---

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence

Issue 7 - Evidence - Meeting of April 14, 2008

---

OTTAWA, Monday, April 14, 2008

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to which was referred Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, the Canada Student Loans Act and the Public Service Employment Act, met this day at 4:07 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Colin Kenny (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Before we begin, I will briefly introduce the members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence who are present. My name is Senator Kenny; I chair the committee. At the far end of the table is Senator Hugh Segal. He is a well-known public policy expert from Ontario. He has served in the Senate since August, 2005 and sits on the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples and the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. He is also the Chair of the Senate Committee of Selection.

Beside him is Senator Nancy Ruth, a feminist activist from Ontario. She has been a senator since March, 2005. Senator Nancy Ruth is a member of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. She is also a member of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.

Beside her is Senator Grant Mitchell from Edmonton, Alberta. He was appointed to the Senate in March, 2005. He has had careers in the Alberta public service, the financial industry and in politics. From 1986 to 1998, he sat in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, and was Leader of the Opposition from 1994 to 1998. He also sits on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

To my immediate right is Senator Tommy Banks from Alberta. He was called to the Senate in April, 2000. He is known to many Canadians as an accomplished and versatile musician and entertainer. He is the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources and he is also a member of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.

On my left is Senator David Tkachuk from Saskatchewan. He was appointed to the Senate in June, 1993. Over the years, he has been a businessman, a public servant and a teacher. He is Deputy Chair of this committee.

On his left is Senator Joseph Day from New Brunswick. He has had a successful career as a private practice attorney. He has served in the Senate since October, 2001. He currently chairs the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, and is Deputy Chair of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.

Beside him is Senator Michael Meighen from Ontario. He was appointed to the Senate in September, 1990. He is a lawyer and a member of the bars of Quebec and Ontario. He is currently Chair of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and is also a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

At the end of the table is Senator Wilfred Moore, who was called to the Senate in September, 1996. He represents the senatorial division of Stanhope Street/South Shore in Nova Scotia. He has been active at the city level in Halifax- Dartmouth and has served as a member of the board of governors of Saint Mary's University.

Welcome, honourable senators and members of the public. We are here today to continue our study on Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, the Canada Student Loans Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

Bill C-40 intends to protect the civilian jobs of reservists working for federally-regulated employers and the federal public service. The bill would also cover reservists covering post-secondary institutions full time by allowing them to retain their active student status in the Canada Student Loans Program and exempting them from interest accrual and payment obligations while on leave.

The bill also seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code in order to provide employees with a right-to-job protection when they take a leave of absence without pay for service in the reserve force. It also prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of reservist status.

In the same vein, Bill C-40 amends the Public Service Employment Act, which governs the staffing process for the federal public service, to ensure that public servants have the right to reinstatement following an absence due to service in the reserve force.

On February 13, 2008, pursuant to the motion by the government House Leader, the Honourable Peter Van Loan, Bill C-40 was deemed to have been moved through all stages and passed by the other place.

We are here today to listen to and talk with two panels. The first is from the Canadian Forces Liaison Council, represented by Mr. John C. Eaton, Chair; Mr. Miller Ayre, Vice-Chair; and Mr. Léo M. Desmarteau, Executive Director. From the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is Mr. Michael N. Murphy, Executive Vice-President, Policy.

We will begin with Mr. Eaton.

John C. Eaton, Chair, Canadian Forces Liaison Council: Thank you and good afternoon. I am the National Chair of the Canadian Forces Liaison Council. I might add that the CFLC is celebrating its thirtieth anniversary this year. It was founded in 1978, when the then-Minister of National Defence, Barney Danson, asked some businessmen to see if they could not help reservists get some time off to serve their country. The employer would give them time off to make sure that they got their holidays, as well.

With me today are Mr. Ayre, the Vice-Chair, and Mr. Desmarteau, the Executive Director. I have brought with us this afternoon Ms. Valerie Keyes, the incoming Executive Director of the Canadian Forces Liaison Council as Mr. Desmarteau will be retiring very soon.

The Canadian Forces Liaison Council also includes 10 provincial chairs who volunteer their services to carry out the work of the council in the provinces. The CFLC is a ministerial organization that reports to the Minister of National Defence. In addition to our national council, we have established provincial councils to assist our provincial chairs in extending CFLC's services and programs across the land. We currently have close to 100 volunteers involved in the work of the provincial councils. We are assisted in our work by a network of part-time reservists who constitute our field services. The national and provincial councils, as well as the field services, are supported by a secretariat in Ottawa that is part of the Chief of Reserves and Cadets organization within the Department of National Defence.

The CFLC's purpose is to enhance the availability of reservists for training and operations in a manner that will not penalize reservists or impose an unfair burden on employers. Since its inception as a council, the CFLC has recorded the support of 190 post-secondary educational institutions, or 60 per cent of our target; and more than 6,000 employers. This represents one of the most tangible results of the work of the council.

Let me preface my remarks with words of appreciation to Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn for taking the initiative to develop the legislation and promote it across the country. His efforts will result in greater availability of reservists for training and operations. I commend Minister Blackburn for his leadership in encouraging the provinces to develop their own legislation and want to assure him of the CFLC's fullest cooperation in helping reservists to balance their civilian and military careers.

I must admit that the CFLC has traditionally resisted the use of job protection legislation as a means of guaranteeing the availability of reservists for training and operations both because of fears of discrimination in hiring practices and career progression and also because of the complexity that would result from issues of jurisdiction. However, since the fall of 2006, when Nova Scotia became the first province to adopt job protection legislation, CFLC has applied its efforts to working with job protection legislation and to making job protection legislation work, and we will continue to do so.

One of the subjects I wish to raise is the question of compensation for employers. We know that employers who hire reservists come to appreciate the values and skills they bring to their job as a result of military training and operations. We have also witnessed many employers showing a strong sense of patriotism. Support for our Canadian Forces and, more specifically, our reserve forces, is running at an all-time high. However, some employers, particularly the small- and medium-sized businesses, may find it difficult to cope with the costs they incur when they release their employees to deploy on operations. For this reason, we feel that consideration should be given to the possibility of offering compensation to employers who release their employees for participation in training and operations. This potential new incentive for employer support needs to be studied and costed out, and we should also learn from the experience of other countries that have implemented a compensation program. The study should include alternate forms of compensation such as tax incentives, and fixed weekly or annual amounts.

We have noted that a number of measures to implement the legislation will be addressed through regulations, as specified in proposed section 247.97 of the Canada Labour Code. Questions of the duration and frequency of leave, the obligation to accept an early return of the employee, the process for determining what is ``undue hardship to the employer,'' et cetera, will be of critical importance to many employers. For this reason, we strongly recommend that employers be consulted on the nature of these measures before the regulations are formally adopted.

As a last comment, I would like to stress the importance of developing good communication plans for the implementation of the legislation. Our expectation is that we will have at least 29 pieces of legislation or regulations dealing with educational institutions and employers' support and protection for our reserves across the country. CFLC wishes to pledge its support and assistance in disseminating detailed information, both externally and internally, using its well-established networks.

In conclusion, I wish to reiterate the total commitment of the Canadian Forces Liaison Council to support the implementation of the legislation for the greater benefit of our reserve forces, our employers and our educational institutions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Eaton. Could we hear next from Mr. Michael N. Murphy, Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce?

Michael N. Murphy, Executive Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce: It is my pleasure to be here on behalf of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. We are obviously pleased to provide our input on this vital issue of accommodating Canadian Forces reservists in the workplace and in educational institutions. There are approximately 25,000 reservists, 2,000 of whom are in the federally regulated private sector and within the public service, with another 12,000 student reservists. Their numbers, coupled with their transferable skills, mean Canadian Forces reservists play an important and active role in the Canadian labour market.

