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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, is deemed read a third time and passed.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-13 on behalf of my party.

I want to say at the outset that the military looks for young people as recruits. It is not looking for older people my age. The military attracts and advertises to a younger group of people who are not really joining for the benefits and who do not necessarily understand what they are getting into, at the end of the day. They may think, perhaps wrongly, that they are going to be taken care of if they fulfill their mission and something befalls them in the process.

Therefore, I think it is a positive sign, unlike in World War I and World War II, when we had cases of post traumatic stress and suicide and these issues tended to be ignored, covered up, and downplayed as signs of weakness on the part of individuals.

In today's environment, certainly since the end of the gulf war, we are seeing more interest in post-traumatic stress disorder issues. It is definitely something we have to look at. The military personnel have to be made aware that we are prepared to look after them a little more than we have in the past.

I have a 23-year-old son in the reserves. As a matter of fact, he moved to Kingston on June 1, and he will be going to Afghanistan in November. He is not concerned about these issues, even though he is aware of the statistics and so on. People in his position are not necessarily preoccupied with what could possibly happen.

However, those of us who have been around for a while know historically that there is a certain percentage of people who will develop problems in a war environment. Therefore, we have to prepare ourselves to take care of those instances.

I know that the Bloc member who just spoke gave some statistics. About 4% of soldiers have suicidal tendencies when they come back from Kandahar, and 15% have mental health issues. The member wants us to look at perhaps a more comprehensive approach to the EI program.

Since the employment insurance system was set up in the 1940s, we have seen a positive progression of the system to the point where, in the 1970s, the system was very open, and many people were able to take advantage of it. However, it was curtailed and cut back somewhat in the last number of years. We saw for the first time, I believe it was the first time, a sitting government take money, take the surpluses from the EI system and use them to pay down the deficit. We saw that to the tune of $57 billion.

One might ask what is wrong with that. The answer is that the money does not belong to the government. It is money that is raised from the workers themselves and that is matched by the companies that employ them. Therefore, it is not right for the government to be using that money essentially as a source of revenue to pay down the debt of the country. It is essentially robbing the workers and the employers of these contributions.

Now that we have gone through a very large recession over the last year, it has become clear that there are some problems with employment insurance that need to be fixed. We have seen some measures on the part of the government. Last year, $1 billion, which was agreed to by the government and the NDP, funded measures for self-employed people under Bill C-56.

We have had several bills introduced in the House. The question is why we are doing this in a piecemeal fashion. It is not dissimilar to the crime agenda of the government. Rather than introducing those bills on a one-off basis, in a boutique sort of fashion, we asked why the government did not, as it did for the budget implementation bill, which by the way we did not agree with, simply put all these changes in an omnibus bill, bring it to Parliament, and make up for 100 years of inaction on much-needed reforms in the Criminal Code. The same approach should happen here.

We should deal with all these issues in one big bill. The bill is, of course, being supported unanimously in the House. However, my friend, the member for Winnipeg Centre, pointed out initially, when the bill was introduced, that this was something that probably could have been done simply through an administrative measure, perhaps through an order in council.

It affects perhaps 50 to 60 soldiers a year. The cost of the program is around $500,000 to $600,000 a year. Basically, it amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend the benefit period, the period of duration of parental benefits, for Canadian Forces members whose period of parental leave is deferred or who are directed to return to duty from parental leave. That was an oversight in our system in the past. The Conservative member who introduced the bill was certainly attentive to that missing part, so he introduced this bill. It is very positive from his point of view.

Our critic, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, brought in an amendment. We thought it was a good suggestion, and we still do, that would allow the bill to apply to the RCMP and police forces, because there are several members from the police forces and the RCMP who travel with our regular forces and our reserves when they go into theatre. There are also some who are in Haiti at the moment. We feel that they should be covered under the bill as well. The Liberal members also seem to be agreeable to that. For whatever reason, at committee, that particular amendment was not adopted. I am really not sure why that would have been a problem. Nevertheless, it was not adopted.

The fact of the matter is that it is time for us to sit back. We have to proceed, obviously, and pass the bill today, but we have to have the government, or a new government, at some point in time, do a comprehensive study. It should not be one that takes a decade, but at least do a comprehensive study of the EI program. Get input from all of the interested parties. Bring in a comprehensive approach to EI so that we can get away from this piecemeal approach to EI reform, which is basically predicated on the basis of what sort of press conference or press coverage we can get on a limited measure on a certain day. That is not what the public of the country sent us here to do. That is not the way they want us to approach the legislative agenda of the country. They want to see a comprehensive plan for EI. They want to see a comprehensive plan for other sectors of our country as well.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support Bill C-13, to create fairness for families with respect to parental leave. As my colleagues have already stated, this bill will extend the eligibility period for parental leave for members of the Canadian Forces who are called back to duty while on parental leave. They will be able to complete this leave when they return from duty.

