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.