HUMA Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities met by videoconference at 3:37 p.m. this day, in Room 853, 131 Queen St., the Vice-Chair, Raymonde Folco, presiding.

James Duquette, by videoconference from Kabul, Afghanistan and Anne Duquette made statements and answered questions.

At 4:16 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 4:18 p.m., the sitting resumed.

Louis Beauséjour answered questions.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1 was postponed.

The Chair called Clause 2.

On Clause 2,

“(12.2) For the purposes of subsection (12.1), a member of a police force who is a Canadian citizen in the employ of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a Canadian citizen under contract with the Government of Canada and who has been deployed as part of a mission outside Canada is considered to be a claimant.”

Debate arose thereon.

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Bill C-13 the amends Employment Insurance Act by extending the benefit period and the period during which parental benefits may be paid for Canadian Forces members whose period of parental leave is deferred or who are directed to return to duty from parental leave.

The amendment attempts to apply the provisions of the bill to a member of a police force who is a Canadian citizen in the employ of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a Canadian citizen under contract with the Government of Canada and who has been deployed as part of a mission outside Canada.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition states on page 766:

“An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

And, as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition also states on pages 767-768:

“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, the introduction of this new class of persons to the application of the provisions of the bill is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-13. As a consequence to being a new concept, it also seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the Royal Recommendation. Therefore, for these reasons, the amendment is inadmissible.

The Chair ruled that the following two (2) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also inadmissible:

Clause 2 carried.

Clause 3 carried.

Clause 4 carried.

Clause 5 carried.

The Short Title carried.

The Title carried.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill to the House.

At 5:01 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.