The bill indicates that the period during which the member may benefit from this right shall be 50 weeks. We suggested that these 50 weeks be retroactive for members who have already been called back to duty while on parental leave. The government agreed to make this amendment to the bill. I note that it was done today and that is a very good thing.

I also share the opinion of the member who just spoke that this is another example of a piecemeal bill. It targets one set of improvements to be made to the employment insurance system, which should really be overhauled.

We will support Bill C-13. It is a question of fairness, especially since we are asking our Canadian Forces to risk their lives in situations that are not only difficult but dangerous. The Bloc has the greatest respect for members of the military and as parliamentarians, we have the responsibility to not impose additional risks on them.

Furthermore, we must provide the best possible accommodation between their career and their family life, and we must ensure that their return to the country is facilitated by measures that help with their integration in civil society.

I make this distinction because we believe this bill should have been more comprehensive in terms of the reality of the military. Although this measure is necessary, the Conservatives are continuing their bad habit of making piecemeal changes rather than undertaking genuine reform of employment insurance and real reform to support the military. A good number of members return home traumatized and suffering from post-traumatic stress, elements that have not been addressed by this bill.

I would also remind the House that members of the Canadian Forces pay employment insurance premiums just like any other worker. They are therefore insurable.

It is only fair that they be entitled since they already pay for this coverage. However, they did not have full access to it because of their job. That said, I think the point needs to be made that there is a whole other dimension of the reality faced by our military that is not covered.

The current government makes much of the contribution of Canadian armed forces to various military interventions, but what about its responsibilities when some members return damaged by their experiences, suffering from physical injuries and trauma?

They are less inclined to talk about the increased suicide rate among armed forces members who return to civilian life and the incredible lack of the psychological and financial support they need.

I would like to remind the House that the armed forces should provide adequate follow-up of its members who return from a mission such as that in Afghanistan, especially since we know that 4% of soldiers returning from Kandahar develop suicidal tendencies, 4.6% have symptoms of major depression, and more than 15% experience mental health problems.

In the course of its parliamentary work, the Bloc Québécois has always been concerned with support for veterans, all those who have proudly donned the uniform.

We circulated a petition that will be presented to the House of Commons. It is asking the House to change, among other things, the way military personnel are treated financially after leaving the armed forces.

In 2005, the House of Commons passed a Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, commonly called the Veterans' Charter, which came into force on April 6, 2006.

Since then, National Defence no longer provides lifetime monthly pensions for its soldiers. Instead, it introduced a lump sum payment in 2006. For every injury, there is a corresponding indemnity, up to a maximum. The amount is paid once, and the armed forces member is left to figure out on his own how to handle the money.

In January 2010, the Canadian Forces veterans ombudsman was very critical of this new system for compensating soldiers injured in service. Since stopping lifetime pensions, the forces have been providing veterans with a lot less money and failing to meet their needs.

The ombudsman said that he was not a proponent of the lump sum payment because someone with psychological issues could spend it unwisely and not have a single cent to put towards their financial security. The ombudsman, a veteran of Bosnia and Afghanistan himself, added that veterans can quite easily become homeless, and this sometimes happens. Many of them lose their way because of mental health problems. He says the only way to force them to maintain a residence is to send their compensation in monthly installments by mail, as used to be the case.

We cannot remain indifferent to these observations of the Canadian Forces ombudsman.

This new way of compensating our soldiers causes them, and often their family, to quickly become financially disadvantaged for the reasons outlined by the ombudsman.

In closing, I want to reiterate that the Bloc is voting in favour of Bill C-13 with the amendment. We truly hope that when we return in the fall we can present legislative measures to help soldiers who return from combat with injuries by giving them better financial support.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-13 on the last part of its voyage through Parliament, the so-called fairness for military families act.

The proposed act will amend part I of the Employment Insurance Act to extend the period during which employment insurance parental benefits may be paid for Canadian Forces members whose start date of parental leave is deferred or who are directed to return to duty from parental leave.

This act will help relatively few Canadians. We are told by the department that it would be about 50 to 60 people a year at a cost of about $600,000. Nonetheless it is important for those who it will assist, and it assists Canadians that we all agree are entirely worthy of that assistance.

