Madam Speaker, first I want to say how pleased I am to take part in this debate and to give my wholehearted support to this private member's bill, C-216. I congratulate its sponsor, the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, for bringing in the bill because I believe it to be an important one. I also congratulate him on his tenacity. He brought in a bill in the 34th Parliament on this subject and he is back at it again. It is encouraging to see a member stick to a principle and stick to a cause.
The sponsor of the bill indicated in his remarks earlier that he does not have a legal background. Nor do I, but I think I have been around long enough and have enough experience to evaluate what is justice and fairness.
I truly believe this bill is about fairness and justice. It is about stopping government hypocrisy and all of us know government can be quite famous for hypocrisy. The bill is about attempting to stop at least some of this hypocrisy. The bill is about encouraging people to tell the truth. It is about asking and encouraging the citizens of this country to participate in the public process and to take their civic responsibilities seriously.
On the matter of fairness and justice, these people who are required under the law of the land to serve as jurors do not have a choice. They are required by law to meet their obligations. They are not unavailable for work as a result of their own choosing. This is not a matter of sloth. This is not a matter of indifference. They are required by the law of the land to serve on a jury when summoned.
However when they meet their legal obligations and serve on a jury for more than two days another government department comes along and says: "You are not available for work and as a result of that you are not going to get your UI benefits". If that is not a denial of fairness and justice, I do not know what is.
On the matter of government hypocrisy, government should not be allowed to speak out of both sides of its mouth. The government cannot say: "It is your responsibility and we are going to make it mandatory under the law. It is mandatory for you to serve on a jury, but by golly if you do serve on a jury for more than two days you are not going to get your UI benefits". That is a classic example of hypocrisy. It is a classic example of government speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Government cannot be allowed to do that. It cannot have it both ways.
The matter of encouraging people to tell the truth, my Lord, have we not all been encouraged from the cradle to tell the truth? Yet the situation here is that if you tell the truth it is going to cost you. It is going to cost the loss of UI benefits.
Therefore it does not surprise me that the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur tells a story about a woman who is tempted to come up with little white lies so she can avoid this unemployment insurance ruling and receive her benefits. In that particular letter cited by the hon. member the woman talked about faking illness or coming up with some other trumped up story, some cock and bull story so she would not miss her benefits.
I do not think we want that. We want laws of the land, policies and regulations of government that promote telling the truth. Certainly we do not want policies promoting lies, even little white lies.
It is the same thing about encouraging people to take their civic responsibilities seriously. We want that. We want people to get involved in democracy and in their communities. We should not be putting blocks and impediments in their way. We should be making it easier for them to take part, but this silly regulation does exactly the opposite.
A constituent in my riding of Winnipeg St. James by the name of Jamie Murray has gone through this. Last February she found herself summoned to jury duty. She served only three days. She was not in the situation of some jurors in which they have had to serve not days, but weeks and perhaps months.
I was speaking to a colleague of mine from the London, Ontario area today. She told me about one of her constituents who was on UI and got involved in a trial that lasted not eight days and not eight weeks, but eight months. That is a pretty extreme case but it can happen as well.
Getting back to Jamie Murray, she served on a jury for three days. She told the truth and the unemployment insurance people said: "Sorry, you are not going to get your benefits for those three days". She pointed out: "If I had served only two days I would not have been denied my benefits. So why not strike a deal? Give me the benefits for two days"-she is a very reasonable woman-"Give me the benefits for the first two days because that is what you would have done if the trial had lasted only two days and I will absorb the expenses for the third day". The civil service being what it is and how it is charged in its duties could not do that and she was denied all three days of benefits.
This regulation is wrong. We as parliamentarians and politicians simply have to show Canadians more understanding. It is not just a case of compassion. It is a matter of showing some understanding of the situation they find themselves in. They are following their obligations by serving on juries and then they are smacked, not because of their choosing but because of their unavailability for work.
I understand that ministers, especially the Minister for Human Resources Development, are in favour of this. I hope this goes to committee. When unanimous consent is asked for I hope members on both sides of the House will find it in their hearts to at least allow this bill to go to committee so that more questions can be asked and more information can be garnered. Surely this issue is compelling enough that we should allow it to be examined in detail in committee.