44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 26, 2024 11:00AM
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised February 8, 2024, by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader concerning the admissibility of amendments made to Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, adoptive and intended parents, by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary stated that the four amendments adopted by the committee during its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill not only exceeded the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading, but also required a royal recommendation, since they seek to authorize new and distinct spending not authorized by the Employment Insurance Act or any other statute or appropriation.
In response, the member for Winnipeg Centre noted that since the adoption in the previous session of Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, all federal legislation must be compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a goal her amendments sought to achieve. She also indicated that the government had the power to provide the royal recommendation required for these amendments.
The House will recall that on May 4, 2023, the Chair ruled that Bill C‑318 required a royal recommendation when it stated at page 14043 of Debates, and I quote:
...clause 5 adds new section 22.1 to the Employment Insurance Act to create a new type of special benefit, namely, a 15-week attachment benefit for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. The bill also provides for the duration of this new benefit to be extended for various reasons. Implementing Bill C‑318 would create a new type of benefit, and therefore, lead to increasing public expenditures for purposes not currently authorized by the act. As a result, a new royal recommendation is required for the bill to receive a final vote in the House at third reading.
During the clause-by-clause study of the bill by the committee, four amendments moved by the member for Winnipeg Centre were adopted. The amendments to clause 1 and clause 8 apply to the Employment Insurance Act and the amendments to clause 14 and clause 17 apply to the Canada Labour Code.
The amendments to clauses 1 and 8 modify the bill to include, for the purposes of the new benefit created by the bill, a situation where one or more indigenous children could be placed with a claimant, other than the child’s parents, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the indigenous group, community or people to which they belong. With the new provisions, the claimant could be entitled to obtain a 15-week benefit drawn from the treasury, a notion which is not currently provided for in the bill as adopted at second reading.
Both amendments had been ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee since they would create a new and distinct charge on the public treasury and as such would require a royal recommendation. As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at 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.
Bill C-318 also proposes amendments to the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave in the case of the transfer of a child through adoption or a child born through surrogacy. The amendments to clauses 14 and 17 create a new corresponding extended leave of absence to match the benefit established by the first two amendments to clauses 1 and 8. Here, the committee chair deemed both amendments to be beyond the scope of the bill and thus also ruled them inadmissible.
In the case of all four amendments, the committee chair’s rulings were challenged and overturned, and the amendments ultimately adopted.
As the House knows, the Speaker does not normally intervene on matters upon which committees are competent to take decisions. However, the admissibility of any amendments adopted by a committee may be challenged on procedural grounds in the House after a bill is reported back. As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 779:
The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on the Speaker’s own initiative.
When called upon to deal with such matters, the Chair is guided by Speaker Fraser’s explanation of April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates, and I quote:
When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting that may be.
In light of the arguments presented by both the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the member for Winnipeg Centre, the Chair has examined the four amendments at issue. The amendments to clause 1 and clause 8 do indeed propose a charge upon the public revenue and therefore infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown.
While the Chair recognizes that challenges may arise when a committee must examine a bill where the Speaker has previously determined that a royal recommendation will be required before putting the question at third reading, a committee must still carry out its mandate without exceeding its powers. As explained by Speaker Milliken in his ruling from November 19, 2009, at page 6939 of the Debates:
In my view, by adopting an amendment that infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown, even when it is directed at a clause itself needing a royal recommendation, a committee ventures beyond its mandate.
As previously stated, the bill aims to create a new benefit and corresponding extended leave for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. The amendments to clauses 8 and 14 provide that one or more indigenous children could be placed, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the indigenous group, community or people to which they belong, with a person other than the child’s parents. This person could be entitled to an extended leave, which introduces a new concept not found in the bill as adopted at second reading. Thus, these amendments do go beyond the scope of Bill C-318.
Consequently, I must order that all four amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be declared null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House.
In addition, I am ordering that the reprint of Bill C-318, as ordered by the committee, be cancelled. The text of the bill as adopted at second reading will stand as the official version of the bill for consideration at report stage.