As my colleague, the parliamentary secretary referred to, at committee we heard from Lieutenant-Colonel James Duquette, who was posted to the Golan Heights just four days after the birth of his first child. As such, he missed his opportunity to take parental leave. It was very nice to hear from him, from Kabul, and his wife, Anne, who testified as well. They made very compelling witnesses in support of the bill.

There is a curious factor, though, which is the timeline of the bill. On April 5, the government had a press release about Bill C-13, indicating it would introduce it. On April 12, the legislation was introduced and then it was almost a month before it was debated in the House. It was very quickly passed by the House and went to committee. It was not until May 26 when the human resources committee had this testimony, went through clause-by-clause and everything passed. It is now another month since it came back to the House. I do not know if it would have even come to the House this week if the Liberal Party had not inquired about its status.

As the parliamentary secretary suggested, all parties support it. Therefore, it makes sense to get this through. It has been kind of a case of hurry up and wait and hurry up and wait on the bill. It is important.

I can talk from a personal point of view. I come from a military area, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. It is home to many serving members of the Canadian Forces and many more veterans. I think we have one of the highest populations of veterans in Canada.

It was not very long ago that I attended the funeral for Petty Officer Second Class Craig Blake, who was the 143rd Canadian killed in Afghanistan. He was killed in the Panjwai District in Afghanistan. He was a member of the Fleet Diving Unit Atlantic. He was diffusing IEDs when he lost his life. He has a wife and two sons. He was a hockey coach. He was remembered at his funeral for the wonderful community work he took part in and the great loss it was to his family.

I remember having a connection to one of the earliest deaths in Afghanistan, and that was Corporal Paul Davis who died in March 2006. I have spoken in the House before about flying home from Parliament on a Friday with a number of other parliamentarians. When we arrived in Halifax and turned on our Blackberrys, we heard the awful news that Corporal Paul Davis had been killed in Afghanistan. His father, Jim Davis, is a dear friend of mine and has been an eloquent and passionate spokesperson on behalf of military families who have lost loved ones.

I have many constituents who have served in Afghanistan and have come home. Even if they have come home relatively unscathed from their service in Afghanistan, their families have paid a very significant price. They make great sacrifices. To go months without seeing their family is a very difficult thing, even if they return home safely.

Most of us who sit in this place travel from somewhere else in Canada and we find it difficult, especially with young families as in my case. It is difficult to be away for chunks of life. It is very difficult for military families to be away for months at a time, as in the case with Lieutenant-Colonel Duquette and others, especially around the time of the birth of a child or shortly after. It makes no sense that we should compound the sacrifice of that family by not allowing those families to have parental leave.

The bill will make a difference for those families. I think it could have been stronger. We appreciate the amendment that the government promised us. I spoke to this when it first came to the House and indicated that we should ensure we covered as many military families as possible. The government, through the parliamentary secretary, indicated that the government would do that and it would ensure that amendment would be in place.

Others serving abroad could have been included in the bill. With the cost of the bill being only about half a million dollars a year, it would not have been very much to add others, for example, those in police forces who serve overseas.

When Lieutenant-Colonel Duquette appeared from Kabul via video conference at committee, he was asked a question by an opposition member about police and RCMP. The question was “Should we be amending this bill, in your view, to include those people as well?” In his answer, Lieutenant-Colonel Duquette said, “Yes, I definitely think that applying it to police serving internationally would be very important”.

Even departmental officials indicated at that same committee that this would not have been such a terrible hardship. I asked Mr. Louis Beauséjour, a fine bureaucrat in the Department of HRSDC, “How much of a problem would it be to have this bill apply to other personnel beyond serving members of the Canadian Forces?” His answer was, “There was no reason other than to determine what the underlying reason for the amendment was”.

We could have amended the bill. It could have been a much stronger bill, but nonetheless it is what it is. It will assist a certain number of military families. I want to indicate my appreciation to the parliamentary secretary and to the government for providing the amendment that is part of the bill today.

When we look at employment insurance, we need to look at the big picture. This has been a topic of much debate in the House and across Canada in the last couple of years.

Our social infrastructure is not suitably designed for the kind of recession that Canada has undergone in the last couple of years. After the economic update of 2008, there was an outcry from people across the country saying that we needed to provide support to people who needed help the most. Among the most vulnerable people were those who had lost their jobs and those who would lose their job. At that point in time, the recession was just taking hold and the government was very slow to act.

