Ms. Ryan, did you have a point?
Evidence of meeting #26 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreed.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #26 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreed.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
It comes back to the sequence of an amendment requiring a royal recommendation. There isn't one at this time, so the staging doesn't follow that sequence.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Weren't you talking about the clause, now that the amendment has been ruled out of order? The clause itself isn't complete now.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
It doesn't meet the royal recommendation; that's the reality.
Thank you, Ms. Ryan.
Shall clause 212 carry?
Do you want a recorded vote or are you on division?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll have a recorded vote on whether clause 212 carries unamended.
(Clause 212 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 213 agreed to on division)
There's an amendment, BQ-8.
Mr. Marcil, go ahead.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Simon Marcil Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The purpose of amendment BQ-8 is to change the employment insurance benefit rate from 55% to 60% of insurable earnings, so that unemployed people are able to meet their basic needs.
I think we all understand that people who are receiving employment insurance benefits do not necessarily use the money to buy 70-inch televisions. No, they use it to pay their rent, to heat their homes, to feed their children. In fact, 55% of your income, especially if it is not high, is not very much money. It is difficult to make ends meet. These are the reasons we are moving amendment BQ-8.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I would rule this amendment out of order. BQ-8 is similar to many of the others in this section, as it seeks to increase benefits set out in section 14 of the Employment Insurance Act. I'll not read the relevant paragraph of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, but it's inadmissible because the amendment would impose a charge on the public treasury. Therefore, it's out of order and I rule it inadmissible.
Next is amendment BQ-9 to the same clause 213.1.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Simon Marcil Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We must never forget that it is the workers and employers who contribute to the employment insurance fund, and not the crown or the government. There really are no additional costs, since the government does not pay for this.
Amendment BQ-9 proposes that we use the 12 best-paid weeks of work to determine the benefit rate for an employment insurance recipient, rather than using the 12 last weeks. That would protect an employee who has sacrificed some of his or her work conditions to keep his plant open, who has sacrificed some of his salary and benefits. This way, if ever the plant were to close, we would avoid the employees being penalized by the fact that their last 12 weeks of compensation are being taken into account, when their salary was reduced to attempt to save the business. We want to avoid doubly penalizing someone who tried to save his job, but winds up losing it in any case. It would really be much more beneficial to the workers if we took their 12 best weeks into account.
May I remind everyone that the government does not put one cent into the employment insurance fund. It only dips into the fund to balance its budgets.
May 31st, 2016 / 3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
As with the previous amendment, BQ-9 seek to increase benefits set out in section 17 of the Employment Insurance Act and in the opinion of the chair the amendment would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I would rule the amendment inadmissible.
Before I turn to clause 214, we have been dealing with employment insurance a fair bit in a lot of amendments. In future budgets, if something applies to other areas, I would pass on a message to the Department of Finance. If other committees looked at some sections of such a bill, it might be wise to send them there, instead of asking this committee to deal with employment insurance measures, which are not our point of expertise as a committee. I just say that in fairness. I'm not saying it's an omnibus bill, but I think it's a valid point.
There are no amendments to clauses 214 to 221. Are there any points that anybody wants to raise? Ms. Raitt, Mr. McColeman, Mr. Liepert, Mr. Caron, are there any points you want to raise on clauses 214 to 221 before we call the question?
(Clauses 214 to 221 inclusive agreed to on division)
There is amendment BQ-10 to clause 222. Is anybody here from the BQ? It is deemed moved. Nobody is here to speak on BQ-10 and the consequential amendment BQ-12. They seek to increase the benefits set out in the Employment Insurance Act.
As House of Commons, Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 767 and 768:
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.
I rule that the amendment would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore, it's inadmissible.
(Clause 222 agreed to on division)
Amendment BQ-11 to clause 223 is deemed moved. It's exactly the same ruling as applied a moment ago to BQ-10, so I would rule it's inadmissible, as well as BQ-13.
(Clauses 223 and 224 agreed to on division)
(On clause 225)
Next is PV-5. Ms. May.
4 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I apologize, Mr. Chair, that I wasn't here when PV-3 and PV-4 were put forward. I was in a meeting on HIV/AIDS and I had to decide which meeting to attend. In any event, I didn't know that my amendments had much of a chance if I were here to plead for them.
Can I speak to PV-5 or is it precluded by the earlier defeat?
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
There was no discussion, and the previous ruling applied to PV-5 as well.
4 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you for the clarification. I had been misinformed that it was defeated. Thank you for letting me know that it was ruled out of order.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
It was ruled out of order.
(Clause 225 agreed to on division)
There are no amendments to clauses 226 to 238. Are there any points that anybody wants to raise?
Mr. Ouellette.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
On clause 232 and the Canada Marine Act, I know they came to talk about it.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll deal first with clauses 226 to 231.
Shall clauses 226 to 231 carry?
