(Chair) in the chair.

[Translation]

My name is Ratna Omidvar and I am a senator from Ontario.

[English]

I am the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.

Before we begin, I would like to ask my colleagues to do a quick round table for the audience here or online, starting with the deputy chair of the committee.

Jane Cordy, good morning.

Good morning, Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.

Gigi Osler, Manitoba.

[Translation]

Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.

Judith Seidman from Quebec.

Diane Bellemare from Quebec.

Marie-François Mégie from Quebec.

[English]

Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba.

[Translation]

René Cormier from New Brunswick.

[English]

Thank you, colleagues.

Today we are proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council)

I would like to welcome back officials from Employment and Social Development Canada who are with us in the room today: Mona Nandy, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada; and Steven Coté, Executive Director, Employment Insurance Modernization Policy and Planning, Skills and Employment Branch.

Thank you for joining us today.

Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a few points: If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. We want to always ensure that we are all on the same page at the same time and on the same line.

In terms of mechanics of the process, I wish to remind senators that when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed and disposed of in the order of the lines of the clause.

If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind you that in committee the proper process is not to move to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause.

I would also like to remind senators that some amendments that are moved may have a consequential effect on other parts of the bill. It would be useful if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in the bill where this could have an effect. Otherwise, it becomes very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making. Because no notice is required to move amendments, there could, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.

If committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, it is my job to listen to arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.

The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.

I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which, obviously, provides unambiguous results.

Finally, senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.

Are there any questions on any of the above?

If not, we can now proceed.

Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council)?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Agreed.

Shall the title stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Shall the preamble stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Shall clause one carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Shall clause 2 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Shall clause 3 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Shall clause 4 carry?

[Translation]

I would like to make an amendment to clause 4; you are about to get it. There are two paragraphs to it. I have already spoken about the first paragraph, which related to an error in the bill. We had already agreed, as part of our study of the bill, that the advisory council would meet at least three times a year. This was in the early drafts of the bill. However, when we received this version, it was not there. It must have been lost in translation. Paragraph 10 was provided.

Following the work of this committee, which everyone who helped draft this bill listened to carefully, some comments we received made us think we should add another clause that would follow paragraph 10.

[English]

This one is the same amendment that Bill S-244 be amended in clause 4 on page 5 by adding the following after line 10.

I am sorry I’m not sure I’m looking at —