At present, Canada has no standing job protection legislation for reservists who serve in the military, either to meet international commitments such as in Afghanistan or to aid civil power in the event of disaster assistance. Furthermore, Canada does not accommodate reservists who are attending educational institutions. Bill C-40 attempts to address this concern by providing job protection for reservists who work in the federally-regulated industries and the public sector, and by providing relief to student reservists.

We strongly support the intent of Bill C-40 and many of its provisions. For instance, the provisions allowing student reservists attending post-secondary education institutions to retain their student status, and neither accrue interest on their loans nor make payments during active duty, provide incentives to partake in both educational and Canadian reservist activities.

While we support the intent of Bill C-40 and the need to provide job protection for Canadian Forces reservists, we have some concerns about its effect on the Canadian labour market, particularly in an environment of growing skills and labour shortages.

The current skills shortage is one of the most significant structural problems affecting the Canadian economy and it is slowly turning into a crisis. In a recent survey that we conducted of our members, two thirds reported experiencing skills shortages with 90 per cent characterizing them as somewhat or very severe. This is an issue of national importance. In response, we need a policy framework that is flexible and that helps facilitate labour mobility in our country.

Bill C-40 provides legislated job protection for Canadian Forces reservists. A number of Canadian businesses already have military leave policies such as unpaid leaves of absence in addition to paid vacation. Some employers even provide guaranteed job protection for reservist employees participating in longer term assignments, while others top up the military pay to meet civilian pay rates during assignments. However, not all employers, particularly small employers, can afford to institute such policies.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce believes in taking an incentive-based approach, perhaps in the form of income tax credits, to dealing with the challenges in this case. Such an approach could, at a minimum, reimburse employers for resulting expenses and encourage businesses of all sizes to institute effective military leave policies. Such incentives could be limited to an appropriate maximum per reservist employed per annum, fiscal conditions permitting.

In addition to providing job protection for the Canadian Forces reservists, an incentive-based approach also provides the necessary flexibility for employers and takes into account the differing needs and capabilities of businesses of all sizes.

We recommend that Bill C-40 be amended to adopt an incentive-based approach to facilitate and encourage participation by all companies in the federally regulated sector, benefiting both employers and Canadian Forces reservists.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy

Senator Nancy Ruth: Mr. Eaton, I am awfully curious about the links of the CFLC to the Department of National Defence, the Department of Labour and the Department of Human Resources and Social Development. What kind of consulting went on with you as a group in terms of the building of this bill and were you able to express your concern about small- and medium-sized businesses and incentives?

Mr. Eaton: In a word, no, we were not consulted.

Senator Nancy Ruth: You were not consulted?

Mr. Eaton: No. However, regardless of the fact that we did not have any input, the one thing we are interested in is ensuring that when the legislation comes in, the reservist is there to serve his country and that he has protection. That protection will be in the law. Before, he did not have such assurances. We are delighted to be able to work with the new legislation.

We are in constant contact with our international allies: the British, the Americans and the Australians. They have legislation. Australia, particularly, has compensation. The British have some forms of compensation for certain reservists.

Senator Nancy Ruth: Is the compensation to the employer?

Mr. Eaton: Yes, it is to the employer.

Legislation is around in various parts of the world. Canada is just catching up with the rest of the gang.

Senator Nancy Ruth: Was there any way to talk to Minister Blackburn or anyone else about this issue when you heard this bill was coming?

Mr. Eaton: It came very suddenly. Mr. Ayre, would you like to comment?

Miller Ayre, Vice-chair, Canadian Forces Liaison Council: The CFLC is an organization of volunteers that exists outside the secretariat. There is the technical issue about whether we were consulted. Mr. Desmarteau and others in the secretariat may have been consulted. However, as a body, the CFLC meets twice a year. It would have to be a direct call, in effect, to the chair perhaps by one of the ministers for that consulting process to begin. It is not like consulting a chamber of commerce where there is a built-in group of people ready to respond. The CFLC is not technically the group where Mr. Desmarteau is. We exist as volunteers.

Senator Nancy Ruth: However, you are the volunteers of an association of employers. Your story about Barney Danson asking you to get it started was about getting the employers on board to release these men and women to serve.

Mr. Ayre: That is correct.

Senator Nancy Ruth: It seems to me that is still part of your purpose. Am I correct in that you still reflect that part of society? I assume many employers fund you.

Mr. Ayre: Yes.

Senator Nancy Ruth: It is too bad that they did not call you.

Mr. Eaton: To clarify, we are not funded by employers.

Senator Nancy Ruth: Who are you funded by?

Mr. Eaton: We are funded by the Department of National Defence. We have a budget of about $2 million per year. That pays for our liaison officers out in the field, our secretariat and for Mr. Desmarteau, our Executive Director.

Senator Nancy Ruth: DND provides the $2 million?

Mr. Eaton: DND, that is where we come from.

Senator Nancy Ruth: The whole freight?

Mr. Eaton: Yes.

Senator Nancy Ruth: How do they supervise this and how are you accountable to the Department of National Defence?

Mr. Eaton: We have an accounting of it.

Senator Nancy Ruth: Help me understand your links to the men and women who are the reservists, your links to the employers who will be concerned about this bill and your relationship to DND. How does that work together?

Mr. Eaton: I am responsible to the Minister of National Defence, period. I respond to him and to no other person. The organization that is supporting all of this, the business men and women across Canada who have joined us, are all volunteers except for the paid forces people who support reservists.

Senator Nancy Ruth: What kind of people are on your board?

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Ayre is.

Senator Nancy Ruth: I mean in terms of representing business, army or the reservists.

Mr. Eaton: All the volunteers represent business — executives from various corporations, companies, entrepreneurs. We have a mixed bag of society from the business sector.

Mr. Ayre: Each province has a chairperson and a council that would represent various parts of the province.

Senator Nancy Ruth: In your opening remarks, you said that going this way was not how your group had wanted to go until the provinces started to do it. Have you some sense that you are being forced into it?

Mr. Eaton: No, I do not think we are being forced into it. It seems to be the way the country wants to go. They want to have job protection legislation for reservists. We fully support that.

What had been done in the past was that we recognized that with legislation, there perhaps was discrimination. Great Britain and the U.S. had discovered that. I think the Australians did not have the same problem. We decided that, with our begging cap on, we could get industry, governments and educational institutions to support us on a volunteer basis. Thus far, it has worked.

However, times change and we are willing to go along with the times.

Senator Nancy Ruth: Does your group have a particular relationship with the reservists themselves? What is that relationship if you are a council of business people?

Mr. Ayre: Each province has liaison officers who are regular members of the reserve and who work with the reserves. They visit reservists regularly to explain what the CFLC does and how we act on behalf of the reservists. If reservists are having problems with their employers, they know they can come to us. We would go to the employer and try to work out the differences or the problems that existed.

Senator Nancy Ruth: The political arm and the military did not consult with you on this bill. Did the reservists consult with you on this bill?

Mr. Ayre: The process of consulting with us is not as simple as you may think. The reservists would have their view and, I think, the reservists would have expressed that. Reservists meet with us regularly. When we have our meetings twice a year, many reservists are with us. We have an internal committee looking at provincial legislation, for example, and that committee would include reservists from within the CFLC's cadre of people, plus our own individuals.

We are aware of the legislation and we were working on it ourselves in terms of what the provinces were doing. The federal legislation came along quickly. We had no meeting at that time. However, we have our committee report and observations on changes we would like to see made. We do not see huge problems with the legislation as it stands. Therefore, the process from our point of view was one where we were communicating with our secretariat to which the Armed Forces would have been speaking. We work regularly with the reservists who are part of our liaison group, so they would know our views as well.

