Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue that was raised this week by the member for Kingston and the Islands regarding the private member's item, Bill C-243, and the reasons why, in his view, said bill would not require a royal recommendation.
\nIn his intervention, my hon. colleague provided many arguments that dealt with the benefits, what constituted a new and distinct expenditure, and also the eligibility requirement.
\nOn page 834, of the second edition of House of Commons Procedures and Practices, it states:
\nA royal recommendation fixes not only the allowable charge but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
\n
On page 183, of the 6th edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, it states:
\n...an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
\n
As with the case, when a bill proposes amendments to the Employment Insurance Act respecting the benefits provided under that act, the royal recommendation is attached not only to the charge but also to the terms and conditions of the benefits. The royal recommendation is attached to each term and condition of every benefit.
\nThere is not a general appropriation that covers the specific objects and purposes of the benefits in the EI Act. A change to a benefit would result in a change to the terms and conditions of the provisions of the statute which governs the benefit. In other words, altering when a person is eligible to receive a benefit under the Employment Insurance Act, even if the change to the benefit would not increase the overall charge, would constitute an alteration to the terms and conditions of the benefit and thus would need to be accompanied by a new royal recommendation. I submit this is the case with respect to Bill C-243.
", "fr": "Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, j\u2019interviens aujourd\u2019hui pour parler de la question soulev\u00e9e cette semaine par le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de Kingston et les \u00celes \u00e0 propos de son initiative parlementaire, le projet de loi C-243, et des raisons pour lesquelles, \u00e0 son avis, ledit projet de loi n\u2019aurait pas besoin d\u2019une recommandation royale.
\nDans son intervention, mon coll\u00e8gue a fait valoir de nombreux arguments sur les avantages de son initiative, sur ce qui constitue une nouvelle d\u00e9pense distincte et \u00e9galement sur le crit\u00e8re de recevabilit\u00e9.
\n\u00c0 la page 834 de la deuxi\u00e8me \u00e9dition de La proc\u00e9dure et les usages de la Chambre des communes, on peut lire:
\nEn plus de fixer le montant du pr\u00e9l\u00e8vement, la recommandation royale en d\u00e9finit l\u2019objet, les fins, les conditions et les r\u00e9serves.
\n
\u00c0 la page 189 de la sixi\u00e8me \u00e9dition de La Jurisprudence parlementaire de Beauchesne, on peut lire:
\n[\u2026] tout amendement empi\u00e8te sur le droit d'initiative de la Couronne dans le domaine financier, non seulement s'il alourdit la d\u00e9pense, mais aussi s'il en \u00e9tend l'objet et le but vis\u00e9, ou s'il assouplit les conditions et r\u00e9serves signal\u00e9es dans la communication par laquelle la Couronne a recommand\u00e9 ou prescrit l'imputation.
\n
Comme dans ce cas, lorsqu\u2019un projet de loi propose des amendements \u00e0 la Loi sur l\u2019assurance-emploi relativement aux prestations vers\u00e9es en vertu de la Loi, la recommandation s\u2019applique non seulement au pr\u00e9l\u00e8vement, mais \u00e9galement aux conditions li\u00e9es \u00e0 ces prestations. La recommandation royale s\u2019applique \u00e0 toutes les conditions de toutes les prestations.
\nIl n'existe pas de cr\u00e9dit g\u00e9n\u00e9ral englobant les fins et l'objet particuliers des prestations vers\u00e9es en vertu de la Loi sur l'assurance-emploi. Tout changement \u00e0 des prestations modifierait les modalit\u00e9s des dispositions de la Loi, qui r\u00e9git ces prestations. En d'autres mots, le fait de modifier le moment o\u00f9 une personne est admissible \u00e0 des prestations en vertu de la Loi sur l'assurance-emploi, et ce, m\u00eame si ce changement n'augmente pas le pr\u00e9l\u00e8vement g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, aurait pour effet de modifier les modalit\u00e9s des prestations et, par cons\u00e9quent, devrait \u00eatre accompagn\u00e9 d'une nouvelle recommandation royale. Je crois que cette situation s'applique au projet de loi C-243.
"}, "url": "/debates/2016/11/25/kevin-lamoureux-2/", "politician_url": "/politicians/kevin-lamoureux/", "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/4032/", "procedural": false, "source_id": "9268015", "h1": {"en": "Routine Proceedings", "fr": "Affaires Courantes"}, "h2": {"en": "Points of Order", "fr": "Recours au R\u00e8glement"}, "h3": {"en": "Bill C-243\u2014Employment Insurance Act", "fr": "Le projet de loi C-243 \u2014 La Loi sur l'assurance-emploi"}, "document_url": "/debates/2016/11/25/", "related": {"document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2016%2F11%2F25%2F"}}