Human Resources Committee on May 26th, 2010

[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]

Moving on to clause 2, we have received a proposition for an amendment from Mr. Godin of the NDP, to amend clause 2 in Bill C-13 by adding, after line 18 on page 1, the following:

(12.2) For the purposes of subsection (12.1), 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.

Do you wish to speak to this, Mr. Martin?

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

Yes, I do.

Given the opportunity, and to make sure that we complete this effort to cover all of those who go to places like Afghanistan on behalf of the government and who put themselves at risk for all the variety of reasons that they do that.... This includes soldiers, who volunteer to join the army in this country--we don't have conscription--and then end up being deployed to other places. This includes police officers, who join the police force and then take advantage of opportunities to serve as well.

As Mr. Duquette said in his presentation today, or in answering questions, these people serve beside each other, take on the same risk, and serve our country in a very distinguished and honourable way.

I believe it's within our purview as a committee—it's certainly within the power of the government, if it chooses to find a way—to adopt this extra piece that we are suggesting, so that we cover not just the soldiers but also the police who work side by side with them, particularly in this instance in Afghanistan, so that they might be covered by the same benefit and perhaps because of that be more willing to serve and to participate and to stay there longer, under certain circumstances.

I think we are splitting hairs here in the whole question of mandatory and voluntary. If the police who are serving over in Afghanistan thought for a second that we were differentiating between them and what they're owed or what they're due, after having paid into employment insurance the same as the soldiers have....

I commend Mr. Poilievre for having moved as quickly as he did, on hearing the story from the Duquettes, to bring this bill forward. I would invite him and his colleagues to join with us to make sure, given this opportunity to make this change that we've discovered, and now that we've discovered that there's further change necessary if we're going to be fair in this, that we as a committee adopt this amendment and make it part of this bill.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Martin, I must inform you that in fact it's out of the hands of Mr. Poilievre or anyone else, because I must rule that this amendment is inadmissible. The reason it is inadmissible, according to the analyst who has advised me, is what House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

The fact that you have brought in the police means that it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill, particularly since by bringing in this other body of people, it would add to the cost of the bill itself, and that would require a royal recommendation as well.

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

I respect that ruling, Madam Chair.

I guess I would appeal to the government and Mr. Komarnicki, who found a way, through the movement of an amendment at third reading, to make a further change that's outside of the scope of this bill, because they feel that it's necessary to improve the bill, to make it better, to make it work better for the soldiers.

I would make an appeal to him—I guess I would extend an appeal that was made by Mr. Duquette today—that we not forget the police who serve shoulder to shoulder with them in Afghanistan, so that they be covered as well; and that the government, in the same way that it has found it possible to move its amendment at third reading, consider moving this amendment as well, so that we can get this done not only quickly to close this loophole for soldiers, but close it for all those who serve in this very dangerous way in Afghanistan and other places in the world on behalf of our government and our country.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I'm sorry, Mr. Martin, I'm not going to take any more debate on this. I think this is something, as I indicated earlier with Mr. Lessard, that you may wish to discuss with members of the government at a later time outside this committee. But I have ruled on this. Whatever my personal opinion may be, there is an antecedent for what I'm saying, and our analyst tells me that the amendment is inadmissible.

In fact, not only is this amendment inadmissible, but so are the other amendments that the NDP has brought forward for this bill.

There will be no debate, no discussion on this.

On clause 2 there will be no amendment, then.

I will ask whether clause 2 shall carry.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

For clause 3, we received a proposed amendment. The decision of the chair for the amendment of the NDP on clause 3 is the same as the chair presented for clause 2. The amendment is inadmissible.

(Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to)

We will now go back to the title. You remember that for the title, the NDP had proposed an amendment. This is also inadmissible.

Shall the short title carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

Shall the long title pass?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Shall the bill carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Shall I report the bill to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

That's it. Thank you very much.

May I say that this is a really important thing that we have done. All of us together around the table have worked together to right a wrong. I would certainly hope that members of government would look at some of the questions that have been raised by both the NDP and the Bloc and that you will come to some kind of agreement so that we can carry it forward to other groups.

Mr. Savage?

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

I have two things, Madam Chair.

First of all, further to the point you may have just referenced and that Tony was mentioning, I believe that this amendment is a reasonable thing to do. It may be out of order. I don't challenge that. But to suggest that this goes beyond the scope of what it actually says is wrong.

The amendment suggests that it would refer to “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”. It doesn't talk about engineers or businesspeople or anything else. It's very specific. I ask the government to consider that.

The other thing I'd ask is this. Mr. Komarnicki has been working with us, based on a concern that we raised in the House when this came forward and that other parties have raised subsequently. I wonder whether he would give us his sense of what he proposes to bring forward as an amendment when this comes back to the House.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Certainly I appreciate the involvement of the critics and obviously of members from our side as well...at the first briefing, we wanted to be sure that the coming into force of the act did not preclude those who may have had claims prior to the day when the bill came into force.

Taking those concerns into regard, we wanted to be sure that no one was left behind, and so the government will propose to amend the bill to ensure that the new measure would apply to all eligible Canadian Force members who had a newborn or who adopted a child less than 104 weeks prior to the act's coming into force. The essence of it would be that the benefits would not be shortened by virtue of the time that they were deployed.

We will work to ensure that those amendments are made at third reading in accordance and in line with the discussions we've had with the critics and Mr. Beauséjour.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Savage, did you want to come back on that at all?

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

No. I thank the parliamentary secretary, and I appreciate that. I certainly take him at his word.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you very much.

This is the end of the meeting.

We are adjourned.