Senator Nancy Ruth: Okay. For my final question, I am curious what the compensations and incentives look like that Australia, Britain and the U.S.A. have.

Léo M. Desmarteau, Executive Director, Canadian Forces Liaison Council: In Australia, when an employee goes on military operations, the employer can apply for compensation of just over $1,000 a week after the thirteenth consecutive day of that employee's absence. In the United Kingdom, they have a high-readiness reserve or a reserve to perform special duties. They would make special arrangements for these reservists with their employers. Those are the only two compensation plans that I know of at this time. The United States does not have a compensation plan.

Senator Day: I will begin by declaring a personal interest in the Canadian Forces Liaison Council. I know these gentlemen and I served on the council in New Brunswick a good number of years ago. Mr. Ayre, I knew your predecessor, Mr. Robert Murray, who was vice-chair for many years. He served the Canadian Forces Liaison Council for many years with Mr. Eaton. They were quite a team.

I have always supported your philosophy of looking for industry to provide a compensation plan voluntarily. I must say, Mr. Eaton, I cannot get my mind around the idea that the government wants to do it this way and, therefore, this is the way we will go. I am still wondering whether the right thing is to legislate industry to take on certain obligations. Might that discourage industry from hiring people whom they know are in the reserves? That was always the concern in the past. I would like you to take a step back to the stage in the process to where consideration was being given to whether we should have a regulated requirement or a voluntary system, with some incentives, perhaps, as Mr. Murphy pointed out.

If you were back at that stage and the government had not put forward this proposed legislation, would you encourage this approach?

Mr. Eaton: My answer to that would be a qualified, yes. I say that because, in 2006, Nova Scotia put in job protection legislation and, since that time, five other provinces have done the same. Currently, 6 of 10 provinces have job protection legislation for reserves. Therefore, it would seem only natural for the federal government to get on the bandwagon and develop a compensation plan.

Senator Day: Mr. Ayre stated that you have been analysing the plans in the various provinces.

Mr. Eaton: Each provincial chair is looking at that.

Senator Day: Do you have a list of concerns or changes that you would like to see? Mr. Ayre, you indicated earlier some changes that you would like to see.

Mr. Ayre: We think the proposed legislation is pretty good. One thing that concerns us is already part of the legislation, such as one-month notice. In some cases, the reservists will know well in advance of that kind of date. There should be a way that the reservist is required to let the employer know as soon as they know their intentions. That might be because they have been accepted or whatever the process is that they would go through. That could lengthen the one-month notice to the employer. That could be dealt with later.

Early return could be a problem as well. If an employer hires someone to replace a reservist for a specific period of time and the reservist arrives back early, the employer has two people for one job. The first question is whether the employer or the reservist should be able to pull the plug on the arrangement if they cannot reconcile the situation.

The second issue is presumably undecided and will be part of the regulations. It is rather tough on employers, especially smaller ones, if people are in the position to repeat and repeat. We think there should be as many as 36 months between such absences. In some cases, there might be regulations within the forces indicating 24 months between deployments but we think 36 months would be typical.

These are not big issues with regard to the proposed legislation but they are important points. Our job has always been to smooth the process between the employer and the reservist. While this proposed legislation is focused on protecting the reservists, there are still things you can do that do not diminish that protection while making it easier for the employer. We see our job as bringing both sides together, reducing the tasks and difficulties faced by employers.

Senator Day: Do you find the provincial legislation similar or are there significant variances?

Mr. Ayre: Until we saw the bill in February, there was no way to make it the same. I am familiar with the Newfoundland and Labrador situation, where they consulted with us at length. We told them what was going on in the other provinces and explained their difficulties. I will give you an example of the different legislative problems. The 37 Canadian Brigade (Reserve) commands New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador reservists. However, it looked like there would be big differences between the legislation in New Brunswick and that in Newfoundland and Labrador. That meant reservists in the same brigade would operate under different regulations, which has happened across the country in other places as well. Jurisdiction creates the brigade so reservists could cut across borders with different regulations. That problem needs to be resolved but time is involved in this as well. If the bill moves forward in this forum, the provinces, in all likelihood, will follow the federal regulations once they are known. The process will be to harmonize but it will not happen overnight. As we said, there are 29 different regulations.

Senator Day: I was not sure what you meant by that.

Mr. Ayre: Certainly, we look for harmony because it makes our job much easier.

Senator Day: I was not sure what you meant when you talked about 29 different pieces of legislation.

Mr. Desmarteau: If we are talking about labour legislation, there would be one piece of legislation for each province and one for each territory, totalling 13 pieces of legislation. Post-secondary education is the jurisdiction of the provinces so there are 10 different pieces of legislation to protect student reservists, making it 23. There are four pieces of legislation affected by Bill C-40, making it 27. The National Defence Act contains a section that deals with the employment of reservists, making it 28. As well, under the National Defence Act there are regulations for reserve forces training and leave, which spell out military leave for the Public Service of Canada, making it 29 pieces of legislation in total. Of course, we have not included the reference to reservists in our public education system, who could be employed in domestic operations, though not in international operations. That would add another 10 pieces of legislation. That is why I said it was at least 29, although it could be as many as 39, pieces of legislation.

Senator Day: As Mr. Eaton has indicated, it would be nice to have harmony in this. As you pointed out Mr. Desmarteau, there was a piece of legislation passed in 2002 as part of the Public Safety Act that amended or put a clause in the National Defence Act. This clause applied to all workers across Canada, not just federally regulated workers, involved in the reserves, regardless of whether they are employed in the workplace under federal or provincial jurisdiction, and it gave them protection. That legislation was never proclaimed. Mr. Eaton, are you aware of that legislation?

Mr. Eaton: We were aware of it, and we were also aware of the 1988 legislation for job protection, and that did not go through either. We just kept on doing our job.

Senator Day: In 1988, was that legislation passed? Which was that?

Mr. Ayre: It was a study.

Senator Day: The 2002 legislation was, in fact, passed but never proclaimed. It went through both Houses and received Royal Assent but was never brought into force. It seems to me that that might have been an interesting way to go. It dealt only with emergencies, but the emergency was not defined.

If you consider the incentive package that Mr. Murphy was talking about: rather than regulating something and then having to talk about the regulations that come afterwards — no one knows what will be in those and everyone is nervous about that — maybe it would be better to have legislation like we already had on the books in the National Defence Act, applied to everyone for certain situations, and then deal with the incentive situation that you have always dealt with in the past, maybe building in some incentive for employers like you and Mr. Murphy called for.

Mr. Eaton: I do not know if you are getting a little technical, at this point, but, certainly, we just want to ensure that we have reservists ready for the Canadian Forces to serve either in theatre or in emergencies, and so far, so good.

Senator Day: Mr. Eaton, I am like you. I believe in the work that the reservists do, and I hold them in very high regard, and I would like to have the very best system that will protect those reservists and protect their jobs when they come back. I am searching for the best kind of system to do that.

Mr. Eaton: It seems we pretty well have it, in our estimation.

Senator Day: We have the policy; I am not sure we have the legislation.

Senator Meighen: If this legislation does go through, I would like to hear a little more from Mr. Murphy in terms of how strongly he supports it, given the fact that there are no incentives, particularly for small employers.

Mr. Eaton, how do you see the future role of the CFLC? I will give some suggestions, and you can tell me which ones do not make sense. One is monitoring the effects, as Senator Day was alluding to, of the provincial legislation in place and the new federal legislation, if passed, and seeing what the results are. Would your council be able to do that?

