Thank you very much.
I appreciate your taking time today and coming to speak to us about this improvement in the way we deliver EI. I think it's important for us as government to continually review the scope and the take-up of employment insurance and whether it's in fact doing the job it was set out to do in the first place, particularly if someone has paid into it expecting to qualify and finds they don't for one reason or another.
In your answer to Madame Beaudin, you suggested it should apply to all personnel who go to places such as Afghanistan on behalf of our country. We discovered in looking at this bill...and we appreciate that it was brought forward by Mr. Poilievre, and that the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Komarnicki, is carrying it for the government. What we discovered, as we looked at this and decided together that it was a good idea, is that there are still some people left out. And they are primarily those who go--maybe I'm wrong in this, and perhaps somebody could correct me--to Afghanistan for example as police, such as the RCMP who are assigned to Afghanistan for various duties. We're told they won't benefit by the change we're making here. I heard you say earlier that this is probably the most important mark you will leave as a soldier in terms of benefit to other soldiers. And I thought I heard you say to Madame Beaudin that it should apply to everybody.
I will ask you specifically, should it apply to those who attend in places like Kandahar, who go on behalf of our country as, for example, the police and RCMP? If children were to come into their families, should they be given the same benefit, particularly, as you said, since they pay into it? People who find themselves in jail actually qualify, and these people now, we discover, don't either.
Should we be amending this bill, in your view, to include those people as well?
