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

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I think that we have a similar and humane view of our soldiers. I completely agree with her.

As I said earlier, we cannot put a price tag on helping these people. I will give an example. A father returning from Kandahar has seen horrible things. He saw children killed and women raped. He saw all kinds of things that do not happen here. In Canada, our tolerance for violence would maybe be a two out of ten, while in war-torn countries, it is an eight out of ten. We are not used to that.

I know that they are trained, but still, at home things are not like that. When they return home and must start taking care of a family, it is not easy. They are scarred, shattered, and their dignity takes a beating. They no longer know who they are. They do not want to talk about it with their partner, because they are ashamed of their feelings and their weakness. We must find a way to seek them out and help them.

It is not an easy thing to do. The family, on its own, cannot help these men and women who are proud. There is a sense of pride in being a member of the military. Sometimes, they come back to Canada shattered. That is unfortunate, but it does happen. I am not saying that it happens to everyone. However, we absolutely have to do something for those who are affected. In order to help them, they must be seen and assessed by specialists as soon as they get back. If we wait six months, a year or longer, the damage will have been done. Soldiers become alcoholics, or they take drugs or any kind of anti-depressant. They do not know what else to take to dull the pain. It is an internal illness that is extremely difficult to detect. We have to be able to offer them services as quickly as possible so they can take hold of themselves quickly and not go down the wrong path, which is not desirable.

We send men and women to defend us, and we are proud of them. We boast about it. Then they come back to Canada and we let them fend for themselves. I believe that is unacceptable.

This legislation is good news and it should be adopted as quickly as possible because there are men and women coming back now and more who will return in 2011. We must be able to provide for them and to look after them. This must be a lesson to us for the future, when we decide to become involved in a war somewhere else in the world. We have to take appropriate action and be equipped, but not with war toys such as tanks and trucks. That is not what we need. We need military equipment, but that is not the purpose of this bill, which will help military members who return from a very, very difficult mission.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made a very good presentation.

The question has been asked whether reservists are included in the bill. The bill deals with roughly 50 to 60 cases per year and will cost about $600,000 a year.

The proposed measure does include reservists who due to military requirements have their parental leave deferred or are ordered to return to duty while on leave under the EI parental benefits. The measure also extends the period for which they are eligible by another 52 weeks. In fact, parental benefits provide income replacement for up to 35 weeks to biological or adoptive parents while they are caring for a newborn or newly adopted child. The benefits may be taken by either parent or shared between them. If the parents opt for these benefits, only one two-week waiting period must be served.

I thought I should point that out because I was asked that question.

Would the member be willing to entertain the amendment from the NDP which would include the measure to include police officers involved in these missions?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his support. I should point out to him that I do not sit on that committee either, but that, as my colleague from the Bloc Québécois indicated, it will very likely be included. The committee has to look at this and see what is involved.

Personally, I think we cannot put a price tag on helping these people, whether police or military. They do extraordinary work. They protect us and help in many ways to make things better for others. I cannot see why they could not be included.

That is something that will have to be discussed at committee and decided by the hon. members. They know where we stand on this bill, which will hopefully be approved quickly at committee.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-13, which recommends changes to employment insurance. The summary of the bill states:

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.

My party and I are certainly going to support this bill. We have to recognize that our troops, who are defending our country or democracy everywhere in the world on a Canadian mission, deserve to be given consideration in this regard, so that they are not penalized. If our soldiers had not gone overseas, they would have been able to take parental leave, for example, to be with their newborn child. That is so important.

Most of the people in the House of Commons are parents. In our day we did not have parental leave. Parental leave was something wonderful for our parents and it was wonderful for their children. We are living today in a world where both spouses work, and parents are not able to stay at home with a newborn child. The child is sent to a day care centre because the parents have to work. A bill like this one is appropriate. It would give parents the chance to stay with the child for the first year of his or her life. That is wonderful.

Our troops do us honour everywhere they go. The Bloc member clearly stated other benefits that we might give our troops. This is one benefit we can support.

The member who introduced this bill said that he knocked on a door and a soldier answered. It was that soldier who made him aware of this issue.

