Madam Speaker, in the time that remains, I think members on both sides of the House have fairly addressed the main principles here. I want to touch on just two.
First is the reference to jury service as a mode of employment. I do not see jury service as being a job, as being an employment. It is the fulfilment of a civic duty. People who go into jury service do not do it to earn income. There is not much income there. As was said by the last speaker, $10 or $20 per day in some places might pay for the parking tab.
In addition the remarks pertaining to compensation for jurors relate to areas of provincial jurisdiction. These amounts are settled by the governments in each province. It is a tenfold problem if you want to look at it that way.
The mover of this bill has referred to the remarks of a judge, I think it was in Nova Scotia, who referred to the ruling at the Unemployment Insurance Commission as a stupid ruling. I think, as the previous speaker has pointed out, that the ruling was correct. However, I feel that the rule is stupid.
I think the rule in the Unemployment Insurance Act interferes with the ability of the citizen who happens to be unemployed at the time in fulfilling their civic obligation. That is an important civic obligation. It is such a civic obligation that governments do not even bother paying very much for the fulfilment of that obligation. It is basically come and get in here and serve as a juror because you are obligated to do it as a citizen.
As has been pointed out by the mover of the bill, that circumstance with the unemployment insurance rules causes the person called to do jury duty to perhaps lie or refuse to serve when they should be ready, able and willing to serve. I think that is a misfit in the UI rules.
As the previous speaker has pointed out you can fix it on either end. The mover of the bill believes, and I agree with him, that the quickest route to a solution is to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act as suggested.
The mover of this bill has had success in this House previously in relation to the same bill. If I am not mistaken the matter was referred to the committee by the House after an hour's debate in private members' hour at some point in the last Parliament. As he said, the minister, the parliamentary secretary, the chair of the House human resources committee and others all on the government side and other members on both sides of the House have agreed it is an issue that should be addressed and can be rectified.
I chair the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. When the matter came before the committee all of the members conceded that it was an area that could and should be addressed. For other reasons the bill was not included in the votable bills.
I want to indicate that I have always been and I continue to be supportive of this legislative amendment. Perhaps it is too small an amendment for the minister who is working on huge projects now involving UI and the social safety net to include as a single legislative item. But it is acknowledged by virtually everyone to be an issue which should be rectified.
As a result, it would be a shame if as an item of private members' business this matter could not be dealt with at the standing committee. It would be easy to get it there, but as you know, Madam Speaker, and as all members know, at this point in the process it would require unanimous consent of the House. It would be second reading and adoption in principle. I intend to ask the House for that now. I think all members have heard the arguments lying behind the bill and I hope they will accept it.
I am torn between moving adoption of the bill at second reading and referral to a committee or simply asking members to agree unanimously that the subject matter be referred to the human resources committee.
Since I am still standing, maybe I will move the former and perhaps, Madam Speaker, there might be a disposition in the House to adopt the bill at second reading and refer it to the human resources committee. If that were not the case, perhaps I might be allowed to continue with my remarks for another 20 or 30 seconds to wrap up.
I would put the motion now. I would ask that the motion as now placed before the House be moved and ask Madam Speaker to ascertain whether or not there is unanimous consent to do that.