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.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Comments like those of Mr. Butt about how some MPs should go to MP 101 school don't help, aren't constructive, and I think are rather childish, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
All right. Let's confine our comments to the issues before us, rather than to individuals or personalities.
You might not agree with a position or an opinion. You're certainly entitled to that, but I would caution members from trying to get personal or in any way characterizing what another person might say. That's not helpful and it's not necessary. Let's move on.
Clauses 7, 8, and 9 have no amendments to them. I would propose that those carry, unless I see otherwise. If I see no objections, we'll then go to clause 10. Those others will carry severally.
(Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 10)
There is an amendment to clause 10. It is NDP amendment 6.
Can you identify where that is in the bill for me? Then we'll let you move the bill. If you wish to read the motion, you're entitled to do that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
For the same reasons that I indicated in the earlier instance, this amendment would be in order. We'll have the amendment on the floor, and if you wish to speak to it, you could. Go ahead.
NDP
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
We said earlier that we wanted to extend the definition of "child" and "critically ill". We gave all the reasons earlier. I could repeat them all here but I do not think it is necessary.
Once again, I would like us to vote not on the basis of party affiliations but on the basis of what parents and children need. Everyone does not have the same options or supports in each province. What we should do is give parents of children older than 18 the possibility to take good care of those children.
I do not think there is anything else to say about this.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Seeing no further debate, we will now ask for a vote. Shall NDP amendment—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Okay, we'll have a recorded vote on NDP amendment 6.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 10 carry? All those in favour? Mr. Daniel, are you voting on this one?
Those opposed?
(Clause 10 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
There are no amendments to clauses 11 to 17. I would expect that they would carry.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
With the officials here, I'd like some clarification on clause 15.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
We'll get the clarification, and we could then go all the way through.
Mr. Cuzner would like clarification on clause 15. Clause 15 is on page 13 of the bill. It deals with section 18 of the act. It adds proposed subsection 18(2):
A claimant to whom benefits are payable under section 23 is not disentitled under paragraph (1)(b) for failing to prove that he or she would have been available for work were it not for the illness, injury or quarantine.
If you need some time to think about clause 15, we will actually deal with clauses 11 to 14. Then we'll pause for clause 15.
(Clauses 11 to 14 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 15)
Now we'll get clarification on clause 15.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Maybe I could ask a specific question about stackability.
This came up in the testimony Mr. Moreau presented. What he shared with us on the court case that he pursued was that you were able to stack the provisions in the past. He took that case to court and he won.
The department didn't appeal that decision, so is the department saying that they agree with the decision and that they believed all along, since the change in the laws in 2002, that we were always able to stack these provisions, which was the judge's ruling?
Conservative
Director, Self Employed and Other Initiatives, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
That's exactly what I was going to say. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not from legal services—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
So it might not be fair. If you don't feel that you can answer, that's fine.
Director, Self Employed and Other Initiatives, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Exactly.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Of course, a lawyer can have a particular interpretation, but you may find another lawyer who doesn't agree with that interpretation. I know how much hinges on that.
If there was a judge's ruling that picked one, I don't know that you're in a position to comment on it, but you're certainly welcome to if you want to.
Go ahead, Mr. Cuzner.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
It was a judge's decision that was not appealed, so it's more than an opinion.
Director, Self Employed and Other Initiatives, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
It was not appealed. As to why it was not appealed or the department's position on this, I was not involved.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Does the department believe that these provisions have always been available to people since 2002?
Director, Self Employed and Other Initiatives, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
I cannot comment on that.
Director, Self Employed and Other Initiatives, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
I can tell you what the change will do.
Conservative