With respect to employment insurance, I can say we have knocked on many doors. People have made us aware of the problems they have with the employment insurance scheme and the problems it causes in society.

The government has a surplus of $57 billion to $60 billion in the employment insurance fund. This program is paid for entirely by workers. Many people are entitled to employment insurance. Given the eligibility criteria of a minimum of 420 hours or 840 hours worked, in the case of a first claim many people are excluded from the employment insurance system. For women, the same is true. Many women work part-time and cannot accumulate the number of hours required. They are not eligible for employment insurance.

Over 800,000 people in Canada pay into the employment insurance scheme but are not eligible because of the restrictions the government has imposed. The government is making piecemeal changes.

At the same time there are many other changes that the government could make. I know this is a bill for our troops, and I will come back to it quickly, but we have to look at the human element and the changes being requested.

There is the case of Marie-Hélène Dubé, who lives in Montreal North. She circulated a petition signed by 62,000 people that was presented here by a member of the Bloc Québécois. It asks that sick leave benefits be extended to 52 weeks.

We have to see the human side of this issue. People work their entire lives and then have the misfortune of falling ill. For example, a person who gets cancer has to take treatments prescribed by a specialist for a year. But after 15 weeks he or she no longer qualifies for employment insurance unless he or she works for a company that provides insurance. If that individual has no income, he or she is thrown on to welfare.

It is totally unacceptable that employees who have contributed into this program cannot qualify for benefits.

I want to return to what really happens on both sides, the military side and the civilian side. Beginning with the military side, the government says we should support our troops. There is nothing wrong with that. We should support our troops and we do, even though the Conservatives try to imply that the opposition does not support the troops because we disagree with them about some of the missions the government sends them on.

There is a difference between a mission and supporting the troops. We support our troops, but sometimes there are missions with which we disagree. We live in a democracy and have the right to express our views in the House of Commons. That is what we are elected to do, to express our views on things like this.

They ask us to support our troops, our veterans, our soldiers and our military personnel. Some soldiers are on disability and that was officially acknowledged by the army. I will give the House one example. As a result of a disability, this solder is put on the reserves, and I am not sure about the exact military term, and could stay there for three years with pay but without serving in the regular forces.

The government knew he was going to retire. He knew he would be finished with the forces at the end of May and would receive the official pension from the federal government. The army told him, though, that he would start getting his pension 8 to 12 weeks from then.

The Conservatives say we should support our troops and our veterans, but here I am forced to get involved. I have to ask National Defence why it needs 12 weeks to cut a cheque for a soldier when it has known for 3 years that he was going to retire. The cheque will not be ready at the end of May, and when he retires he will have to wait 12 weeks without any income. Is that how we support our troops?

Another soldier has been in the Canadian Forces for 20 years and would be retiring in three years. He says that because of the medical problem which the CF has recognized, he was put into another category and is no longer in the regular forces. He said that the military has known for 3 years that he would be taking his pension this month, but he was told that he would not be able to get his pension for at least 8 to 12 weeks from now. He wants to know, who will feed his family? Is that how we support our troops?

Our troops go to war, they defend our country, and they defend democracy around the world. When they come back, they need our support. I support Bill C-13 because it would give our soldiers, when they come back from a mission, a break of 52 weeks to spend with their families. They would receive parental leave, like any other Canadian.

The member for Acadie—Bathurst suggested to the government that clause 3 of Bill C-13 be amended by adding another line, after line 5, page 2:

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.

I believe this is reasonable. We are not talking about millions of people. We have police officers who are deployed in various countries to conduct missions and to help in reconstruction efforts. We have other members of police forces who go to those countries.

We know of a specific case. RCMP Sergeant Gallagher lost his life after landing in Haiti the day of the earthquake. He went to the country to help the Haitian government and community build up its police force. We have other citizens in similar situations.

That is why I take Bill C-13 seriously. It is a good bill—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but it is time to move to another subject. So when the debate is resumed, the hon. member will have 10 and one half minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-13 is a good bill and we have to consider it. We cannot say that the situation is resolved because a Conservative MP knocked on a door and met a soldier. It is reasonable for the House to study this bill and refer it to committee, where members can share their points of view and get the government's reaction.

