Bill C-13 (Historical)

Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend the benefit period and the period during which parental benefits may be paid for Canadian Forces members whose period of parental leave is deferred or who are directed to return to duty from parental leave.

Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, that is a good illustration of why debate is so essential in the House. The member raised a great point, and I will tell the House why. The EI legislation, as I mentioned in my speech, gets amended from time to time and the reason is that it allows that social fabric to expand itself and to allow more people to create a standard of living, not just for them, but for their children as well.

With respect to child care, there are provisions within EI to help aid this? Personally, outside of that, there should be a child care provision in and of itself for affordable universal child care. However, that is a whole other issue that I do not have time to get into. Nonetheless, I wish the government would take a look at that element in a more substantial way. The Canadian Forces could also look at that as well using the general system of child care.

She makes a very good point about sick benefits but we seem to be tweaking this all the way along. What I fear is that we keep playing catch-up with the EI system. Something drastic has happened. Something has reached the critical mass by which we need to address and then make changes. We will debate them and then make changes.

It almost seems like we have lost foresight in the EI system. My biggest complaint about the government is that it does not possess the foresight in the EI system to see this coming down the road. It is always given short shrift and it is reactive. Whether intentioned that way or not, I will give the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt, but we need to be far more flexible in how we deal with something like the EI system to handle, not just child care and parental leave, but also things like post-traumatic stress disorders and those types of illnesses.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member for his assessment of the Conservative agenda on Veterans Affairs and the military, basically a report card on its last four years.

When the Conservatives were in opposition, they promised to do a number of things. They promised to look into the agent orange situation and to take care of veterans' benefits. What we have seen over the last four years are a lot of unresolved issues with the government, to the point where a couple of weeks ago in Calgary the Prime Minister had a photo op at a food bank for veterans.

British Columbia has homeless shelters for veterans. This should not happen in a country such as this. Veterans' hospital beds are being reduced or taken out of service and they will not be there for future generations of veterans.

While we see some incremental improvements like this bill, which we are all supporting today, we find that the Conservatives fall far short of their initial promises when they were in opposition, before they became government. It seems that since they have become government, it has been downhill for veterans and the military forces in this country.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

What planet do you live on?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I would ask the member if he would like to comment and, if any of the members opposite want to comment, they can take their turns too.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Yes, but we don't spew untruths.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I should respond or let the members go at it, but, of course, that is not our procedure here, is it?

I get quite a few issues surrounding veterans but I find a lot of it centres around what is called the VIP program and the eligibility within it. Spouses are covered as well.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, the thing is that there is a high demand for this as well and I find that it is almost like we get into a culture where a lot of it is falling through the cracks and a lot of people who are on the edge of eligibility, if I could use that term, get cut off. It is almost like the system that was intentioned to be so spirited and generous we tend to get binary code in thinking. What does that mean? It means that it is either black or white, either one qualifies or one does not. Unfortunately, the flexibility within that does not exist, so a lot of people fall through the cracks.

I agree with the member about what has happened. A good example is agent orange, where funding was provided, but so many people were left outside of that particular package of funding that it got a bad name. A lot of people think the government did not do anything about it. It did something, but, unfortunately, what was encompassed within the promise was not kept. It was always the way it comes back to them.

In order to fix this, despite the fact that it is a well-intentioned program but only few get to qualify, we should really consider providing flexibilities in the system to allow it to be nimble enough to allow some people who are just on the margins and unfairly ostracized by a program that was never meant to cut people off. It ends up gaining a reputation of being cruel in nature, which is unfortunate.

For instance, in my home riding there is the Forestry Corps that was basically involved in Scotland. It was a group of foresters who helped feed the war machine by cutting down trees in Scotland. It got a lot of recognition but there was no funding available to help bring the foresters through the later years. A lot of them are still asking for some kind of recognition financially.

It was only recently, meaning within the last 10 or 15 years, when the merchant navy had problems as well.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-13. If I may, I would like to elaborate on the topic and go a little further than the scope of this bill. My colleagues have already mentioned the strong consensus here. The four parties all agree on this bill to amend the Employment Insurance Act to extend the benefit period when parental leave is interrupted. Parental leave could therefore be deferred if CF members are called back to duty during that leave.

Of course it is a noble intention. We know that parental leave is important for all workers, including military personnel. This bill recognizes the unique nature of military work and the requirements that that work entails. CF members sometimes have to deploy during their parental leave. Employment insurance must therefore be flexible enough to deal with this unique situation.

