CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 142 Ï NUMBER 003 Ï 2nd SESSION Ï 39th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Thursday, October 18, 2007 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) Also available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 63 HOUSE OF COMMONS Thursday, October 18, 2007 The House met at 10 a.m. [Translation] Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion? Prayers Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to) *** ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Ï (1005) Ï (1000) [English] [English] PETITIONS TACKLING VIOLENT CRIME ACT IMMIGRATION Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, General of Canada, CPC) moved for leave to introduce Bill I rise to table this petition signed by my constituents. I am told that C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential 31,000 people have signed the petition calling upon Parliament to amendments to other Acts. halt the deportation of Laibar Singh due to his fragile health and to (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) allow him to stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. *** Mr. Singh is paralyzed by an aneurysm and has the support of COMMITTEES OF THE WHOLE many politicians of all political stripes and levels, 13 independent doctors, and over 50 organizations including: employees, unions, APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY CHAIR AND ASSISTANT DEPUTY CHAIR human rights groups and Christian, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh The Speaker: I am now prepared to propose for the ratification of religious organizations. the House a candidate for the position of Deputy Chair of Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Committees of the Whole. I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of thousands of my [Translation] constituents. Mr. Laibar Singh is a disabled refugee claimant from the Punjab region of India and is facing deportation from Canada by Pursuant to Standing Order 8, I propose Mr. Royal Galipeau for this weekend. He has received tremendous support and compassion the position of Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole. The from my community in order to receive the medical care he now motion is deemed moved and seconded. requires. [English] Given his fragile condition, these constituents ask that the Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Government of Canada grant Mr. Singh permanent residence in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to) *** [Translation] POINTS OF ORDER BILL C-357—EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT AND BILL C-362—OLD AGE The Speaker: I am now prepared to propose for the ratification of SECURITY ACT the House a candidate for the position of Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole. Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for [English] Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order Pursuant to Standing Order 8, I propose Mr. Andrew Scheer for with regard to two private members' bills, Bill C-357 and Bill C-362. the position of Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole. Without commenting on their merits, I submit that these two bills The motion is deemed moved and seconded. require royal recommendations. 64 COMMONS DEBATES October 18, 2007 Points of Order First, I want to explain why Bill C-357, An Act to amend the new spending for an expanded commission; therefore, it must Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and accompanied by a royal recommendation. premium rate setting), requires a royal recommendation. The second bill I want to draw to your attention is Bill C-362, An As the Chair ruled on May 9, 2005: Act to amend the Old Age Security Act. —bills which involve new or additional spending for a distinct purpose must be recommended by the Crown. The royal recommendation is also required where a This bill would increase old age security and guaranteed income bill alters the appropriation of public revenue “under the circumstances, in the supplement benefits by lowering the threshold for eligibility from the manner and for the purposes set out” in the bill. What this means is that a royal current 10 years to 3. This change would result in significant new recommendation is required not only in the case where more money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific expenditures. purpose is being significantly altered. Under the Old Age Security Act, applicants must have at least 10 I would note that Bill C-357 is nearly identical to Bill C-280 in the years of residence in Canada after age 18 in order to qualify for 38th Parliament which the Speaker ruled required a royal benefits. recommendation. I would further note that partial benefits are paid to applicants who On June 13, 2005, the Speaker stated: have less than 10 years of residence if the applicant has credits from —Bill C-280 infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown for three reasons: a country with which Canada has a pension agreement. Residence first, clause 2 effects an appropriation of public funds by its transfer of these funds has been an eligibility criteria since this program's inception in 1952. from the consolidated revenue fund to an independent employment insurance account established outside the consolidated revenue fund. Reducing the residence requirement from 10 years to 3 years would Second, clause 2 significantly alters the duties of the EI Commission to enable have significant costs. new or different spending of public funds by the commission for a new purpose namely, the investment of public funds. Since eligibility for old age security pensions also qualifies for Third, as indicated in my ruling of February 8, clause 5 increases the number of low income recipients to receive the guaranteed income supplement, commissioners from four to seventeen. the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development estimates that the total cost of reducing the qualifying period would All three of these conditions apply to Bill C-357. be over $700 million annually. Clause 2 would create an employment insurance account that is Ï (1010) outside the consolidated revenue fund. The bill would transfer money out of the consolidated revenue fund to the employment Precedents clearly establish that bills which create new expendi- insurance account and that money would no longer be available for tures for benefits by modifying eligibility criteria or changing the any appropriations Parliament may make. This would be an terms of a program require a royal recommendation. appropriation of funds and, therefore, requires a royal recommenda- tion. On December 8, 2004, the Speaker ruled in the case of Bill C-278, which extended employment insurance benefits, that: However, worthy some aspects of the bill may be, and some Inasmuch as section 54 of the Constitution, 1867, and Standing Order 79 prohibit aspects of it are, this does not alter the need for the royal the adoption of any bill appropriating public revenues without a royal recommenda- recommendation. tion, the same must apply to bills authorizing increased spending of public revenues. Bills mandating new or additional public spending must be seen as the equivalent of Clause 2 would also change the duties of the Employment bills effecting an appropriation. Insurance Commission, including new requirements for the commission to deposit assets with a financial institution and to On November 6, 2006, the Speaker ruled with regard to Bill invest assets to achieve a maximum rate of return. C-269, which extended employment insurance benefits, that: Funds may only be appropriated by Parliament for purposes covered by a royal These are new and distinct purposes which have not been recommendation...New purposes must be accompanied by a new royal recommenda- authorized and are additional reasons why clause 2 requires a royal tion. recommendation. On November 9, 2006, the Speaker ruled in the case of Bill Clause 5 of Bill C-357 would increase the number of commis- C-284, the bill that enlarged the scope of the student grants program sioners on the Employment Insurance Commission from its current beyond that originally authorized by Parliament, that: four to seventeen. Any extension of the terms of an existing program must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation. On February 8, 2005, the Speaker ruled that the appointment of 13 new commissioners to the Employment Insurance Commission in On November 10, 2006, the Speaker ruled in the case of Bill Bill C-280 required a royal recommendation. This is consistent with C-278, dealing with employment insurance benefits, that: other rulings where the Speaker found that adding remunerated —by amending the Employment Insurance Act to extend sickness benefits from members to commissions requires a royal recommendation. Given 15 weeks to 50 weeks, the bill would require the expenditure of additional funds these precedents, I submit that clause 5 requires a royal in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized. recommendation. On March 23, 2007, the Speaker ruled in the case of Bill C-265, To sum up, Bill C-357 would require an appropriation, it would dealing with employment insurance benefits, that it was abundantly alter the purpose of funds covered by the act, and it would require clear: October 18, 2007 COMMONS DEBATES 65 The Address —those provisions of the bill which relate to increasing employment insurance SPEECH FROM THE THRONE benefits and easing the qualifications required to obtain them would require a royal recommendation. [English] I would also note that when Parliament adopted amendments to benefit criteria in the Old Age Security Act in Bill C-36 earlier this RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY year, this legislation was accompanied by a royal recommendation.