Mr. Eaton: We would be happy to do that. As for what route and role we would play in the future, in the United States, when they sent their National Guard and reserves overseas to Afghanistan and to Iraq, they discovered that there were some problems when the reservists and the National Guard got back. There were, I believe, 22,000 inquiries made by the reserves and the National Guard. That represented about 28 per cent of all the concerns that were brought forward. If you see where I am going, about 100,000 concerns were brought forward that needed resolution. That is a lot of resolving to do, and it would take, I believe, about over a year to resolve each one of them. That is not saying that they do them one at a time, but a number of them, so there are a number of things that would have to be resolved. We would have our hands full.

Senator Meighen: In the American case, do you know who the ``they'' were that were doing the resolving? Was it representatives from the Judge Advocate General?

Mr. Eaton: They were there, yes.

Senator Meighen: Is there an organization in the U.S. similar to yours?

Mr. Eaton: Yes, there is.

Mr. Desmarteau: It is called the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, ESGR.

Senator Meighen: Do they get involved in this?

Mr. Desmarteau: Yes.

Mr. Eaton: That is our counterpart. In Great Britain, it is called the National Employer Advisory Board for the Reserves of Britain's Armed Forces, and in Australia it is the Defence Reserves Support Council.

Senator Meighen: It seems to me that, as Senator Day mentioned and as you mentioned, we were all a bit nervous as to whether the legislative route was the one to follow, given the potential for pre-employment discrimination. However, we saw what our allies did, we saw what the provinces are doing, and I have come to the conclusion that it is the way to go. It does not mean it is the perfect way to go, and it does not mean that we should not monitor it carefully. It seems to me that you are perfectly suited to doing that monitoring job because the question of whether to go the legislative route or not may be solved, but the question of how the legislation affects and deals with individuals may not be solved.

Mr. Eaton: That will be a part of our responsibilities in the future. However, the big thing we have to do in CFLC is ensure that the employer and the reservist work together so that the Armed Forces have a viable number of reservists to do the job that Canada has taken on.

Senator Meighen: The employer, in this case, is the federal government, so you have a new, huge employer to deal with.

Mr. Eaton: Yes, we quite recognize that. They are a large and sometimes very naughty employer.

Mr. Ayre: We have them signed up by department.

Senator Meighen: Mr. Murphy, do I take your evidence to be that while you have some understandable concerns about the effects on small business, given the fact that there is no compensation provided, you are in support of this legislation, this Bill C-40?

Mr. Murphy: Yes. We thought it was time for the government to take action to do the right thing. We have had discussions with our members about this issue going for almost a year now. We had a good debate on the issues at the chamber's annual meeting last fall and concluded it was time for some more meaningful action by government, not just what we have been doing up until this point.

We also look at the issue from the standpoint of the environment that companies in Canada operate in today. If you walk into any business in Canada today, it will not take long before skills and labour issues are on the table for discussion. That is part of the environment we are operating in today. It is extremely challenging for all businesses, but particularly acute for smaller and medium companies. How do you find the right balance in an environment where you think there is a problem here today where we are not adequately treating reservists, so let us get on with doing that job, but at the same time let us keep an eye on what is going on in the marketplace that reservists will be functioning in as well and are functioning in today. That is what we were looking to see.

We made that suggestion last fall to see if we could come up with something that might satisfy everyone while achieving the objective, which is why I said we do support the intent of the bill.

Senator Meighen: Do any of you see any parallels that can be drawn from the experience we have had with maternity leave and paternity leave legislation? There may be better notice available in those instances, but there is no compensation that I am aware of.

Mr. Murphy: There actually was not in the case of parental leave, but that issue created exactly the same kinds of dialogue we are having now.

Senator Meighen: Would you say that we as a society, we in Canada, are dealing with it in an equitable and successful basis for all concerned?

Mr. Murphy: Overall, I would say absolutely, and it started more particularly with bigger companies having adaptability issues and being much more capable of coping with a major change like that. Again, the same issue was workforce management for smaller companies, and it took a little longer to work that out for a number of small employers.

Senator Meighen: We are down to the small employer.

Mr. Murphy: One fact of life in terms of dealing with labour legislation is that it is one thing to think about it in the context of federal labour law, which applies to a limited number of companies, large employers principally in the economy. The reality is that whatever is adopted by Ottawa in terms of amending the Canada Labour Code, the virtual certainty is that you will see similar if not identical provisions adopted provincially across the country. We have many examples of that.

Senator Banks: Before I ask my first question, I must put on the record, as I do every time legislation of this kind comes before us, my reservations about legislation which is in many respects framework legislation, which says here is a good idea and we want to go in that direction and we will tell you later at some unspecified time exactly how we are going to do that. That leads to a whole long list of questions about this bill that cannot, at this point, be answered by anyone. They are quite cogent questions having to do with specifying the absences that are deemed not to interrupt continuity, specifying what does or does not constitute an operation for the purposes of this act, defining annual training for the purposes of the act, et cetera. There is a long list of them which I am sure you have seen, so I have objected to the previous and present government about that kind of legislation. The meat and potatoes are not here; this is sizzle without meat and potatoes.

That having been said, Mr. Eaton, I understand that for the better part of 30 years the liaison council was of the opinion and expressed opinion that since military service in the reserves was voluntary that so should be the protection of jobs for those reservists be voluntary.

Mr. Eaton: That was where we stood.

Senator Banks: That may be moot now because events have overtaken that. I think you have already said that since there is legislation in the provinces and since we have this, we have no choice but to go along with it.

If you had your choice between the legislation that was referred to by Senator Day that is contained in the Public Safety Act, which was considered by Parliament for nearly three years and came into force with Royal Assent on May 6, 2004, which provides that protection, not just for members of the public service and not just for folks who work in federally regulated industries but for everyone, with the same kinds of exemptions for a three-man or five-man shop. If you had your choice between implementing that section of that act of Parliament which already exists and has been passed into law on one hand, with its provisions covering everyone, and this legislation now before us but not yet passed, which would you choose?

Mr. Eaton: That is a tough question. That is like asking me if I would like to drive a Chevrolet or a Chrysler. I guess I like to drive an automobile to get me from A to B. With Bill C-40 we are headed for specific safety measures, if you want, for the reserve component of the Armed Forces, and at this point we are very supportive of that.

Senator Banks: But this present bill only covers the —

Mr. Eaton: The other bill in 2004 was not implemented, senator.

Senator Banks: It was passed into law. It is an act of Parliament. That particular aspect of it has not yet been brought into force, which is an interesting question about whether the previous or present government has paid attention to the will of Parliament, but I am putting that aside. It is a statute of Canada; it exists.

Mr. Eaton: But not enforced.

Senator Banks: But it exists. If you had a choice between these two, given your 30 years of experience, which would you choose? The significant difference, as I see it, is that the existing law, which can be brought into force tomorrow afternoon with the stroke of a pen, covers everyone. The present proposed bill covers only those reservists employed by the Government of Canada and those industries susceptible to federal regulation. In other words, there will be large numbers, I presume, of reservists who will not be protected by the present bill, whereas under the Public Safety Act they are. Which of those would be your choice?

Mr. Eaton: We have already, if you want, further stirred the pot and muddied the water by introducing provincial legislation which covers a multitude of people in the provinces, and with 6 out of 10 and counting, I think the federal legislation found in Bill C-40 is probably the way to go.

Senator Banks: You have no concern about the people in the reserves not covered by this bill and not protected by this bill, whereas they would be under the Public Safety Act? If someone works for a large print shop with thousands of employees, for example, that is not susceptible to federal regulation, they are not covered by this bill.

Mr. Eaton: That same person, through the provincial legislation, probably would be covered, so they have their protection.

Senator Banks: I hope your good hopes for the harmonization of the provincial laws are found more in the case of this kind of business than they are in every other aspect of law.