What concerns me is that, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, the legislation probably could have been corrected by the executive without bringing the matter before Parliament. One might wonder why we are being asked to vote on a piece of legislation, when the government has the authority to make these changes.

It is possible that the government wanted to get some good press about veterans, but in many ways it is abandoning soldiers living with emotional problems or significant physical injuries. It is also neglecting retirees who are real veterans. It is proposing a good measure, but it is only a band-aid solution for a bigger problem.

The Bloc Québécois has a great deal of respect for soldiers. Even though we do not always agree with the government with regard to the missions, we believe that a soldier's duty is to obey the orders of the government. We live in a democracy. We criticized the strategy in Afghanistan and spoke out against our possible involvement in the war in Iraq not because we do not support the troops, but because we were against these actions in principle. The Prime Minister, who was the leader of the opposition at the time, was for the war in Iraq and so was the current Leader of the Opposition.

While I was saying that the Bloc Québécois supports the troops, I saw some Conservative MPs shaking their heads. They truly do not believe that is the case. According to them, we are attacking the troops when we say that military spending is too high, that we could cut this spending, and that we do not need to by so many weapons or the latest gadgets. They think we are attacking our brave soldiers and our veterans. This is not what soldiers want. They want some consideration and when they return from a mission with physical or psychological injuries, they want some help.

I have some statistics to share with the House. Some 4% of soldiers returning from Kandahar have developed suicidal tendencies, 4.6% have symptoms of major depression, and more than 15% experience mental health problems. These statistics are taken from an article on the Canadian Forces in Le Devoir.

Do we really think these soldiers need the latest tanks, new bombs or higher-performance guns? Is that what it means to the Conservatives to support the troops? Do the Conservatives not think that the troops want us to criticize the government when it hides information about the transfer of detainees in Kandahar although it knew there was a chance the detainees would be tortured? That is not what they want.

What they want is financial and psychological support.

Let us consider the changes made in 2005 by the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, known as the Veterans Charter, which took effect on April 6, 2006. Under this charter, soldiers who are injured on missions abroad do not receive a lifetime pension commensurate with their injuries, but a lump sum.

This policy is a failure for two reasons. First, the lump sum that is paid out according to soldiers' disabilities is not enough for them to live on for the rest of their lives. Second, a large amount is much harder for soldiers to manage, because they have to divide it up in order to have enough to last a lifetime. A further difficulty is the fact that because of the traumas they suffered overseas, many of these people come home with mental health problems that can limit their ability to properly manage the money they receive.

We are asking the government to go back to the old formula of a pension, which would provide a lifetime of support for our soldiers who have fought, risked their lives and lost some of their health on mission. The government is still refusing to go ahead, even though it claims to be the champion of the military.

Is this not a prime example of the government using the military for its own purposes? Most of us have soldiers in our ridings. Some of them are friends of ours. I know that many soldiers are angry that the government is using the military to hide its reprehensible behaviour toward Afghan detainees. The government is attacking everyone who questions the advisability of combat missions and of spending additional billions on weapons.

Many soldiers have told me that they do not really like being singled out in the political battle that is being waged. They are criticizing the government for using them for political purposes. The soldiers told me that Parliament decides how much to invest in the military sector, it decides which wars we will be involved in and it decides how captured prisoners will be treated. They are simply enforcing the laws. All they want is for us to think about them and give them the psychological follow-up they need as well as the income they need to live out their lives.

To conclude, I would like to draw a parallel with victims of crime. The government is constantly telling us that if we are against their regressive crime measures it means that we are against victims. When someone's family member is killed or when they are a victim of crime themselves, if the criminal goes to prison for 2, 150 or 300 years—the way they do in the United States—the victim's situation is the same.

However, when the Conservatives vote against a bill that would extend the number of weeks of employment insurance that a victim of crime is eligible for, they are being terribly hypocritical. Victims of crime also need support after the crime has been committed.

They defend victims of crime, but they must also encourage prevention. On one hand, they are dismantling the firearms registry and putting public safety at risk. On the other hand, they are saying that if an individual uses a firearm to commit a crime, he will be put in prison for a long time. That does nothing for victims.

The government must also stop advancing its regressive policies by exploiting either the victims of crime or our courageous military personnel.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, our colleague from the Bloc Québécois talked about employment insurance and a lot of things, but one topic he raised which is of particular interest to me is soldiers returning from Afghanistan, who may not have any physical injuries but have mental health issues. There are many out there, and it is likely that every soldier returning from Afghanistan has been injured in one way or another.