Given that the bill is now reported back from committee without amendment, the requirement for a royal recommendation, as explained in the Chair's ruling from May 4, 2023, stands. Consequently, I will decline to put the question on third reading unless a royal recommendation is received.
I thank all members for their attention.
1329 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
There are 12 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill S-205.
Motions Nos. 1 to 12 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 12 to the House.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:21:54 p.m.
- Watch
I see that the Minister of Public Services and Procurement is already standing to answer the question. I would like to remind all members that questions must pertain to government administration or else they should be directed to a committee chair.
The hon. Minister of Public Services and Procurement.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:33:57 p.m.
- Watch
The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the response from the minister due to other folks taking the floor. I also see that the member who asked the question is having difficulty hearing it with his earpiece. Therefore, I would ask all members to please keep it down.
The hon. minister from the top.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:36:26 p.m.
- Watch
Once again, colleagues, the Chair could not hear the question being asked by the hon. member, and that hon. member is actually close to the Chair.
The hon. member for Lethbridge, from the top.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:37:22 p.m.
- Watch
The time has come awfully close to the end of the hon. member's question. I would like to assure the hon. member that neither the Chair nor the table had heard a comment that was unparliamentary. This is why it is very important for all members—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Colleagues, it is very important for members to not comment while a recognized member has the floor. That way—
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:37:40 p.m.
- Watch
I am going to ask the hon. member to restrain himself while I try to give an explanation to all members.
As I was saying to colleagues, it is so important for us to keep our voices down and to restrain ourselves—
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:40:25 p.m.
- Watch
I am going to ask the hon. member once again to please follow the good example of his whip and restrain himself while the Chair is talking.
It is so important for colleagues to be quiet so that the Chair can hear the question and if, on occasion, members say something that is untoward or unparliamentary, the Chair or the table could hear that comment to make sure that things happen with an appropriate parliamentary tone.
I am going to give the hon. member for Lethbridge 10 seconds to put her question if she chooses. Would the hon. member for Lethbridge like to have those 10 seconds?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:41:34 p.m.
- Watch
I want to remind members to be very judicious, if they are going to quote from something. Otherwise, it could be perceived as a prop. I will ask the hon. minister to continue. She has six seconds left on the clock.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:42:03 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:43:00 p.m.
- Watch
Order, order.
The hon. minister.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:44:45 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
The hon. government House leader.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:48:43 p.m.
- Watch
Before the minister responds, I would like to ask every member to choose their words carefully, to ensure that their comments do not target the individual.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:52:34 p.m.
- Watch
As I have already said twice, questions must pertain to the administration of government or committee business. The Chair is having a very hard time seeing how that question deals with the administration of government, but I see that the Minister of Public Services and Procurement is willing to answer it. I would like all members to keep their questions focused on the administration of government.
The hon. minister.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:09:07 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I would ask the member for Ajax and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to please take their conversation outside of the chamber or ask questions and receive responses.
The hon. member for Laval—Les Îles.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:17:41 p.m.
- Watch
I have a statement I would like to make.
The Chair would like to take a few minutes to share with the House some brief reflections on our proceedings since the resumption of the session at the end of January. This is quite relevant today.
Since my election as your Speaker, I have made it my main goal to work toward improving the decorum of this place. I have received feedback and support from whips, which led to some improvements. I am grateful for their efforts.
In my observations, I have also noticed the vast majority of exchanges during the sitting day are productive and are worthy of our institution, and for this, I express my gratitude to all as it is incumbent on all of us to elevate the quality of our proceedings. That being said, there has been a slow but steady increase in language and expressions that have been perceived to be inflammatory. The Chair wishes to address this as we move toward the spring session.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:20:06 p.m.
- Watch
During key moments, remarks have, at times, gotten too close to the limit of what is considered respectful and courteous, or even in good taste. Other interventions have clearly crossed the line of unparliamentary language. As a result, proceedings were often interrupted by a Chair's interventions or by points of order generated by the conduct of members from all sides of the House.
In some cases, the use of certain expressions or language was determined by the Chair to be unparliamentary and resulted in the withdrawal of the offending term or an apology from the member. In those instances, the Chair considered the matter closed and we moved on. There are other times when the Chair has issued warnings, encouraging members to stay away from certain terms. While not finding them unparliamentary, they do contribute to disorder and we would all be best served by avoiding this sort of language.