Mr. Eaton: I recognize there are differences, senator.

Senator Banks: Yes. Mr. Murphy, you said a minute ago in answer to a question that you were in favour of this bill. However, in your presentation to us you said you thought it ought to be amended and sent back and we ought to approach it from the standpoint of incentives rather than a hammer. Which is it?

Mr. Murphy: As I indicated in my remarks, the chamber is very much in favour of the intent of the bill, which is to do the right thing with respect to reservists. Currently, there is a very limited framework to look at this. When we looked at it, we agreed it was time for something more than what we have today, so the question became what you should do? The government has chosen to go in this direction. We made an alternative proposal; that is not on the table before you today. Both, I think, would satisfy the criterion of doing something, doing the right thing on behalf of reservists, whether they are workers or students. We made this proposal and still think it merits a look. Obviously, it would be easier if we were still discussing the thing.

Senator Banks: We are discussing it, Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Murphy: We are discussing it here in the context of a bill that is before us as opposed to prior to legislation.

Senator Banks: Bills before us are not a fait accompli.

Mr. Murphy: They certainly are not.

Senator Banks: You would recommend, in short, sending the bill back for amendment so it would become incentive- based rather than some sort of mandatory requirement?

Mr. Murphy: Our proposal is to give it a serious look.

Senator Tkachuk: Mr. Murphy, six provincial governments have already passed legislation. Did the provincial chambers of commerce or the Canadian Chamber of Commerce support that in each province? I would say that most of your membership would be under provincial legislation.

Mr. Murphy: That is correct. Federal law only applies to those federally regulated.

Senator Tkachuk: It is 3,000 reservists we are talking about here, is that correct?

Mr. Murphy: I think it is 2,000. However, in terms of the other 11,000 who are part of those working for employers, they would be covered by provincial legislation. That is something I would have to verify, senator. I do not have the answer of where the position of our branches in each of those provinces was in terms of the six laws that have been passed.

Senator Tkachuk: When you were talking about incentives, were you talking about incentive-based legislation or more about compensation, as Mr. Eaton had talked about earlier?

Mr. Murphy: You could look at it in many ways. We use the tax system in Canada in a variety of ways to give incentives to certain behaviour in the economy. We do that with business on a regular basis. There are many examples of that. We were thinking our way through the idea that something should be done here; so, is there an option that is used elsewhere in the economy? If so, perhaps we could think about making it apply here, as well, particularly focused on smaller employers, for which the tax system is already being used as I mentioned. That was the intent.

Senator Tkachuk: Do you have a copy of your proposed amendment?

Mr. Murphy: In terms of the language we would suggest?

Senator Tkachuk: Yes.

Mr. Murphy: No, I do not. We could work on it if it would be of value but I do not have it today.

Senator Tkachuk: Have you done any studies we might reference? I just want to sort this out. Mr. Eaton and his organization have said they support the bill, but they also say that they would like to see a study done on the question of compensation. I do not want to put words in your mouth, Mr. Eaton, but I think I have paraphrased you properly.

Mr. Eaton: Yes, you have.

Senator Tkachuk: Mr. Murphy, do you support this legislation as it is now with a view that we look at how we may provide incentives or compensation in the future, or do you want us to deal with that? It all costs money. I do not think we would be doing it that quickly.

Mr. Murphy: There are always two ways to look at it. You can pass a bill and make it into law and then move on and hope something happens with respect to trying to deal with the issues we have raised, or you could say, ``That is worth a look. Let us look at how we might be able to accomplish the objective here.''

The latter is the preference from our standpoint.

Senator Tkachuk: To have an amendment here, you mean?

Mr. Murphy: Yes.

Senator Tkachuk: This bill applies to 3,000 reservists, but it applies also to 12,000 students?

Mr. Murphy: That is correct.

Senator Tkachuk: Do you support the student provisions of the bill where, during the time they may serve, there be guidelines set up so they would not have to pay interest on their student loans?

Mr. Murphy: Absolutely. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we looked at all of those pieces of it and we are supportive.

Senator Tkachuk: We would not want to see that delayed too long a period of time, I would think.

Mr. Murphy: The way that language has been drafted is useful.

Senator Mitchell: I would like to say briefly that the members of the committee have just returned from Afghanistan. It was a remarkable experience for many reasons. In particular, we observed the military, many of whom are reservists. I think I speak for everyone when I say I was immensely impressed with the quality of people and the professionalism, not only in a militaristic sense but in their sense of the people of Afghanistan, their understanding and working with them in an important way.

Thanks for doing all work you do to help them. It is wonderful and they deserve that.

I would like to address the issue of how you find employers or do you market. Do you just work with employers who already have reservists as employees or do you go out to try and encourage all employers to be open to hiring reservists? In other words, is there a marketing component to your work?

Mr. Eaton: You could definitely call us marketers for the reserves. One way we could do that is through our ExecuTreks. These are where we take employers to see reservists training for a day. That can be at CFB Wainwright, Land Force Central Area Training Centre Meaford or any of the big camps where we do military training. It shows the employers what the reserve component is doing.

In that way we get them interested in these young people who are serving their country. That is terribly important to us. That is our prime way of doing it. You can do that by going to the military camps, by taking them to airfields or by taking employers on ships and showing them what is happening in the Navy or Air Force.

Mr. Ayre: There is an awards program in which, each year, reservists nominate their employer for cooperativeness and so on at both the provincial and federal levels. We cite the employers and provide certificates, awards and presentations. The reservists and employers are there. Those kinds of marketing activities take place: Luncheons, speeches, et cetera.

Mr. Desmarteau: In terms of targeting groups of employers, we do attempt to reach employers at large. We try and focus on employers who we know currently employ reservists in large numbers. For example, police forces across the country tend to have reservists working for them. We have focus groups with the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. We have also made presentations to Rotary Clubs and local chambers of commerce across the country.

Also, our first priority is employers of reservists. That has always been a top priority. As we reach into the reserve units across the country, we try to encourage reservists to invite their bosses on ExecuTreks or to nominate their boss for an award. We also reach the employers through the reservists; they lead us to their employers.

Senator Mitchell: If you find reservists who are unemployed, do you actually refer them to a list of employers? How do employers who come to these seminars or go to CFB Wainwright, how do they find reservists they might want to hire?

Mr. Desmarteau: The council did not want to become an employment agency. Therefore we do not encourage reservists to come to us if they are looking for employment. We do not want to assist them in finding employment. However, conversely, if employers who come to our activities are impressed and want to employ reservists, we facilitate the contact with reserve units so they can find employees among the reserves. Employers are often impressed by reservists' skills and values.

Senator Mitchell: I am from Alberta and employers have a difficulty in finding people because there is such a demand in our labour force.

Just to give you a chance to make this point to the public again, you have mentioned and its really a given, that there are tremendous benefits to hiring someone with military training because they have both skills and training. In some sense, you can say that reservists are always off doing training. That is, they are getting professional development at the government's expense on behalf of this company. Can you summarize some of the skills that employers find particularly valuable amongst their reserve employees? Is it just logistical expertise, the ability to organize, to manage, to lead?

Mr. Eaton: To put it on a broad basis, you get an employee who is both attentive and focused and will do the job. If you tell them what you want, they will do it. They are probably more focused than the ordinary Joe. That is a very general way of looking at it.

Yes, we have kids who can be short order cooks, but what you want is the well-focused individual who is polite and attentive and who, when given an order, knows what you want and will respond.

Mr. Desmarteau: Probably the greatest skill is one of leadership; that is, being able to work independently, being a team player and working as a team. Their life depends upon it, so they can work both independently and as a team. There is also loyalty, which is a value that is extremely difficult to find nowadays. You know that if you are dealing with a reservist, you have people who can and will be loyal if they are treated loyally. If people were to discover the skills and values that are acquired through military training and operations, we would not have enough reservists right now to answer the demand for them.