Could the member from the Bloc Québécois tell me what he thinks the government could do to help the soldiers who are returning from Afghanistan with mental health issues?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, much more, and more intensive psychological support and serious follow up should be provided to all of them. The reason for that is twofold. Of course, when someone is physically injured, it is not an issue, the person receives care and treatment. It goes without saying. The same amount of energy, time and money should be put into the care and treatment of those with psychological injuries. That is plain common sense.

On top of that, however, for the government to recognize that soldiers are experiencing problems, that this is normal and that they will receive care is the first step in these individuals' healing process. By refusing to give this issue the importance it has for our armed forces, the government is indirectly sending the message that this is a marginal issue and that perhaps those with psychological problems were not cut out for the army, were too weak or not strong enough, that there is something wrong with them. That has to change. Our brave soldiers returning from combat have to be told that it is quite common and normal, with the kind of trauma they have experienced, to be psychologically injured and that there is no shame in that. We must tell them that there is no more shame in that type of injury than in a physical one and that we will put the necessary energy and financial resources into helping them get through it.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. It has made me think that wars have changed quite a bit. If we look back 50 or 60 years, or even further, we saw wars between armies. Back in the day, armies would even meet face to face to battle each other. Those were strictly military wars.

In the past 20 years or so, that is no longer the case. We are seeing civil wars and civilian wars that are nothing like military wars. In fact, our soldiers who are sent overseas end up among civilian populations where the enemy is not easily identifiable. It could be anyone. Children could be carrying bombs, in some cases, for various reasons. Surprise attacks may be carried out by anyone at any time.

This means two things to our soldiers. First, they are under extreme stress, since they cannot identify the people they face. Second, they are under a different type of stress because every day, or nearly every day, they see civilian victims, often children, babies, women, and so on. They have serious psychological wounds. That is what my colleague mentioned earlier this morning, that it could be the soldiers who have returned who will be dying.

I would ask my colleague to explain why the weapons we are purchasing today are less effective than they were during the military wars, and to speak about why we must invest in assistance to our returning soldiers.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that my colleague from Drummond summed things up very nicely and did a good job of explaining the facts, so I will not have to add much. He painted a clear picture. We no longer fight wars the way we used to. Our soldiers are exposed to different kinds of conflicts now. It is only logical that we should do things differently. We need a different approach to psychological issues and difficulties than the one we had 20 or 30 years ago.

He is right that the government needs a different approach to buying military equipment. Our soldiers are more often involved in close-to-ground scenarios, such as hand-to-hand fighting in the streets and alleys. They have to deal with snipers, moving targets and IEDs, all of which make large-scale intervention devices less relevant.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, before I begin I would like to take a moment in this House to recognize an event that is being celebrated back home in Halifax and also across the country. The Canadian Naval Centennial is a celebration of the rich history of the Canadian navy from 1910 to 2010.

Appropriately, my colleagues are recognizing that right now as well.

The centennial is a momentous milestone for both our navy and our nation's history. Those of us in the House recognize the need to honour the past, celebrate the achievements, and recognize the navy's obligation to Canada, all of which has been succinctly captured in their naval centennial slogan, “Commemorate, Celebrate, Commit”. I am sure all the members of the House do join me in congratulating the Canadian navy on this milestone of service.

I am pleased to speak to this bill that would introduce a change to EI rules for military servicemen and servicewomen. It would allow our military personnel to take advantage of EI parental benefits upon the birth or adoption of a baby for an extended period of time, up to 104 weeks, if that parent was deployed when the baby arrived. This is a really simple change, but it is very meaningful.

I heard the minister state earlier that this would affect about 60 families per year, at a cost of about $600,000. Despite the small numbers and the low cost, it is a significant change to the EI rules. It gives proper respect to our military personnel. It also acknowledges the really quite unusual circumstances that military families find themselves in, owing to the fact that they are serving our country.

The Department of National Defence is one of the largest employers in my riding, if not the largest employer. Canadian Forces Base Halifax is Canada's east coast naval base and the home of the Atlantic fleet. It is the largest military base in Canada in terms of the number of posted personnel. It is formed from a variety of military properties around Halifax, including the Halifax harbour in Nova Scotia.

CFB Halifax provides construction, engineering, general and specific mandated safety, environmental management, logistics, harbour support, and emergency response services to Maritime Forces Atlantic and assigned lodger units.