If our government calls on police forces, whether the RCMP, city or municipal, to help other countries within the framework of a Canadian mission, it is the same as sending a soldier. We ask our police officers to take part in such missions, which are quite dangerous. If we ask police officers to go to Afghanistan to help that country's police force, it is dangerous for them as well. They go abroad to do a job on behalf of our country, just as the military does. For that reason they should be included in this group.

Military and police veterans must benefit from the same programs upon their return from a mission. That is why there is a flaw in Bill C-13. All those sent on missions by our country should be treated in the same way.

Clause 3 of Bill C-13 should be amended 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.

That is just reasonable. We are not talking about thousands of people. We are talking about a minimum number of people who are sent away by our government. The jobs they do are very dangerous too. They are sent on missions, for example, to help the Afghan police reconstruct their force. They are in a dangerous area.

If they are not sent away, they are not going to be claiming the 52 extra weeks. However, if the government calls upon them to be outside the country to help around the world, they should be in that same category. The reason the NDP wants to make the change is really important. We must treat everyone the same. We believe this would be going in the right direction.

At the same time, there are problems across the country with people losing their jobs. The EI program belongs to workers. All across the country there are workers who lose their jobs. We are in an economic crisis and the government should be able to make other changes, not piecemeal like the way it is being done.

We sat at one time together, all parties, and prepared a report in the human resources committee with 28 recommendations. Those recommendations should come forward. The government should look at the big picture and at all the problems with employment insurance, and why people are not qualifying.

It should be 360 hours. Why do people who are sick have to have 600 hours to qualify for employment insurance? It is nonsense. No one chooses to be sick. Employment insurance is insurance to help workers. It is not a tax to bring in funds for the government to pay down the deficit and bring it to zero by using employment insurance premiums. That money should go back to the workers. We should work toward that and have the government do the right thing.

Our debate on this bill in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities will be truly important. I hope that the Minister of National Defence heard what was said. I hope that the government heard. I know it heard. The Prime Minister's Office listens to all debates and I am certain that it knows what is going on, and that it is concerned about our police forces.

It would be unfortunate for our police forces and other citizens, who are sent on missions commanded by the government, were not protected by Bill C-13 and did not have these 52 additional weeks of entitlement to parental leave.

It is important to a family that parents be with their children. The Conservative government says that it is pro-family. It should prove it by accepting our proposed amendments.

I want to talk about my own personal case. When my kids were born, my wife was working at the time. She took the time off to be with our kids. It makes a big difference in the future of those kids. The first year of the life of a child is very important. It should be spent around the parents, not in a daycare or with a babysitter.

Police officers, soldiers and any other foreign aid workers, who are requested by our government to be overseas, in the army, battling crime, helping places like Haiti rebuild, or for any reason, should be treated the same way as other Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday, we witnessed an excellent speech by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, who properly explained all the issues involved with service personnel and veterans and why the current government was not treating them the way it should.

This measure is one where we think the government is doing the right thing. It is not a huge expenditure. We are talking about 50 or 60 people at a cost of $600,000 a year.

However, Bill C-13 would specifically enable the Canadian Forces members, including reservists, who had their parental leave deferred or have been ordered to return to duty while on leave due to a military requirements to access EI parental benefits. The measure would extend the period for which they are eligible by another 52 weeks. This is just a common sense provision that they should have had years ago.

Parental benefits provide income replacement of up to 35 weeks to biological or adoptive parents, while they care for newborn or newly adopted children. We know how important that is in the first year or two of lives, not only for the children, but for the parents as well.

Another good benefit is it can be taken by either parent or it can be shared between them. If the parents opt to share the benefits, there is only one two-week waiting period to be served.

All of us are in agreement with the bill. It is my understanding that the bill will proceed to committee, certainly by the end of today. As far as I know, all the parties are on the same side. The only question remains is whether the amendments proposed by our member and the member of the Bloc will be endorsed and supported at committee.

Yesterday, the minister indicated that she would be willing to look at these amendments. Therefore, we hope our amendment to extend these provisions to members of the police force who are on these missions will be accepted as well as the Bloc amendment to bring in a former retroactivity.