Senator Mitchell: Yes. One of the most important things in business, in life and in society is leadership. My experience is that there are relatively few places that explicitly train leadership; the military is one of them. I know military people and leadership is very much a part of what they do. But how do you get that? You do not get that in school. Where else do you get it? Every company is demanding it of their managers.

Mr. Desmarteau: Not only is the military one of them, but I think they are the best of them in terms of training people. We have probably the best training system through our Canadian Forces.

Senator Mitchell: I sometimes wish I had some of that before I became leader of the Liberals in Alberta. The common thing is that you are in the trenches, let me tell you!

For student reservists on campuses, et cetera, are there employers who focus on recruitment of student reservists? Is that a possibility?

Mr. Eaton: I do not think it happens that way within the universities. We targeted the universities and the educational institutions over the last few years. It was primarily to ensure that, uniformly throughout their own departments, they were ensuring that people who were in training that conflicted with exams had those times straightened out and had all the things that had to be arranged accommodated such as time off. It was really a question of getting their attention and ensuring that the administration was working with the departments.

Senator Mitchell: One last question, on the incentive side. I am interested in that because it is a question of getting past the federal government and federally regulated employers.

You mentioned that Australia pays $1,000 a week. That is a significant amount of money, but undoubtedly worth it. When you talk about the tax system, what would you foresee, Mr. Murphy, in that regard? What would be some examples? Certainly, they are not paying the reservists when they are away. They may be topping it up but they are getting a tax deduction for that or a write-off for that already. Are you really talking about a tax credit, a gross-up of some kind?

Mr. Murphy: Yes; exactly.

Senator Mitchell: Let them write off more training or the replacement person?

Mr. Murphy: You hit the nail on the head. There are other thoughts out there in terms of incentives and additional opportunity for the private sector, particularly for small-and medium-sized companies, to think about training people. This could be one of the obvious applications, and it could even be for someone who has only been there for six months. Now you have the issue of them leaving. If there was something available to help you handle that kind of requirement, it might be a nice fit. We were looking at that sort of thing.

Senator Mitchell: I notice that part of this act is to ensure that reservists are not discriminated against. Once they are an employee of an employer, they are already hired. Is there evidence that some employers will not hire reservists because they are concerned that they will be called out and there will be the trouble of replacement and training?

Mr. Eaton: It has not happened in Canada but there is a possibility of that, yes. There is always discrimination. However, we have not crossed that bridge.

Senator Moore: In regard to the board of your organization, do you have any female members of the board?

Mr. Eaton: Yes.

Senator Moore: How many do you have?

Mr. Eaton: We have three provincial chairs who are women.

Senator Moore: Three of the ten.

Mr. Eaton: It is not easy to find CEOs who are women.

Senator Moore: You are the chair of a national board.

Mr. Eaton: I am the national chair, period.

Senator Moore: Do those provincial board chairs make up your national board?

Mr. Eaton: Yes.

Senator Moore: You have a total of 10 provincial boards.

Mr. Eaton: Vice-chairs and myself.

Senator Moore: Yes, and then you have you two gentlemen, the vice-chair and the chair. You have 12 on your board?

Mr. Eaton: We have 12, correct.

Senator Moore: I know that 18 per cent of the reserves are female and I want to make sure they have a chance for input here.

The comment was made that there was no consultation with your organization before this legislation was tabled. Mr. Murphy, was the Canadian Chamber of Commerce consulted?

Mr. Murphy: On the bill before it was tabled? No.

Senator Moore: I share the same concern as Senator Banks with regard to who is covered by this bill. I think about the student aspect. In your brief, Mr. Murphy, you state that there are 12,000 student reservists. If they are students at the Royal Military College, perhaps they would come under the federally regulated sector; I am not sure if they would. They are helped a bit if they have a Canada student loan or a provincial student loan. Do you know how many students would fit into those categories? Of the 12,000, how many would have loans? Are half of them covered? That is a fair number of reservists. How many of them are covered by this legislation? Has anyone done an analysis on that?

Mr. Murphy: In terms of how many of the 12,000 have loans outstanding?

Senator Moore: Yes, because those are the only ones who are covered here.

Mr. Murphy: I do not know.

Senator Moore: It would be interesting to know that. Would the students of RMC, if they had a loan or not, be covered?

Mr. Murphy: It does not matter where they go to school. The reference you are making is for federal employers. For students, it does not matter where you go to school.

Senator Banks: I have two quick questions. First, Mr. Desmarteau, I assume you have some familiarity with the provincial legislation. Are they about the same or are they different? Do they cover specified groups of people or are they universal?

Mr. Desmarteau: They are universal. However, there are differences and inconsistencies in what is covered. In some cases, they cover international operations and not domestic operations, or they may not cover leave required to take courses or to go on training.

Senator Banks: However, they all cover all reservists within that province rather than those who are in the public service or other specified fields.

Mr. Desmarteau: I guess, yes. It would be for all who come under the provincial rules of employment. If the reservists in a particular province work for a company that comes under the Canada Labour Code, then it would be this legislation that would apply.

Senator Banks: Thank you.

You mentioned that reservists are police officers probably more than any other occupation. Leaving aside the RCMP, are municipal police forces regulated under federal law and would they be subject to the bill that is before us?

Mr. Desmarteau: I am not familiar with all of the legislation or regulations that govern police forces across the country. I am on thin ice in terms of answering the question. I am not an expert on this.

My understanding is that they come under municipal authorities and they have municipal boards. Since they are governed at the municipal level, the policy that would apply would be at the municipal level.

Senator Banks: I think you are right, and if that is correct, they would not be protected by this bill?

Mr. Desmarteau: That is my understanding, yes.

Senator Banks: Mr. Eaton, you have heard what the Chamber's position is. Do you agree with it?

Mr. Ayre: If I may respond, we are not asking that it be sent back for amendments.

Senator Day: Mr. Murphy, I am trying to clarify the point that was being asked by Senator Moore. I am trying to figure out to whom this legislation will apply if it ever passes. The 2004 measures applied to all employers and all reservists. For this proposed legislation, you used the figure of 2,000 and Senator Tkachuk, in another briefing note, had 3,000 reservists out of a total of 25,000 reservists that are in federally-regulated industries.

In addition to that, Senator Moore talked about students. Mr. Eaton addressed that earlier and indicated there is a question of jurisdiction. Universities and their students are all under provincial jurisdiction in terms of their grades, the continuity of grades and the leave that they need.

However, if a Canada student loan is involved, then the federal government and this Bill C-40 could impact on those students. Mr. Desmarteau and I know that one of the selling points for being in the reserves is that you make enough money that you do not need a Canada student loan. Therefore, most of the students would not fall under that.

Did you say you thought that all 13,000 students would be under this legislation?

Mr. Murphy: That is the number the minister indicated could potentially be affected when tabling the bill. The reason for this is that you look at the populations under the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act or the Canada Student Loans Act. This bill is amending both of those pieces of legislation. Therefore, there is a large universe of students affected by one or the other.

Senator Day: Except those who are reservists are paid enough money that they do not need it.

Mr. Murphy: I do not have data on whether reservists have student loans. My suspicion is that most people who are in post-secondary education are carrying student debt or had student loan debt and now have it to pay back while they are working.

It was really a question of whether that was something we thought deserved to be part of this bill and we did. It was not only employers or employees of companies that would be affected here. We thought it had merit to take care of the student issue as well.

Senator Day: That those students who have loans need help?

Mr. Murphy: Yes, if you are dealing with reservists, do not discriminate between those working and those who are students.