Then the issue of stimulus came up over Christmas and January 2009, and the new budget came in January 2009. Everybody assumed that the government would seriously address the issue of employment insurance, that it would look at, particularly, the issue of access to EI and the fact that many people simply did not have access depending on where they lived across the country. Access could be denied in a lot of cases. Quite often it is denied to women who have lost their job because they tend to work part-time hours and may not have enough hours to qualify.

When the government brought in its plans for employment insurance in the budget of early 2009, it did not address that issue at all. That brought cries of protest not only from who we might expect would be opposed to its inaction, such as labour unions and public policy people, but from people in just about every province, including provinces that were led by spokespeople like Premier Brad Wall, Premier Gordon Campbell and Premier Dalton McGuinty. All of them said that one of the gaps in the employment insurance system was the issue of access. Still we had no action from the government.

At one point in time, 1.6 million people were unemployed and almost half of those people had no access to employment insurance.

Changes have been made to the EI system over the years and some of those changes have been made by varying governments, but they have always reflected the fact that employment insurance should be there for those who most need it. A lot could have been done.

Bill C-13 to me is a very worthy improvement to EI. All parties have indicated their support for the bill. We need to do all we can to support military families, to recognize they have a particular burden, that those who serve and the families that serve those who serve make a special and significant sacrifice on a regular basis. The bill will do something to alleviate that. It is a limited bill and it could have been made better. It has been made a bit better but more could have been done. Nonetheless, I want to assure the Liberal Party's support for the bill. It is a worthy initiative and a recognition for those who serve our country valiantly.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

moved that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, be read the third time and passed.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment. I wish to thank all the committee members and other members of Parliament for their hard work, commitment and collaboration in getting this bill through expeditiously.

Employment Insurance

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, good news bears repeating. I am pleased to inform this House that on Wednesday, Bill C-13, the fairness for military families act, passed through committee with unanimous support.

This bill would ensure that Canadian Forces members who so proudly serve our country would no longer be prevented from spending quality time with their new children when they return from duty.

Major Duquette, who originally brought this issue to the attention of the member for Nepean—Carleton, appeared via teleconference from Kabul, Afghanistan, and his wife, Anne, appeared in person. Major Duquette stated that having this bill pass would be the greatest accomplishment of his proud military career, because it would have a lasting impact on the lives of military families.

I urge all parties to help ensure the swift passage of this bill so that military families can get access to these benefits they so richly deserve.

Justice

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, unanimously passed in committee yesterday.

This bill will allow Canadian Forces members, who serve our country with pride, to spend time with their new child when they return from a mission.

Major Duquette, who originally brought this matter to the attention of the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton, said yesterday that getting this bill to pass has been the greatest achievement of his military career because it will have a significant impact on military families.

I call on all parties to help pass this bill quickly, so that military families can access the benefits they so rightly deserve.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

We are done for the time being.

There are just two points left. Before we proceed with the clause-by-clause study, I would just like to point out that a notice of motion was received from Yves Lessard today, May 26, and that we will discuss it at the committee's next meeting, that is, next week.

We will now proceed with the clause-by-clause study.

We're now going to discuss the clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-13.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed, clause 1 being the title of the bill.

(On clause 2)

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I'd like to continue on until 5 p.m.

We have as our next witness, from the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development,

Louis Beauséjour, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch. Mr. Beauséjour indicated that he did not have a presentation to give. He already handed out a clause-by-clause analysis of Bill C-13 in both official languages. It was handed out, and I believe everyone got a copy. So we will start with questions.

Mr. Savage, do you want to start off with the first seven minutes of questions?

[Anne Duquette]

Thank you.

My name is Anne Duquette. I thank you for the opportunity today to allow me to testify in support of the amendment of Bill C-13.

I speak from the perspective of a military spouse and encourage you to amend the Employment Insurance Act as requested.

I would like to share with you what our family endured during my husband Major Duquette's deployment in 2004.

I'll just note that we weren't 100% sure whether Jim could speak, so some of this is repetitive.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

This marks the 17^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, held today, Wednesday, May 26, 2010, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

As the agenda indicates, pursuant to the Order of Reference of Friday, May 7, 2010, we are studying Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

For the very first part of our meeting this afternoon, we have two witnesses. First of all we have, as an individual, Madam Duquette, who is present here. Welcome, Madam Duquette. Bonjour.

As well, I understand that her spouse, Mr. James Duquette, is participating by video conference from Kabul, Afghanistan. Welcome, Mr. Duquette.

We'll begin. How are we going to do this? Madam Duquette, would you like to do a presentation first? Has something been organized as to who speaks first?

Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act

[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.

[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.

[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?