On other occasions, the Chair has ruled that something was considered “a matter of debate”. When a Chair rules that a particular statement is a matter of debate, the Chair is saying that there is a debatable point in the balance as opposed to a personal attack, the use of an easily identifiable unparliamentary term or an exchange that results in disorder. Insofar as debate can, on occasion, be sharp and tense, even sometimes causing some members to take offence, it can still fall within the realm of an acceptable discourse in the House. The Chair will continue to make these distinctions when necessary.
Even when there was no finding of the actions or language in question being unparliamentary in a strict sense, it is evident to the Chair and to those watching our debates that the accumulation of this sort of behaviour has had a negative lingering effect on our proceedings. Since January, the Chair has heard statements that were excessively provocative and insulting.
These sorts of comments have proven to be disruptive to our proceedings, hurtful to members, detrimental to moving our work forward, and beneath the high office we hold as members of parliament.
On December 12, 2012, one of my predecessors had observed, at page 13,215 of Debates:
The House is also an inherently adversarial forum that tends to foster conflict. As a result, sometimes emotions get the better of us and we quickly find ourselves in situations marked by disorderly conduct. Tone and gestures can cause as much of a reaction as the words used in debate. Lately, it appears that at different times the mood of the House has strayed quite far from the flexibility, accommodation and balance that ideally ought to exist in this place.
Regardless of whether the Chair finds language unparliamentary, it is incumbent upon all members to judiciously consider their remarks. As I stated on October 18, 2023, at page 17584 of the Debates, and I quote:
The House is a place where freedom of speech is primordial and where views are strongly held and vigorously defended. While the Chair must allow the widest possible range of individual expression possible, members are expected to be mindful of their words and behaviours within the realm of what would be considered parliamentary.
The Chair, and by this I mean myself and my fellow presiding officers, therefore, encourages all members to take part in our proceedings, even vigorously and passionately, as the case may be, but to do so in a civilized and respectful manner in accordance with our own rules.
The Chair will continue applying the rules, fairly and forcefully when required, but in the end, it is every member's responsibility to exercise a reasonable degree of self-discipline and restraint while exercising their privilege of freedom of speech.
I thank all members for their attention and for their continued efforts in improving decorum in the House.
640 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:26:12 p.m.
- Watch
I am also now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 8, by the member for Regina—Lewvan concerning allegedly misleading statements made in the House by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
In raising his question of privilege, the member alleged that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change had misled the House during Oral Questions on February 7 and 8, when they implied that he said there is no link between the carbon tax and food prices. The member quoted one of the statements he made in the House on February 6, to assert that, in fact, he had made such a link. In the member's view, this misrepresentation rose to the level of a prima facie question of privilege.
The question of privilege the Chair is being asked to rule on can be summarized as follows: determining whether the statements of the Prime Minister and the minister contain inaccuracies that would show that they knowingly misled the House.
When the member raised his question of privilege in the House, he rightly referred to the three conditions that must be met for the Chair to find a prima facie case of privilege. In my ruling of February 15, 2024, I laid out those three conditions. I would encourage members to review that ruling.
In a similar situation, one of my predecessors said, in a ruling on April 30, 2014, which can be found on page 4,753 of Debates:
Thus, it is not sufficient for members to simply make allegations based on their perceptions of what is or is not factually correct. Members must recognize and accept the existence of differences of fact and interpretation, which have always been a part of the normal cut and thrust of debate and question period.
As for the question of privilege before us, I reviewed the statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change during oral questions on February 7 and 8, 2024. The Chair could not find in those statements any grounds to conclude that those members knew their answers were misleading or that they intended to mislead the House.
The member for Regina—Lewvan was able to correct the record by explaining his intent and his point of view. In my opinion, we are therefore dealing with a matter of debate. Consequently, the Chair cannot find a prima facie case of privilege here.
I thank all members for their attention.
424 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:33:51 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:34:36 p.m.
- Watch
Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Nay.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