Senator Day: You indicated earlier that you had focused on this issue before this bill came along. Were you aware of the legislation that was already passed? What did you think about it and whether it should be proclaimed?

Mr. Murphy: I was generally aware, but did not think of it in the sense of saying do not do a separate piece of legislation, go ahead and implement something else.

Senator Day: Mr. Eaton, did you perform any analysis looking at the existing legislation that had not been proclaimed with a view to whether it should be proclaimed or whether we needed new legislation?

Mr. Eaton: No, senator.

Senator Day: I would like to conclude by wishing Mr. Desmarteau a happy retirement and thank him for the work he has done in helping out the Canadian Forces Liaison Council.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank both the Canadian Forces Liaison Council and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. We appreciate having your views. We could not imagine going ahead with this bill without hearing from you. We are fortunate to have had that opportunity.

We will move to our next panel of witnesses. It is our understanding that you do not have prepared statements but that you are prepared to introduce yourselves. Tell us a bit about your work in civilian life and in the reserves. Lieutenant Kane, please proceed.

Lieutenant Dwight Kane, HMCS Carleton: Thank you very much. I am pleased to be here. My role in the forces is Deputy Commander of Port Security Unit 1. I have just started a one-month period of training for an exercise: Reaction Royale. We will train in Kingston and then go to the exercises in Quebec.

My life in the forces started in 1985 with the regular force, where I spent seven and a half years. I have been a reservist since 1993. I have served on a part-time basis, what we call Class ``A'', on weekends and at night. I have also done longer-term service in staff positions or at sea. Most recently, I served on a mission overseas. I participated in the Canadian Operation Safari, which is our contribution to the United Nations mission in Sudan. I served as a military observer in southern Sudan for six months.

In my civilian life, I am an independent management consultant and project manager with my own business. I have been doing that on and off for about 10 years. Recently, I finished contracts on March 31, knowing that this exercise was coming up, and made myself available. I will serve for one month and then I will take some time off at the end of May before starting work again on June 1.

The Chair: Thank you. Sergeant Kowlessar, please proceed.

Sergeant Dominique Kowlessar, CD, RO31 Infantry, Section Commander, Governor General's Foot Guards: My name is Sergeant Dominique Kowlessar. I am with the Governor General's Foot Guards, a reserve force regiment based in Ottawa. I have been serving since 1992 in various positions. We are an infantry regiment, part of 33 Canadian Brigade Group in Ontario. In my civilian life, I work at Industry Canada. I am a Senior Commerce Officer with the Aerospace, Defence and Marine Branch for the past year. Previous to that, I spent seven years with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade on the international trade side in the Business Sectors Bureau as a Trade Commissioner and Deputy Director.

The Chair: We will go to questions.

Senator Banks: Sergeant Kowlessar, we have had the great pleasure of meeting some folks from 33 Canadian Brigade Group during our travels, including recently to Afghanistan. It is always a pleasure to see folks from your brigade.

In respect of Bill C-40, you would be protected by virtue of the place where you work — either in the federal government or in an industry that is regulated federally. Do you have colleagues in the Governor General's Foot Guards who are employed by the private sector or, like Lieutenant Kane, who are self-employed who, therefore, would not be protected? Do any of them have concerns about their employment status after they are deployed?

Sgt. Kowlessar: Senator, I have colleagues working with the public service that currently are on training for the next task force leaving in August. As far as the private sector, there are currently none from my regiment on workup training. As for the members of the 31 brigade I have trained with for four months from September to December, one of my colleagues worked for General Electric, and he negotiated his time away from his job, and his employer provided that protection and guaranteed him his position upon return from his operational tour to Afghanistan.

Senator Banks: In your experience, however few of your colleagues to whom that would apply, the private sector was amenable to voluntarily providing job protection?

Sgt. Kowlessar: In that specific case, my colleague negotiated with his employer, and they were very supportive of the soldiers serving in Afghanistan and had guaranteed his job for when he will come back.

Senator Banks: Lieutenant Kane, I ask you to answer the same question.

Lt. Kane: Absent legislation of this type, for reservists it is always a negotiation process. Reservists work with their employers and give them as much advance notice as possible and let them know what they are hoping and expecting to do, and they work with them. With legislation of this type, that would continue. Reservists would not reach for this legislation and present it to their employers and demand to go. They would continue to negotiate. This could be potentially an additional tool if there should be some difficulties. They could refer to this to say there are provisions, in the case that it applies to them, either in the federal government or under organizations regulated by the federal government. This legislation that provides support for reservists is potentially beneficial, but it is not going to be something that a reservist will automatically turn to right away. There will always be negotiation with their employers so that the working relationship is beneficial to both.

Senator Banks: Bill C-40 says that, absent those negotiations, or if those negotiations are not happily concluded, and the reservist is called into active duty and deployed, that the employer, provided it is the federal government or a business regulated by federal regulations, will protect his or her job for when they return from deployment. Is that not correct?

Lt. Kane: I will clarify a point you made. You have said that a reservist is called out. I would like to clarify specifically that reservists volunteer for their service. A callout of reservists would be an exceptional circumstance, and those are the provisions that were referred to in the earlier discussions under the National Defence Act, which are very exceptional cases. Every service that we do, as I tell my mother, be it two days, two months or two years, is voluntary. We sign up to go and that is why it is more of a negotiation, because we are asking to go away.

Senator Banks: There may be an underlying effect in this respect because I think that situation might change if this bill became law. It is the opinion of this committee, for example, that since the public spends money to train reservists to the highest level of capacity of deployment that it ought not always be necessarily on the basis of volunteerism. If we paid a large amount of public money to train a technician to this level in whatever respect, that technician ought to be obliged, when required, to go into military service. What is your view of that?

Lt. Kane: That sounds pretty far outside the scope of my capacity or my purpose here today.

Senator Banks: I would like to hear your personal view.

Lt. Kane: Until the time that is changed, the present system is working; and reservists are supported as much as they can be, in the navy, by the divisional system and by officers like myself providing advice on how to deal with employment situations. As far as substantive changes to policy or legislation of that nature, unfortunately, I truly cannot comment.

Senator Banks: Sergeant, I will ask you the same question. Suppose your unit trains a communications technician, which is fundamentally important to the operation of an infantry group on the ground, and that communications technician has been trained with those men and women on that equipment. If that unit is for whatever reason deployed, or parts of it are, there would be an obvious advantage to that communications technician going with those people with whom he or she has worked previously, and the public will have spent a lot of money to train that person to that level of capacity.

At the moment they can say, ``I am not going.'' Do you think that is okay?

Sgt. Kowlessar: Senator, not using your example of that specific technician, but as a senior NCO myself, the military has spent a lot of time training me. I have been a part-time reservist for 16 years now and have a lot of experience. I feel personally that I should go over. There is a requirement and a need for soldiers going over on operations, so my personal feeling is yes, I would like to go and make a contribution,. I would want to ensure that the men and women under my command come back home safely and we accomplish the mission.

However, when we look at legislation, we use the current legislation to present our cases to our employers to enter into that negotiation. The amendment to the Public Service Act in this current bill provides another tool in the tool kit to secure our position when we return to ensure reinstatement at our substantive level. When you speak on the reservists' right to refuse outright, it remains voluntary. It is the right of the reserve force member to say no.

However, personally, in my experience and that of the men and women that I serve with, they definitely understand and are aware of the requirement and feel that they could contribute a lot of their knowledge, skills and expertise. As a reservist, skills from their civilian job can be transferable in very specific trades.

Senator Banks: And vice versa.

Sgt. Kowlessar: Yes, senator.

