Human Resources Committee on May 26th, 2010

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

The differentiation between somebody who is obligated to go and somebody who has gone of their volition doesn't.... I guess I don't see, in terms of fairness, that if somebody is serving in Afghanistan for the RCMP or for Elections Canada or for Corrections Canada, that.... Maybe it's just that as a family doctor, I see that sometimes people end up with babies born prematurely, or they end up with a wife with complications.

Wouldn't some flexibility in terms of when they take their parental benefits be relevant for them as well as the people who are serving on behalf of Canada?

[Louis Beauséjour]

Again, the idea behind this bill was to help those whose situation is beyond their control and who cannot take their parental leave because they are required to return to duty. The window was extended for those people.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

But say somebody has taken an assignment in Afghanistan, their wife goes into premature labour, and they are unable to come home at the time that she needs them. From what I understand, there would be no flexibility. If you don't take it when it is available right around the birth, you don't get it.

[Louis Beauséjour]

Individuals can claim parental benefits during a period of 52 weeks after the birth of a child. In fact, they can take 35 weeks of parental leave during that 52-week window. There is some flexibility within that 52-week period.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

The confusion around maternity leave and sick leave is also, I think, very upsetting to a lot of us, and around the fact that there have been some interpretations now that people can only get sick leave if they declare it before the pregnancy, though it was designed for postpartum depression and complications of pregnancy, as well as cancer or a car accident.

This bill is obviously intended for the military, but I am concerned that these things also apply to military families. I just hope we're looking at what the intent was, of being able to get a full 65 weeks for sickness as well as parental leave, in lieu of the, I think, rather tight interpretations that have been taken by the umpire decisions and the guidance documents, which seem quite separate from the intent of the bill.

[Louis Beauséjour]

That is not directly related to today's issues. It is important to remember that when parental leave was extended from 10 to 35 weeks, the window was 52 weeks. There was no extension.

There was a case where we wound up in court, and the government lost. A woman was seeking sickness benefits before going on parental leave. If she were entitled to receive sickness benefits first, she would not qualify for all her parental benefits. When that was set out, the intent of the law was to ensure that if she took sick leave before giving birth, she could qualify for all her parental benefits. That was the context in which it was put in place.

Under the bill, the person must have taken at least one week of each type of leave during the 52-week period in order to receive the extension.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I think you are explaining things that everyone here understands. Thank you anyways. Time is up.

It is now over to Mr. Lessard.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Someone raised an important point in this debate. We are talking about police officers. But there is an underlying principle here, and I wonder whether it is shared. The bill before us was intended to take care of individuals who were required to go on a mission and give up a portion of their parental leave, as a result. So there was a requirement. The point that was raised leads us to consider whether we should go beyond that requirement. So far, the debate has not gone there. When people talk about the situation of police officers, I always think of the requirement issue. Are there police officers who are required by duty to leave their families to go on a mission during their parental leave? If so, it would seem that the bill should apply to them as well. So far, I have not heard any such examples.

That opens up the debate. Should we investigate that? There may be other people who are called upon to go on humanitarian missions, without necessarily being compelled to do so, but because they are the only ones who would be able to intervene in such circumstances, so they may have to go on a humanitarian mission. Those individuals may not necessarily be police officers or National Defence staff.

To broaden coverage under this bill, an amendment would need to be made at third reading. Only the government could do that, as it would require a royal recommendation. If that is the case, Mr. Beauséjour, could we not also consider a provision that would extend that right and ensure that others in the same situation as military personnel could also benefit?

Is my question clear?

[Louis Beauséjour]

Yes, I understand your question. As I said, to our knowledge, no other group is required by law to go on an overseas mission. In the other cases, the individuals have to volunteer to go, be it police officers or other Canadians. That is why this measure targets only military personnel.

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

Your answer brings to mind another idea. If it is a matter of volunteering, as you say, that means it could apply to police officers who went to Haiti to train officers there, for example. They could argue that they were eligible.

[Louis Beauséjour]

If the government had intended or does intend to extend the measure to individuals who volunteer to go on humanitarian or other missions, I would think that is the sort of thing we could try to study to see how it could be done.

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

I am not sure whether Mr. Komarnicki and the other members of the government are in favour of that, but can we, as a committee, agree to study the possibility of having the amendment take that aspect into account, given the answer we were given? Could we examine whether there are volunteers in other fields who are required to give up a portion of their parental leave to go on certain missions?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Lessard, are you referring to people who work for NGOs, for example?

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

Yes, but provided that they pay EI premiums. That is the basic condition. It is different in the case of someone who does not pay premiums, in other words, someone who is not legally considered a salaried worker. In the context Mr. Beauséjour is describing, everyone who pays EI premiums would be eligible.

[Louis Beauséjour]

It is the context you described, in other words, if people volunteer. I said that, right now, the measure on the table consists of giving military personnel the extension because they do not have a choice: they are required to return to duty from parental leave or to defer their parental leave.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

There is another problem with your suggestion, Mr. Lessard.