If that happens, we should be able to do one of the things the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore said should be done for veterans. However, this still leaves a long list of things that the government should do, things it promised in the past and still has not done for our veterans and service personnel.

Would the member like to make further comments on these points? Should we endorse the all party agreement to get this to committee and get these results in play?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona is absolutely right. The government, the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP agree with the bill. It involves about 50 to 60 people. The government ministers probably waste more money going from Tim Hortons to Tim Hortons to make announcements. We should use that money to help these people. The member is also right that we should also include veterans and do more for them.

The government is piecemealing these EI bills. We should do it all together and get it over with so we can help unemployed Canadians right across Canada. A lot of citizens in my riding of Nickel Belt right now are unemployed and on employment insurance because of a strike at Vale Inco. This not only affects the miners, it also affects the owners of small businesses, the contractors. A lot of people are on employment insurance.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona is absolutely right. We should extend this EI bill to all working Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to ask a further question of my colleague.

The member is aware, as are all Canadians, of the very stressful and dangerous position that we put our service personnel in on their missions. Yesterday a member spoke very eloquently about his trip to Afghanistan and how it was a dangerous situation for him to even exit the plane at the airport. In fact, I believe there were some delays even in landing the plane at the airport.

He also mentioned the fact that the soldiers slept in tents and that there was always a fear of rockets hitting the soldiers on base. There is also the high death rate in Afghanistan right now with people being victims of the roadside bombs.

A lot of people would not want to be in this situation. The personnel could easily stay home, especially the reservists, get regular 9 to 5 jobs, sleep in their beds at night and have weekends off, but those military members put themselves at great risk when they go overseas. When they do have traumatic experiences, many of them come back with post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol problems and drug abuse problems. Suicide rates can also be an issue.

This is a very serious issue. Those people deserve proper benefits. Yesterday, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore mentioned a list of items that the government promised before it was elected government and then reneged on them. He talked about the food bank for veterans in Calgary, which the Prime Minister attended for a photo op just a couple of weeks ago. He talked about homeless shelters for veterans. That should never happen in a country like this.

The government has made promises. It promised to resolve the agent orange issue in New Brunswick. That was not entirely resolved to the satisfaction of the military personnel. The government also made other promises and it took very tentative steps.

Yet when it comes to the photo ops and the ceremonies, the government is there, right up front, taking credit and trying to present itself as being very supportive of the military and the military personnel. However, when the rubber hits the road, when it comes down to bringing in proper legislation that will help the military and the military families, where is the government? It is not here.

When it does have a chance to do something, it brings in Bill C-13. The argument has been made that this did not have to be a bill, that it could have been done through regulations or order-in-council. It is an important measure, but it only involves 50 or 60 people at a cost of $600,000 per year.

It is a first step, but we do not want the government to stop there. We want it to proceed and deal in a methodical way with all the other listed issues outlined by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore in his excellent speech yesterday.

Would the member like to make any further comments on that?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is absolutely right. This only involves 50 to 60 people. It is a minimal amount of money. Instead of this being a bill, it could have been a regulation or an order-in-council and it would be a done deal.

The Conservatives continue to say that they respect our troops and that we should all respect our troops, police forces and aid workers. If the Conservatives truly respect these people, they would have made this an order-in-council or a regulation. It would have been done by now and we would not be discussing it today.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to speak to a bill that is not very long in text, but it does mean a lot for a few people and for the members associated with this, the Canadian Forces and the reservists.

First, I congratulate all the speakers on bringing up the pertinent matters that surround this. As was pointed out in some of the research, approximately 60 people will qualify for this, costing the government just over $600,000. For those 60 in question, there is no doubt it is desperately needed. Similar attempts were made before but they were not successful. Now we have something on the table that just might provide for these people.

I assume again, like my colleagues, that everyone will support this bill to get it to committee. It will leave here after second reading, go to committee and return with amendments. We have already talked about some amendments from the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, and I will talk about them a little later. However, one thing I hope this bill will have is a greater degree of flexibility with which people are willing to address this.

