House Publications

[ Table of Contents ] The Speaker : I also would like to read a second ruling. [ Translation ] In my statement of October 20, 2025, on the management of Private Members’ Business, I expressed concern that Bill C-222 , an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (death of a child), appeared to infringe on the Crown’s financial prerogative. At the time, I encouraged members who wished to make arguments about whether or not the bill requires a royal recommendation to do so. While no formal arguments were submitted to the Chair, the sponsor of the bill, the member for Burnaby-Nord—Seymour , in his opening intervention during debate at second reading on October 24, 2025, stated his view that the bill requires a royal recommendation and that he was working with the responsible ministers to acquire it. Likewise, during his right of reply on January 29, 2026, the member again acknowledged the need for a royal recommendation and raised the possibility that this may occur following committee stage. [ English ] In assessing whether the bill requires a royal recommendation, the Chair is guided by section 18.9 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, which states: A royal recommendation fixes not only the allowable charge but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Bill C-222 seeks to ensure that parents who qualify for parental benefits under sections 23 and 152.05 of the Employment Insurance Act continue to do so for the period set out in the act if their child passes away during the benefit period. It also amends sections 206 and 206.1 of the Canada Labour Code to ensure that an employee entitled to maternity or parental leave remains entitled to that leave if their child passes away during the leave. The Chair is of the view that the bill extends the conditions under which an individual is eligible to access parental benefits, and that this in turn has the potential to result in additional charges on the consolidated revenue fund. In light of these facts, and given similar precedents with respect to bills that would have extended the length of the benefit period for employment insurance, the Chair must agree that the bill requires a royal recommendation. (1530) [ Translation ] The House can proceed to vote on the bill at second reading later this week, but a royal recommendation must be provided before it can proceed to a final vote in the House at the third reading stage, unless the bill is amended in the meantime in a manner that removes the need for a royal recommendation. I thank all members for their attention.