I have had the distinct pleasure of attending numerous military and community events on the base, and of being a part of that rich community that is at the heart, quite literally, of my riding. One thing that has become clear to me during my time, interacting with the men and women posted to CFB Halifax, is that the military is not this monolithic thing that we can point to as being distinct from the community of Halifax. It is not a body we can point to and say, “That is them, the Canadian military, over there, distinct from me, distinct from us”.

The Canadian military is us. Yes, they are different, in that our servicemen and servicewomen are in the service of our country and they do not stop being a lieutenant or a petty officer at 5 p.m. when they punch out. They do not punch out at the end of the day. They serve. Service means that they are ready 24 hours a day. Service means that they dedicate their lives to their mission and to their country.

This does make them quite different than most Canadians and from many of us, but at the same time, they are us. They are our volunteer firefighters. They are our kids' soccer coaches. They are our PTA members and our film festival volunteers. They are our community. We are our communities together.

I have had the opportunity to get to know Rear Admiral Paul Maddison, who is the commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic, and to see him at work. He has worked long and hard during his tenure in Halifax to ensure that Halifax gets this, that Halifax continues to understand how the Maritime Forces are not just a cordoned-off area on the harbourfront, or that walled-off place in Stadacona.

Admiral Maddison and his team, including Base Commander Newton, have overseen innovative initiatives such as the community mess dinner, which brings together community members to Juno Tower to experience a traditional navy mess. They have brought beer and Beethoven to the base, a really exciting initiative by the Nova Scotia symphony that performs alongside the Stadacona band. The civilian community and members of the forces sit together on the base enjoying some beer, enjoying some Beethoven, and enjoying each other's company.

I would like to take a moment to recognize the Stadacona band, which has always called Halifax its home. This year it celebrates its 70th anniversary representing the navy, the Canadian Forces, and citizens of Canada at home and around the world. Congratulations to the Stadacona band for 70 years of service.

In my time living and working in the riding of Halifax, alongside those serving for Maritime Forces Atlantic, I have come to realize that our servicemen and servicewomen are completely woven into the fabric of the community of Halifax. I have also come to realize that they are our neighbours. They are our sons, daughters, friends and parents.

This bill seeks to recognize their role as parents, their lives as our community members, and their lives outside of service. It also recognizes that life can be pretty unpredictable for military parents. If they are deployed, they could actually miss the arrival of the newest member of their family. They could miss bringing that little boy or girl home, and they could miss seeing them for the first time.

With this bill, they could at least have the advantage of spending some time at home with this new edition when they return from their deployment. This is a really wonderful thing and the NDP will be supporting this bill for this reason.

However, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who has been a longtime and tireless advocate for EI reform, has raised the possibility of making this bill better and stronger. The minister did indicate that she is open to the idea of amendments and she has asked members to bring their ideas forward.

This is actually in keeping with the development of this bill from the outset, as the subject of this bill was raised by the member for Nepean—Carleton. It is in the spirit of co-operation and collaboration that my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst has done a great thing and brought forward some ideas to make this bill better and stronger. He brought forward the idea to amend clause 3 by adding after line 5 on page 2 the following:

For the purposes of subsection (3.01), a member of a police force who is a Canadian citizen in the employ of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a Canadian citizen under contract with the Government of Canada, and who has been deployed as part of a mission outside Canada is considered to be a claimant.

What does that mean? It would expand the bill to include members of our police forces who are also occasionally deployed overseas to bring their expertise to other countries and regions around the world, as well as government workers who may find themselves in that situation. I think this is a fantastic amendment. I do not think it would broaden the numbers or costs substantially.

At this time, I would also like to take a moment to suggest to the minister that she consider extending it even further to aid workers. The international community relies on Canadian experience and expertise on a range of issues, whether it is asking our Oxfam workers to go to Haiti to deal with the aftermath of the earthquake, sending the Nova Scotia Gambia Association into the Gambia to help with rapid AIDS testing, or the work of Médecins Sans Frontières at the forefront of human life disasters.

Canada is so proud of the work that we do overseas to aid and support local initiatives that combat hunger, corruption, poverty and human rights atrocities. Would it not be wonderful if this bill would open its scope to include those aid workers, workers who are really showing Canada's capabilities to the world? I leave this to the minister to consider, but I urge her to consider that this would be a considerable recognition of all our Canadians who accept the challenge of serving overseas. That service does take place in many forms.

To summarize, this is a good bill and we will be supporting it, but I really think it could be great with the simple addition of other groups. It would recognize the incredible work that Canadians are doing overseas and around the world as stewards of our global village.