If it is cut off at a certain point, in other words, if we are very strict about its regulations, very strict about how this is applied when it comes into force, then we will have missed a golden opportunity for a government bill such as Bill C-13.

It is not a very long bill. It is not extravagant. It is what we would normally see under private members' bills. However, it is a government bill and perhaps the government will be willing, if the spirit of this is to provide relief assistance to people in need of this, to amend it. There is a perfect situation where Canadian Forces members would be in need of this, especially for parental leave. We can exercise, and I ask all my colleagues to do this, a great degree of flexibility in amending this and allowing the committee to look at this in detail.

Let us take a look at the bill in and of itself, which is one of the greatest social policies over the past while, and there are several, when it comes to the EI legislation. One thing has been parental leave. This has been a fantastic social benefit for the entire social fabric of our nation. In my province and riding parental leave has become a great benefit for the people, especially for young people who are starting families. In a 52 week period, it allows them to claim 35 weeks to achieve an income at 55% of what they earn. It allows parents to spend time with their newly born child or adopted child.

Over the years, we have moved around in the margins of EI legislation. We have tweaked it here and there. No policy is perfect from the outset. Therefore, as social circumstances change, we make amendments or additions to the EI legislation. Some people in the House would like it to go much further than it does, others, not as much.

First, there are several things about the EI legislation that need to be addressed.

The first one is the waiting period. It has been a highly contentious issue in the House. Unfortunately many members of Parliament have used this as a wedge issue. It is unfair for us to do that because honest discussion gets buried under talking points and rhetoric. It is unfortunate because the two-week waiting period is too punitive in nature. The way it is set out people have to make a deposit, similar to insurance. When people have an accident, they claim insurance, and that deposit goes into it. That two-week waiting period allows for people to find other jobs. When the two weeks are up, they then can claim benefits.

The problem with that is it takes four to six weeks to receive benefits anyway. There is an administrative time by which one should receive the first EI cheque, but that changes based on the resources available in the public sector. If we eliminate the two-week waiting period, that gets reduced to about four weeks.

Remember that the reason it is important to go from six to less than four is that monthly payments are extremely high when it comes to mortgages, child care, car loans and the like. Now more so than before, both parents in a family are working and it is more important for people who lose their jobs or who are temporarily out of work to be able to get that first benefit cheque within that four-week period. It becomes absolutely punitive when people get behind on their monthly payments.

There is the other part of EI. Over the past two years, since the onset of the current recession, which we are now coming out of, we have talked a lot about how to reform EI legislation and make it more beneficial for people suffering because of the recession. One of the ways to do that is to allow more people into the system by providing easier ways to access the benefits upfront. That is what we call the upfront part of EI.

There are several ways of doing it and they have been widely discussed in the House and across the country. We could reduce the amount of hours needed to qualify from 420 in certain regions down to 360. We could also increase the amount of benefits paid; 55% to 60% is one of the measures. Of course, I have already talked about the elimination of the two-week waiting period.

In 2005 several pilot projects were initiated. They were especially beneficial for seasonal workers. It extended on the back end of EI benefits extra weeks to help fill in that area where people go from the end of their benefits to the beginning of their work period. We also made it the best 14 weeks. Effectively, we have eliminated the divisor rule which basically brought people's benefits down. Using the best 14 weeks obviously allowed people to receive more in benefits because of the way the formula works.

There was another thing done in a pilot project regarding the amount people could earn without being deducted EI payments. I thought this was very beneficial for many communities, and I have 170 communities in my riding. If a person is currently receiving EI benefits, 55% of what the person made when the person had a job, the person is allowed to make up to 40% before it is clawed back dollar for dollar.

That is very important. It allowed industries in smaller communities to avail of the workforce that was there on a very short-term basis and the workers were not penalized on their EI payments. They were allowed to sustain a certain standard of living. These pilot projects will expire at the end of this year. It is not germane to this particular bill, but please allow me this opportunity to say that we desperately need to extend these projects beyond 2010.

