Evidence of meeting #38 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th 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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Does that suffice, Ms. Zarrillo? Okay.
With that, given that we started late, I'm going to conclude the questioning rounds with witnesses. We will suspend for a few minutes as we prepare for the clause-by-clause review of the bill.
We'll suspend for five minutes while we make the changes. We'll be joined by the legislative counsel, and the same witnesses will be coming back.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, committee members.
We will now begin the second hour. We have the ability to go to the full hour, if it's required.
Before we begin clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, which we're moving to, I want to advise the committee that we have to waive the 48-hour deadline to give notice for amendments. We only have amendments from the NDP and, because there are no independent members sitting on the committee, we need a motion to waive the 48-hour notice to file amendments.
Do we have agreement?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, committee members.
I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-215.
As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.
If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing the amendment, who may explain the amendment. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.
I, as chair, will review slowly and allow all members to follow the proceedings properly.
Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner, which I take all members of the committee have. As I indicated, there have only been three amendments received. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw an amendment.
During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the main amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then, another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.
Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and an order to reprint the bill may be required—if amendments are adopted—so the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.
Again, I would like to welcome back to the committee the two officials from the department whom you met in the first hour. We will not go through introductions. You know who they are.
At this time, I am going to ask the legislative clerks who are here with us, and who will address any legislative questions you may have, to introduce themselves before we begin the clause-by-clause discussion.
Émilie Thivierge Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm Émilie Thivierge, and I'm one of the legislative clerks assigned to Bill C-215. I'm here with my colleague to assist the committee with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
Jean-François Pagé Legislative Clerk
Hello. My name is Jean‑François Pagé. I am here to assist Ms. Thivierge with the bill.
Liberal
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Do you want me to read it? I think everyone has it.
I would just start by saying that the testimony that—
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Mr. Chair, the interpreters say that they cannot hear Ms. Zarrillo because her microphone is on mute.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Okay, it should be audible now.
I would ask Ms. Zarrillo to identify the amendment that she is speaking to.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Sure. This is on clause 1. I have an amendment that relates basically to stackability. After the testimony on Monday, it was actually quite powerful, the amount of feedback I got from a lot of women who have experienced their benefits expiring in the past. This amendment relates to that.
I want to thank this committee for the grace to be able to bring in this amendment on such short notice based on the testimony on Monday. The amendment is that Bill C-215, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 1 with the following: “(c) despite subsection 12(6), because of a prescribed illness, injury or—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Ms. Zarrillo, that is not the first clause. That is not the first amendment.
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
I'm sorry. It is, but we're on NDP-1.
Please move your first amendment, Ms. Zarrillo.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I was trying to do the easiest first.
This one relates to parental or pregnancy benefits, when we want to be able to have the full 52 weeks for sick benefits and not to have any deductions from your parental or your maternal.... Do you want me to read it?
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
All right. This is to amend the bill by adding before line 4 on page 1 the following new clauses:
0.1 Subsection 8(2) of the Employment Insurance Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (c), by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (d) and by adding the following after paragraph (d):
(e) receiving pregnancy or parental benefits or their equivalents from a provincial parental insurance plan.
0.2 Subsection 10(10) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (c), by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (d) and by adding the following after paragraph (d):
(e) in receipt of pregnancy or parental benefits or their equivalents from a provincial parental insurance plan.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.
I'll give my ruling on this. I have been advised by the legislative clerk that Bill C-215 amends paragraphs 12(3)(c) and 152.14(1)(c) of the Employment Insurance Act to increase from 15 to 52 the maximum number of weeks for which benefits can be paid because of illness, injury or quarantine. The amendment seeks to amend subsections 8(2) and 10(10) of the act to add an additional ground of extending the qualifying period and the benefit period for persons in receipt of pregnancy or parental benefits.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:
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, the amendment you propose seeks to amend sections of the act that are not modified by Bill C-215, which is not procedurally allowed, and also proposes to broaden the grounds for extending the qualifying period and the benefit period to a new category of persons, which imposes a charge on the treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Would you like to comment, Ms. Zarrillo?
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I would. Thank you so much.
One thing I wanted to bring up was that today we did talk about the gender lens. We did talk about the fact that in 1972 they were maybe not applying it. As well, we didn't get confirmation that any of the budgetary estimates applied a gender lens, so I would argue that there might not be an increase.
The second thing I wanted to talk about was that Bill C-215 needs to be accompanied by a royal recommendation before it can receive third reading in the House of Commons...and voting that the bill “would entail an increase in public spending in a way and to an end that is not currently authorized.” It's my understanding that this bill itself has not yet received that royal recommendation.
So I would challenge this, Mr. Chair, and I wonder if we could go to a vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Madam Clerk, explain the significance of the vote and what's being asked.
The Clerk
The question is on whether the decision of the chair shall be sustained. If you agree with the chair's decision, you vote yes. If you disagree, you vote no.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, committee.
(On clause 1)
At this stage, Ms. Zarrillo, do you want to move NDP-2?