There are amendments before us, yes, but they still target military personnel and police officers. And none of them—I have just reread them—address the case you just mentioned, that of NGO employees, who are sent abroad and so forth.

We are bound to do the clause-by-clause study this afternoon. I can no longer receive any other amendments now. At least I do not think so, am I wrong?

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

Madam Chair, it would be inappropriate for me to try to put forward an amendment now. That was not my intention. The debate regarding the police officers calls on us to go beyond the situation of police officers or those in policing. It sort of relates back to what Ms. Bennett rightly pointed out. The rate at which we are studying this bill—and we fully support it—leads us to understand that there may be some missing aspects that could perhaps be dealt with when the government brings forward the amendment on the 104-week window. The government is in fact going to put forward an amendment on that.

If it is possible and if, of course, the government agrees, that aspect could be added. I do not get the sense that it would affect that many occupations, always keeping in mind the requirement raised by Mr. Beauséjour.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Komarnicki, do you wish to respond?

Do you wish to answer this?

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

I have just a general comment.

The scope of this bill is narrowed to Canadian Forces members, and there is one common theme: they are compelled to duty, while there are other classes that are not. While it may be worthwhile at some point to do a study or to engage in that debate, what we are looking for now is for this particular bill to go forward into the House. We would not be open to entertaining a broader discussion about other groups in this context.

I think we heard Mr. Duquette testify to indicate that his concerns as an armed forces member were that there were others who were either hospitalized or institutionalized because they didn't have much choice in the matter. They had to be there, and this bill deals with that.

My information is that RCMP members are not compelled to take duty. They have to volunteer or choose to do that, given everything they know, so there's a difference.

We're not prepared to broaden the scope of this bill at this time. Whether in the future there may be some discussion is another matter.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Lessard, given that, in my opinion, we cannot do anything here, in committee—certainly not today anyways—and given that we are supposed to do the clause-by-clause study, we have to move forward.

But I would suggest that you sit down with Mr. Komarnicki and maybe other members of the government to discuss that possibility, to check with them whether....

I think it would take another private member's bill to once again broaden the scope of the EI legislation.

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

That is a smart suggestion, since we are in unfamiliar territory to a certain extent. The only group that is truly recognized right now as being required to go on a mission is that of military personnel. As far as the other groups go, we are not sure, and we cannot just improvise.

So I completely agree with you: we could study the issue further to see whether another measure should be put forward later.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

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

I understand where Mr. Lessard is coming from and I agree with him wholeheartedly. However, today we have some amendments that have been tabled appropriately, correctly, and in a timely fashion to cover the issue of police forces who work side by side, shoulder to shoulder, with our military personnel in Afghanistan and other dangerous places in the world.

I think this whole question of one going because they're forced to and the other because they volunteer is semantic. You might make the case that a person choosing freely to go warrants the same honour and respect as the person who is told to go, because it's part of his role as a member of the armed forces, both of them serving for honourable reasons. I believe Mr. Duquette spoke to this. To suggest that now, when we have the opportunity to extend this benefit to those who serve in this way, not to at the very least cover those who put themselves in harm's way every day—whether it's training Afghan police, jail guards, or whatever, they are out there and they are at risk.... I think we owe them at least that consideration.

I am wondering, given that the government has come forward and very generously decided to support a private member's bill here and get it through the House, whether they might want to go just one step further and make sure that we capture at least the police as well as the military in this exercise, so that we don't have to go back and do this review and study and bring it back—as was suggested, a private member's bill usually, if you're not on the government side particularly, doesn't make it through the House anyway—and set people up and give people false hope.

What if the door that you knocked on, Mr. Poilievre, had been that of one of these police officers? Would you have offered them the same consideration, or would you have said to them, “Sorry, you're not a soldier, so we can't consider this”?

As the sponsor of this bill, would you see it as a logical thing to do, particularly given what Mr. Duquette had to say here today, that we might extend this privilege to police as well?

I am wondering if I could direct my question to Mr. Poilievre.

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

Thank you for that. I think it's a very fair question, Tony, and I understand what you're trying to achieve by bringing it forward.

The distinction I'm hearing from Mr. Beauséjour is between voluntary and compulsory, and the reason, I believe, that he's making that distinction is that if someone has a newborn child and is not being compelled to go into the theatre, they could claim their benefit. They would have the ability to claim that benefit and to volunteer later on, after the benefit has expired. That would permit them to both perform a duty voluntarily and to take advantage of the benefit that they paid for.

In the case of Mr. Duquette, he could not have made that choice. He was called into duty to carry out a highly specialized task that I suspect very few people in the forces could even do. It's a very highly skilled, technical role that he plays in Kabul. He would not have been able to exercise his discretion and opt to take the benefit immediately and then go later as a volunteer.

I don't want to speak for you, Mr. Beauséjour, but am I capturing the distinction you're trying to make when I say that?

[Louis Beauséjour]

It's exactly that.