HUMA Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities met at 8:49 a.m. this day, in Room 7-52, 131 Queen Street, the Chair, Ed Komarnicki, presiding.

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

The Chair called Clause 2.

The witnesses answered questions.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 5,

“206.4 (1) In this section, “child”, “critically ill”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ryan Cleary and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, Ryan Cleary, Rodger Cuzner, François Lapointe, Mike Sullivan — 5; NAYS: Brad Butt, Joe Daniel, Kellie Leitch, Colin Mayes, Phil McColeman, Rob Moore — 6.

“up to 52 weeks in order to care for or support”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

The Chair ruled that the following amendment was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also inadmissible:

“same event — must not exceed 52 weeks during”

“(i) the expiry of two weeks after the day on which the child dies, or”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

The Chair ruled the following amendment inadmissible since it seeks to achieve the same results as the previous amendment:

That Bill C-44, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 4 with the following:

“(i) the expiry of the fourteenth day after the day on which the child dies, or”

Whereupon, François Lapointe appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division: YEAS: Brad Butt, Rodger Cuzner, Joe Daniel, Kellie Leitch, Colin Mayes, Phil McColeman, Rob Moore — 7; NAYS: Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, Ryan Cleary, François Lapointe, Mike Sullivan — 4.

“(i) the expiry of two weeks after the last of the children dies, or”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

The Chair ruled the following amendment inadmissible since it seeks to achieve the same results as the previous amendment:

That Bill C-44, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 4 with the following:

“(i) the expiry of the fourteenth day after the day on which the last of the children dies, or”

Whereupon, François Lapointe appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division: YEAS: Brad Butt, Joe Daniel, Kellie Leitch, Colin Mayes, Phil McColeman, Rob Moore — 6; NAYS: Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, Ryan Cleary, Rodger Cuzner, François Lapointe, Mike Sullivan — 5.

Clause 5 carried.

On Clause 6,

““child” means a person who is under 18 years of age or who is 18 years of age or older but is unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to obtain the necessaries of life.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

“(2), on the day on which the employee has taken the last of the 104 weeks to which he or she is entitled, or

(ii) in the case of leave under subsection (3), on the day on which the employee has taken the last of the 52 weeks to which he or she is entitled.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Whereupon, Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division: YEAS: Brad Butt, Joe Daniel, Kellie Leitch, Colin Mayes, Phil McColeman, Rob Moore — 6; NAYS: Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, Ryan Cleary, Rodger Cuzner, François Lapointe, Mike Sullivan — 5.

Clause 6 carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 10,

“(d) defining “child”, enlarging the meaning of “critically ill”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, Ryan Cleary, Rodger Cuzner, François Lapointe, Mike Sullivan — 5; NAYS: Brad Butt, Joe Daniel, Kellie Leitch, Colin Mayes, Phil McColeman, Rob Moore — 6.

Clause 10 carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 11 to 14 inclusive carried severally.

Clause 15 carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 16 and 17 carried severally.

On Clause 18,

“this section, benefits are payable to a minor attachment claimant who has 420 hours or more of insurable employment in his or her qualifying period and who is the parent of a”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on pages 767-768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

“(ii) the expiry of two weeks after the day on which the child dies, or”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on pages 767-768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

The Chair ruled the following amendments inadmissible since they seek to achieve the same results as the previous amendment:

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”

That Bill C-44, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 14 with the following:

“(ii) the expiry of the fourteenth day after the day on which the child dies, or”

That Bill C-44, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 15 with the following:

“(ii) the expiry of the fourteenth day after the day on which the last of the children dies, or”

Clause 18 carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 19 to 22 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 23,

“(ii) the expiry of the fourteenth day after the day on which the child dies, or”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on pages 767-768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

“(ii) the expiry of the fourteenth day after the day on which the last of the children dies, or”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on pages 767-768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Clause 23 carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 24 to 37 inclusive carried severally.

The Short Title carried.

The Title carried.

The Bill carried.

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

Mike Sullivan moved, — That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee immediately commence a study, as requested by the Standing Committee on Finance in their motion adopted on October 31, 2012, into the subject matter of clauses 219 to 232 of Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and that the Committee send to the Standing Committee on Finance suggested amendments to these clauses by Tuesday, November 20, 2012, at 5:00 p.m.

Debate arose thereon.

On motion of Kellie Leitch, it was agreed, — That the motion be amended by replacing the words “the Committee immediately commence” with the words “, on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, the Committee undertake”.

After debate, the question was put on the motion, as amended, and it was agreed to.

The motion, as amended, read as follows:

That, on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, the Committee undertake a study, as requested by the Standing Committee on Finance in their motion adopted on October 31, 2012, into the subject matter of clauses 219 to 232 of Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and that the Committee send to the Standing Committee on Finance suggested amendments to these clauses by Tuesday, November 20, 2012, at 5:00 p.m.

It was agreed, — That, on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, the Committee hear from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada departmental officials during the first hour of the meeting, and that discussions on the subject matter of clauses 219 to 232 of Bill C-45 be held during the second hour.

It was agreed, — That the Clerk of the Committee make the necessary arrangements, in coordination with the Chair’s office, for the Committee to co-host a reception on Monday, December 3, 2012, with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

At 10:20 a.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.