Furthermore, because we both have the same type of industries, I am sure that my hon. colleague from Avalon will agree that these should be made permanent especially when it comes to us in the fishing industry. We are about to face a crisis one of which perhaps we have never seen before. Come fall, when people are looking to claim EI and are not able to get the weeks to be able to sustain their living within their communities, the communities will be desperately in need. A lot of people will be moving out of desperation. A lot of people will be looking for social assistance out of desperation.

I would suggest that the government consider making an announcement now so that these people can rest assured that the pilot projects they benefit from will be extended for those on employment insurance. I suggest that we have a fulsome debate about it, because we tend to get whittled down to only talking points and wedge issues.

We must remember that this country's employment insurance system is a shining beacon of social policy for the rest of the world. It is modelled upon by other countries around the world. The United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Union look to a lot of our social policies. Therefore, we should strengthen them given the fact that so many people benefit from them. I would expect all of us in this House to engage in a decent debate for that reason.

Some of the benefits the Conservative government has put through over the past little while relate to the benefit period being extended on the back end. I would like for it to go further, but let me deal with that for a moment.

A long-tenured worker gets extra weeks of EI on the end because right now the job market is not as robust as it used to be, and I say that mildly; perhaps it is the understatement of the day. That is what is being brought up in this debate on Bill C-13, which also looks at a smaller sector of the population.

Let me return to the point I made earlier. This is a thin bill but it is an important bill. We should be looking at having a greater degree of flexibility to allow more people into the system.

My hon. NDP colleague from Acadie—Bathurst plans to bring in amendments about police officers so that they too could benefit from this provision. I agree with that. We should be flexible and open to discussing that. Given the fact that they are required to report to duty, or they are pulled back into duty, we should be looking at how they are treated under the system. We have to remember that it is a 52-week period and they can claim up to 35 weeks of benefits, but that gets interrupted by the call to duty.

Let me juxtapose the two issues: proud soldiers, proud police officers if we wish, and Bill C-13. On the one hand there are proud soldiers and reservists who are being called for active duty and doing what they do best, and I am proud of them for doing that, and on the other hand there is one of the greatest social policies that we have seen in the last 50 or 60 years, meaning EI. Let us bring the two together and make the system flexible for those people. The bill itself is structured so that those people will have the flexibility by which they will receive benefits, and rightly so.

This is not just about EI, it is also about caregiving. Over the past 10 to 15 years greater elements of caregiving have been brought into the EI legislation, which was essential. We cannot get bogged down with just the details of numbers and qualification periods and hours worked, because it is not just about that. It is also about compassionate care. It is also about how caregivers can avail themselves of a system that would allow them to attain a standard of living and at the same time provide care for those they love.

In the next few weeks I will be introducing my private member's bill which would double the period that people could collect EI sick benefits. Right now that period is up to 15 weeks, which is really minuscule in nature. My bill would double the number of weeks that they could receive sick benefits. I am sure I will have an opportunity to discuss that at a later date.

I also want to talk about flexibility and this bill in committee. My hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona and my hon. colleague from Nickel Belt talked about retroactivity, and they made valid points. At this stage in the game the legislation refers to on or after declaring of the benefit period. Therein lies something that we should really consider.

Clause 4 indicates that these new rules would only apply to those who establish a benefit period on or after the day the bill receives royal assent. A rough estimate from research tells us that 60 people will qualify. That is going to bring in more. There is no doubt about it. The program costs around $600,000. It is going to cost significantly more if we infuse a degree of retroactivity.

We need to look at it vis-à-vis the soldiers who are currently serving overseas, because if we look at the situation, it is not just the soldiers who are serving overseas, even though they are rightly deserving of the benefits provided by the bill. We should also consider those active forces members who are at home. I think of one example that is near and dear to my heart, and that is 103 Search and Rescue in Gander. If we look at the five bases across the country, people in search and rescue are always on active duty. Search and rescue technicians, pilots, standby, maintenance crew are always on duty. There is no such thing as practising for these people. Whether they are in Comox, Winnipeg, Trenton, Greenwood or Gander, these people are on 24/7 active duty, and they too should be in line for these benefits, which they are.

