Thank you, Mr. Godin.
We're taking a list here. I have Mr. Lessard, Mr. Savage, and Mr. Lake.
I just want to read this into the record so that people are aware.
As all members are aware, the Speaker was called upon to render a decision as to whether certain provisions of Bill C-265 would infringe on the financial initiative of the crown and consequently require a royal recommendation.
In his ruling on March 23, 2007, Speaker Milliken stated:
I have examined the bill carefully and find that the changes to the employment insurance program envisioned by this bill include lowering the threshold for becoming a major attachment claimant to 360 hours, setting benefits payable to 55% of the average weekly insurable earnings during the highest paid 12 weeks of the 12 month period preceding the interruption of earnings, and removing the distinctions made to the qualifying period on the basis of the regional unemployment rate.
It is abundantly clear to the Chair that such changes to the employment insurance program, notwithstanding the fact that workers and employers contribute to it, would have the effect of authorizing increased expenditures from the consolidated revenue fund in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized.
We have a proposed amendment before us that does not remove the requirement for the royal recommendation. The final decision, however, will rest with the Speaker of the House, so for the purposes of our meeting today, the amendment is admissible and will be put to the decision of the committee after debate.
I just wanted to get on the record again that we are talking about the amendment. It does not remove the royal recommendation, but we are going to discuss it and we will continue to move forward on that process today.
I will continue with the list. I have Mr. Lessard, Mr. Savage, and Mr. Lake.
Mr. Lessard, sir.