Human Resources Committee on May 26th, 2010

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I understand that distinction. I appreciate your clarifying it in that way.

I guess I don't understand why, given that and given the comments by Mr. Duquette, and our wanting to do the right thing here...you know, people serving in places like Afghanistan, who choose to go and do that, perhaps leave maybe not knowing that their spouse is expecting, only to find it out later, and then having to stay longer because the job isn't complete or finished. As Mr. Duquette suggested in his comments, that's what soldiers do and that's what police officers do who commit to these kinds of missions: they finish the job, and they may not be able to get back on time, but they should, I think, be extended the benefit.

Would it be possible, in your view, for us to include this now, as a committee? Is that within our purview to do?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

To include...? You said “this”.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Sorry: it's to include the police in this amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I just wanted to be sure it was clear.

[Louis Beauséjour]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by its being in the purview of the committee. I'm not aware of all the rules of how the committee works.

In terms of the amendment, I'm not sure that the way the amendment is written will do what you want it to do, because there's always the issue of the way it is written.

Again, the purpose of the bill was really to deal with military people who have no choice, but in fact cannot take their leave. In volunteering, most of the time people can decide to volunteer later or come back earlier to take their leave, and again they will still have 52 weeks after the child is born. If the child is born during the time they are away, they still have 52 weeks after the child is born to take the parental leave, if they want to do so.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Do I have time for one further quick question? Probably I don't.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

No, but I will give you time, because I think this is part of the discussion we would be having on the clause-by-clause study in any case. This will probably shed light on what we will be discussing later, so please go ahead. But make it a short question, Mr. Martin.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Yes.

You mentioned earlier that this would create...I think the word was “extraordinary” circumstances, or maybe it was another word you used—

[Louis Beauséjour]

Yes, I used a word similar to that. Basically what I'm saying is that right now when there are extensions to periods in the act, it's for people who have no choice. It's not based on a choice of the individual. Either the kids are, in some cases.... Particularly for the eligibility window, the only other case in which there is an extension of the eligibility window for benefits is when the child is in hospital.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I don't have any additional questions, but if there are others....

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Komarnicki wants to ask a question, I think.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

This is just to get a bit of clarification on that same issue we're discussing.

From the information I have, the RCMP have confirmed that all of their officers must apply to serve overseas, and so there is that element of choice and of not being compelled. If you were going to want to get away from the compulsion part, or the “no choice but to go”, you then include a whole series of different people. It wouldn't be just the police; there are others who may decide or choose, for whatever reason under the circumstances, to go, but it's entirely at their discretion, and they are fully aware of the circumstances and they would be aware of the length of time they would be away. So they make the decision on that basis.

Certainly it's not within the scope of this bill to go that wide.

I guess the essence, when we come to the bill itself, is to be sure that those who are deployed by way of imperative military requirement do not lose benefits or have them shortened because of the fact that they are deployed.

Would you agree with that, Mr. Beauséjour?

I'd like to pass my time on to Mr. Lobb, who may have a question.

[Louis Beauséjour]

I'm sorry, can you repeat that, please?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

The essence of what we're trying to do here is to be sure that those who are deployed under military requirement do not have their benefits shortened by virtue of their deployment.

[Louis Beauséjour]

Yes, that's exactly what the bill is trying to do. The bill basically is extending both the eligibility window and the benefit period by the number of weeks that the parental leave is deferred.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Is there extra time or not?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

We have another four minutes.

Who wanted to speak?

Mr. Lobb, please.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Just briefly, this is more to the discussion around the amendment and whether it's voluntary or mandatory.

I understand the department's rationale on this, because by extension there could be precedent. You could apply the same logic to an engineer who decides to go to South America to do work for a resources company, whose family is at home, and who signs a contract for over a year and then comes back. He or she would face the very same set of circumstances.

They volunteered to go down there. Not to make light of it, but that's a fact. The same could be said for an engineer who signs a contract to volunteer to go over and work in China for a year. It would be the very same application.

The amendment, while potentially in good spirit, misses the mark, because it would certainly open itself up to a very wide interpretation and perhaps a lot more significant cost than what they've investigated.

I wonder if you have any thoughts on that.

[Louis Beauséjour]

Obviously, as soon as we extend the measure to people who go abroad voluntarily, who are in fact totally under their own authority, it opens the door to a variety of situations. It becomes a lot harder to figure out, under the act and the regulations, which groups of people should receive the extension, as well as the conditions to qualify for the extension.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you.

I think we are done.

We have finished this.

Thank you very much, Mr. Beauséjour, for coming and giving us your explanations. We will now proceed with....

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

Will Mr. Beauséjour be available to us if we have questions for him along the way?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Yes, he is staying here.

Mr. Beauséjour, you will be here should we need any clarification.

[Louis Beauséjour]

I will be available.