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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
So moved. All right.
Well, it's an interesting way of getting there, but I have to rule on whether the amendment is admissible or not, given the preamble and the clarification.
Clause 18 of Bill C-44 states that benefits can be paid to a major attachment claimant who is a parent of a critically ill child. Amendment LIB-5 proposes to extend these benefits to a minor attachment claimant who has 420 hours or more of insurable employment.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 767 to 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.
In the opinion of the chair, LIB-5 represents an extension of the categories of claimants to whom benefits would be available and would seek to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation. Therefore, the amendment LIB-5 is inadmissible.
We have NDP-7. Perhaps you can identify it for me in the bill.
If you wish to move that amendment, Mr. Sullivan, you can read it or just simply move it as we have it.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
In the interests of time, Mr. Chairman, I would propose that NDP-7 and NDP-8 be dealt with together. They're not the same lines, but they are the same thought.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
It's the same essential premise.
The first amendment, NDP-7, reads:
That Bill C-44, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 14 with the following:
“(ii) the expiry of two weeks after the day on which the child dies, or”
Amendment NDP-8 reads:
That Bill C-44, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 15 with the following:
“(ii) the expiry of two weeks after the last of the children dies, or”
The first of those amendments deals with an extension of the EI benefits to parents of critically ill children for two weeks after a single child dies, and, in the case of more than one critically ill child, amendment NDP-8 deals with extending the benefit for two weeks after the death of the child.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
All right, I've got your amendments. I think it's fair to deal with both NDP-7 and NDP-8, as they essentially have the same premise and the same basis.
The ruling is as follows. Clause 18 of Bill C-44 states that the benefits under this section end the last day of the week the child dies. Amendments NDP-7 and NDP-8 propose that the benefits end two weeks after the day on which the child dies, or probably the last day the child dies.
House of Commons Practice and Procedure, second edition, states on pages 767 to 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.
In the opinion of the chair, NDP-7 and NDP-8 represent an extension of the period during which the benefits can be claimed by an employee, which seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation. Therefore, the amendments are inadmissible.
This ruling also applies to LIB-6 and LIB-7, which seek to amend the same lines and achieve the same results.
(Clause 18 agreed to)
(Clauses 19 to 22 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 23)
We will now go to clause 23, which has amendment LIB-8. Can you identify that in the bill for me?
Mr. Cuzner, it seems to be similar. Do you wish to make any comments?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
He's moved amendment LIB-8, and I think I've already said that my previous ruling applies to LIB-8.
If I didn't say LIB-8, my ruling will be the same, essentially, in that it infringes upon the financial initiative of the crown and is inadmissible for the reasons previously stated.
We will go to amendment LIB-9. Could you identify that in the bill for me?
Again, Mr. Cuzner, it's a similar premise there. Did you move LIB-9?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Okay, now we'll rule it out of order for the same reasons, I would think, but I'll have a quick look to make sure.
Yes, it also infringes upon the financial initiative of the crown, and the same ruling previously given would apply to this one as well.
(Clause 23 agreed to)
We will go from clause 24 through to clause 37. There being no amendments, I would propose—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
There being no amendments, I would propose that those clauses carry severally, unless there are any objections.
(Clauses 24 to 37 inclusive agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
That brings us to clause 1, the short title.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
We're done, then, in terms of this bill.
Thank you very much for your attention and your various positions. I have indicated that there are several points that we might want to take into consideration.
Mr. Sullivan, do you have a point?
