Human Resources Committee on Oct. 19th, 2022

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Yes, please, Mr. Chair.

I move 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 quaran—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

Again, Bill C-215 amends the Employment Insurance Act by increasing from 15 to 52 the maximum number of weeks for which benefits can be paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine. The amendment, NDP-2, seeks to prevent the total number of combined weeks of benefits in subsection 12(6) of the act to be taken into account for benefits paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following 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 aims to relax the conditions for the payment of benefits provided for in the act, which requires a royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule amendment NDP-2 inadmissible.

Yes, Ms. Zarrillo.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I wasn't expecting that, Mr. Chair, but I will reiterate that on April 5, 2022, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons ruled 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.”

Currently, this bill has not realized that royal recommendation, so I think there's opportunity to make amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The ruling is not subject for debate. It can only be challenged.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I would like to challenge it, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The ruling on NDP-2 has been challenged.

Madame Chabot, you've raised your hand, but it would have to be on a point of order. We're going to a vote. There's no debate. My ruling has been challenged, which brings procedure to an immediate vote.

Madam Clerk, call the vote and explain the vote to the committee.

[The Clerk]

The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

If you agree, you vote yes; if you disagree, you vote no.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The clerk advises me that we have to suspend for a moment. We have a microphone issue we need to get clarified. I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes to correct it.

Yes, Madame Chabot.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I'd like to ask a question, Mr. Chair.

Does the procedure allow us to challenge your ruling that the amendment is out of order, or should we just move to a vote?

When I raised my hand, I wanted to debate it and understand the whole thing. I am asking the question so that it will be clearer in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thanks, Madame Chabot, for clarifying. You can challenge my ruling, but not debate it. It goes immediately to a vote.

With that, we'll suspend for a few minutes. We are having an issue with one of the microphones.

Committee members, we will resume.

Regarding the technical issue, there was only one mike working in the room, which was causing an issue.

Just for the clarification of the committee, my ruling is sustained.

Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

The third and final amendment that we have before the committee is NDP-3, on clause 2.

Madame Zarrillo, go ahead.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is also in regard to being able to have some flexibility in the benefits based on other life events. The amendment states that Bill C-215, in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 1 with the following:

(c) despite subsection 12(6), because of a prescribed illness, injury or quaran—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

Bill C-215 amends the Employment Insurance Act by increasing from 15 to 52 the maximum number of weeks for which benefits can be paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine. Amendment NDP-3 seeks to prevent the total number of combined weeks of benefits in subsection 12(6) of the act being taken into account for benefits paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine.

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 aims to relax the conditions for the payment of benefits provided for in the act, which requires a royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule this amendment inadmissible.

I see no challenge to the chair's ruling.

Madame Chabot, go ahead.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I challenge your decision and I will explain why.

Can I explain why? In this case, I do not understand your objection and this inadmissibility. There is a consistency...

You can't hear anything?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The interpretation was not available for the first part of your comment.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I'll start over.

While earlier you explained to me that your decision was not open to debate, in the case of subsection 12(6), it seems to me that there is a logical fit and consistency with the bill. I now want to know why you consider this out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

Again, according to procedure and precedent, the chair's ruling is not subject to debate. You can challenge it. If there's a challenge, we'll go to a vote.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I am challenging it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay.

Madam Clerk, call a vote on the chair's ruling on the amendment as being inadmissible.

[The Clerk]

The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

If you agree, you vote yes; if you disagree, you vote no.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The chair's ruling has been upheld.

That is the conclusion of the amendments that have been submitted.

(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to)

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Shall the bill carry?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I'd like a recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We'll have a recorded vote on the carrying of the bill. There were no amendments.

(Bill C-215 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Shall the chair report the bill to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.