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?