I only bring that up because I would not want the focus of the debate to shift entirely to what is our overseas operations, and deservedly so. I would also like to debate the issue about that, because some people are talking about other parts of the forces that will be drawn into this, or other parts of active duty, such as the police officers, the RCMP. I believe some of the issues were brought up for those serving overseas, but we should also consider those serving at home.

Yes, this bill could widen in scope to a very large number of people, and it then would become an issue of financing. Is it affordable? Does it cost too much to cover all these people? I will leave that to a later debate, perhaps in committee where I am sure it will be hashed out, as well as report stage and third reading debates.

I do want to bring up another element of how this House works. When we pass a bill in principle and it goes to committee, it is restricted in nature. If an amendment is made that goes beyond the scope of the bill, then the amendment cannot be accepted. We sometimes forget that the will of the committee might be unanimous in saying that it does not matter that a particular amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill, that it should be accepted. All members of the committee agree with it and therefore it should go ahead, but that is not the point. The point is the Speaker has to rule on this. If the Speaker decides that the amendment is outside the scope and principle of the bill at second reading, it will not be accepted. These are the rules of the House, despite the will of the House of Commons. We must bear this in mind as we send the bill to committee.

One of the things that has not been discussed is that maybe we should have sent it to committee before second reading. In essence, if we want to make substantial amendments that go beyond the principle and scope of the bill, we could do that before the bill goes to second reading. That has not been discussed. I am assuming that we have got to the point where we will pass the bill and send it to committee after second reading. I just hope that some of these principled and well-intentioned amendments will be accepted without being outside the principle and scope of the bill.

This should be an interesting debate. I am sure there will be amendments galore. I am certainly willing to stand as a member of Parliament and entertain the amendments brought forward by the NDP and the Bloc. I think they are both substantial.

For the sake of those watching the debate, I would like to clarify exactly what we are talking about in the one minute I have left.

Parents have a 52-week window following the week when their child is born or adopted within which to access the 35 weeks of EI parental benefits. That is a 35-week benefit period within 52 weeks. It gets extended.

Canadian Forces members whose request for parental leave is deferred or who are recalled from parental leave due to requirements and obligations of the National Defence Act, or call to duty, are often unable to access EI parental benefits because of the limited eligibility window.

Therefore, clause 2 would extend the benefit period by a number of weeks, up to 52 weeks, corresponding to the number of weeks of their deferment or their recall to duty. That is what is very important because that precise number that when they are either called back to duty or deferred should be looked at within that benefit period. Clause 3 would extend that up to 104 weeks.

I implore all members to send this bill to committee. Let us vote yes on this.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the government, the member's party, the Bloc and the NDP are all in favour of the bill.

Could the hon. member try to explain to me why this bill was not made in an order in council or by regulations? It could then have been passed right away and we could have moved on to deal with something else in this important House.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has an excellent point. I get the feeling that there are two schools of thought here. On the one hand, yes, it could have been done quickly. A lot of smaller bills come in here and a lot of tweaks into the system could have been done in a simple manner. Yes, this could have been done, as he pointed out, just like that. It has been brought into the House. I am assuming there is an element of public relations involved here where there is not much on the agenda. Maybe the Conservatives are formulating something else. Maybe they would like to put this in as a little stopgap measure at debate.

However, I do not want to understate the goodness of the bill by saying that. I am glad it is here for a debate. I am glad we are talking about it. I would have preferred that the Conservatives had gone ahead and done what the member said, but this allows us to debate it as well.

I would ask the government members, perhaps when we have had our fulsome debate, maybe other measures pertaining to parental leave and other members of the forces, or other measures therein, they could go ahead and do this as an executive order and that would be of benefit immediately.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I always love to hear Newfoundland representatives speak, being the homeland of one of my grandfathers.

I was interested in the member's comments on the issues raised by the Bloc representatives and on the broader issue of providing financial measures to give more access to parental leave. Does the member think it would be important that we give supplementary support to our officers, including the police and the military who serve all Canadians, that would include expanded access to affordable child care, expanded medical support, for example, for post-traumatic stress, for those officers who return and would like to take up their parental leave but are crying out for additional support so they can be a good parent?