beyond the scope of the bill and therefore inadmissible.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
I have nothing against you personally, Mr. Chair, but I would like to appeal your ruling. I do not think that this would be beyond the scope of the bill. We wanted to make a certain number of weeks available, but many witnesses told us that it would not be possible for them to take those weeks consecutively. In many cases, that would be very difficult.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
As I mentioned before, a ruling by the chair is not debatable. I've given some leeway, but you can't get into witnesses and what they said or didn't say. You can certainly challenge the chair; then we will have the clerk read the provisions and then we will deal with that.
Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Sullivan.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
I don't think there was a debate. I think the speaker was attempting to explain the reasoning for challenging the chair, that was all, because it is—
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
It's not. We don't need to know the reasoning for the challenge to the chair.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
If you don't know the reason that the chair's being challenged, then how are people going to vote in a manner that is in keeping with the knowledge of the entire piece? That's my problem. Because the ruling from the chair happens before any debate on the amendments, we don't have an opportunity—
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, that's more debate. Let's have the vote.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
We don't have an opportunity to debate the motion itself because you're ruling before anybody gets to debate anything, and then our only alternative is to challenge the chair. I understand that challenges to the chair in themselves are not debatable.
My only point is that it is difficult for this whole committee to understand the reasoning behind the challenge of the chair without the mover of the challenge being able to explain their reasoning.
I'm not asking for debate, just for an explanation of the reasoning for the challenge to the chair.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
I'll clarify that.
We identify the amendment, and we all have it. I indicate what the amendment is and why it's out of order. That is sufficient for people to make the decision about whether I'm right or wrong. It's clearly a point that there is to be no debate on that. We go immediately to a challenge or appeal of the chair. That's how it is on every committee and that's how it works in all the processes.
I've allowed you to explain yourself, but I'm saying that once the chair rules, your only option is to challenge or appeal the chair's ruling and have an immediate vote. There will be no discussion or debate or reasons why. I clarify what the ruling is, and you either accept it or you don't.
We won't have any debate. We will now know that this decision has been appealed or challenged. We'll now go to the clerk.
9:40 a.m.
The Clerk
The question is that the decision of the chair be sustained.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
On a point of order, Chair, I just want to be assured that these rants after the decision of the chair are not recorded in the blues, because they are not admissible.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
On that point of order, the blues, I understand, are an exact transcription, so we can't change them.
Go ahead, Mr. Cleary.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
I want to take exception to the word that Mr. Mayes used, “rants”. I think Mr. Sullivan made a very good point. In no way was that a rant.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
I don't accept it as a rant. I think he's entitled to express himself. Certainly when I allow him to express himself, it's quite appropriate.
Mr. Sullivan, go ahead.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Before we get to the next motion, because we're now in between motions, can I ask the chair to please be more specific about his rulings when he rules something to be inadmissible? Merely reading page 766 of the green book does not give us—on this side, anyway—the detailed rationale behind why a particular amendment falls outside the scope. For example, the previous amendment would not have caused any more spending by the government and would not have changed the intent of the legislation, which was to provide a certain number of weeks of leave. It merely extended the ability of the individual to have some flexibility.
I'm not quite grasping how that's outside the scope, so for the next one, could we please be a little more detailed in the explanation of why? We don't seem to have any other opportunity to do that.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Hold on. I'll provide you the reasoning that I have, but you'll have to make a decision on whether you accept it or not. Let me give you the essence of it, and I don't intend to do it every time.
When a bill says that it is limited to a child who is 18 years of age or less, that's the scope of the bill. That's the extent of it, and if you say we're going to extend that beyond 18, you're going outside the scope of the bill.
If it says you have to take your leave continuously, let's say, and you say we're going to make it something different, then you're going outside the scope. Whenever you're enlarging or extending what the bill provides for, you're going outside the scope of the bill. That is the essence of it.
Every time you change to add or enlarge, you're going outside the scope of the bill, and you can't do that. If you appreciate that, then I will indicate the ruling as provided to me by the clerk.
9:45 a.m.
An hon. member
That's MP 101 school.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Shall clause 6 carry? All those in favour of clause 6 carrying?
9:45 a.m.
An hon. member
That was uncalled for.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Shall clause 6 carry? We need the attention of members. All those in favour?
I don't see Mr. Daniel's hand.
All right. All those opposed?
(Clause 6 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])