Senator Banks: I will close by echoing what Senator Mitchell said in our visits to bases abroad and throughout Canada. The contribution made by reservists is exemplary and very much to be admired. Thank you very much.

Senator Day: I would like each of you to explain how difficult or easy it is to go from full-time military service to civilian service with part-time military service. I have had experience in moving from my particular job to doing something else for a while, and I found it real tough to come back and try to build up the client base and all those things that have to be done. You must have really understanding people at home. Would you tell us a little about that adjustment?

Lt. Kane: I would be happy to, senator. I can look at it on a couple of levels: Short-term, Class ``A'' type service can be for weekends, transitioning from an office cubicle environment during the week to doing Naval operations on the weekend. For example this past weekend I was in the Old Port of Montreal, doing one final port security training weekend. As we drove back, an officer I work with and I discussed how surreal it can be to go from that environment back to the grind of the daily job. Of course, the longer you go away, the more significant that transition is.

Having said that, when you have a fairly lengthy career, you become accustomed to it. One experience of mine was going away on an international exercise, in the United States, for two weeks. I was working on a particularly stressful project management contract with the federal government. I was involved in an operation during which, I think, many of us were working 100-hour weeks for two weeks straight. It was quite challenging and difficult. That happened to be as an independent contractor; those were my two weeks off. I went back to my job on the Monday. I was actually energized and talking in a loud, clear voice, as they say, when I was back.

Longer-term service can be challenging. When I served on the mission in Sudan, I did have the decompression time; I had a month off. That came with my reserve leave. The transition there was challenging. I had been in a completely different environment, a different country, doing an exciting, interesting, difficult job and then forced to revert back to the standard types of things we do. One only has to say the words ``IT project management'' and people get a sense of what you are talking about.

The transition is something that you do get used to and rather than it being a problem is something that you can draw from: You have gone away, done something interesting and exciting and you know that, not too far from now, you will be doing that again.

Senator Day: Sergeant, I would like you to answer the same question, but first, Lieutenant Kane, you are self- employed when you are not in Class ``B'' service. Therefore we do not have anything in this legislation to protect you in terms of your clients and customers.

Lt. Kane: That would be true. However, this would impact on me in my role within the Navy as a divisional officer. I am responsible for looking after a certain number of junior ranks of sailors; I am responsible for their careers, advancement and development.

Therefore, I would have to be knowledgeable of the implications of this proposed legislation. I would have to be aware of and understand the responsibilities of the reservist and the responsibilities of the employer because this appears to be a two-way legislation. There are responsibilities for reservists such as advance notice. There appears to be limitations in that employers can, in fact, say that this will not work for them, for whatever reason.

The impact for me is that I would have to understand it, have to be able to speak to it and counsel reservists to whom it applies.

Senator Day: I am glad you made that point.

Sergeant, you were here for our earlier session and understand why we are asking these questions and having this session: We are trying to gain an insight as to the need and desirability of Bill C-40.

Could you answer the question of how you adjust to working full-time military and then going back with your employer and trying to pick up where you were six months or a year ago?

Sgt. Kowlessar: I have not gone out on operational deployment yet. I intend to. My experience has been going away on course with the military; leadership courses for up to nine weeks, two-week exercises once a year and, more recently, more specialized training. I was headquartered in Toronto for four months with the Psychological Operations Company. The transition coming back to work was eased, somewhat. My employer understood that I would be away. I still retained the old files that I was working on. It has been quite smooth returning to my responsibilities.

Senator Day: You did not have files that were time sensitive? I do not want to make any jokes about the federal government. You just picked up the files you left six months earlier?

Sgt. Kowlessar: Prior to leaving on training, there was sufficient notice to my employer which allowed me to produce my change-over file for the officer that would be taking over a specific project which was quite significant. There was sufficient time to brief the new officer because there was advance notice of my departure, and the transition was facilitated by that advance notice. When I did return, I returned to that project which was ongoing.

Senator Day: Sergeant, Bill C-40, this bill has not been passed yet and your employer was very sympathetic and very cooperative. Is there anything that did not exist in your relationship that made that transition from military service back to your employment with the federal government that Bill C-40 would solve for you?

Sgt. Kowlessar: The relationship I have with my employer is very positive. Even my former employer, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, was very positive as well.

The process that I followed was: The advance notice to my employer that I am requesting this time off, I called upon the resources of Canadian Forces Liaison Council to speak to my employers. The CFLC was very helpful in educating them about the mission, the training, also arranging for my senior director an executrek trip to CFB Wainwright.

Senator Day: That tends to smooth the way.

Sgt. Kowlessar: Given the proposed legislation relating to the public service, the right to reinstatement at the current level upon return is very positive. It does not exist now. However, I did not have any difficulty with my employer given the steps that I undertook.

Senator Day: When you say ``it does not exist now,'' you mean the law does not exist now but your employer in fact did reinstate you in your position that you had previously without this law?

Sgt. Kowlessar: Yes.

Senator Day: From your point of view, working for the federal government and the departments you indicated you worked for, in order to be protected, you do not need this legislation?

Sgt. Kowlessar: From my experience at DFAIT and at Industry Canada, when I went through the process and through the consultations with CFLC, we looked at the existing legislation and the National Defence Act which pertained to emergency situations, which would cover all of civilians as well as public service. There was a lot of back and forth with CFLC on the scope of that and how it would pertain to job security for members coming back.

Therefore we drew upon that legislation and found that it was a bit narrow in scope. The amendment to the Public Service Employment Act does provide additional security for the employee in that organization with respect to ensuring reinstatement at the current level if there is a re-organization in the department or in other circumstances.

Senator Day: In terms of building up pension credits, does it stop with your current employer when you are away for an extended period of time? You are not there working and you are not getting paid, but you do not lose your seniority. You are not paying into any pension plan, but are you compensated by having a reservist pension plan now?

Sgt. Kowlessar: Yes. The reserve force pension plan came into effect in March of 2007. When reservists deploy on operational tour, they are considered a class ``C'' member and they are paid and receive the benefits of a regular force member. The pension would apply in both cases, namely, during the work of training and the deployment.

Senator Day: You are not losing out on the pension but it is a different pension. That is, it does not feed into your federal government pension; it is a separate military pension.

Sgt. Kowlessar: Yes, it is a separate military pension.

Senator Nancy Ruth: It is good to see you here. Are you a sole proprietor? How do you make it work so that you can take off and come back? Who covers the business and how does it work?

Lt. Kane: I have had my business for about seven years now. I started off as a sole proprietor and about five years ago I incorporated. I have a different arrangement. We discussed reservists having to negotiate with their employers. I have to look down the road. I am associated with a small group. I am truly independent, but I have a small consulting group that I associate with and that network is expanding. I work with people, some of whom have former armed forces service. They are aware of the things I do. It is a matter of maintaining that network the way that you work in contracting. You keep an eye out on what jobs are coming out; what may be available.

The trip overseas was a big problem for me. Weekends are not pay factor, but six months is a substantial chunk of time. I was quite willing and prepared to terminate or run out the contracts that I was on to go away and do that particular mission. I learned a lesson. I could have been more aggressive. Maybe I was overconfident in how quickly I could get more work, but I have now re-established myself and I am continuing. It really is a matter of contacts and networking and ensuring you can keep yourself busy.

Senator Nancy Ruth: You have a network out there. If you cannot manage the end of that contract, you have buddies to pick it up?

Lt. Kane: That is right.

Senator Nancy Ruth: What percentage of your contracts would come through networking as a reservist?

Lt. Kane: So far, none. All of my contracts on my networks and my jobs have been through word of mouth and merit; that is, by doing well on a job and getting more work. If I think about it, I can honestly say that the contracts that I do have been outside of my relationships and my working with reservists. That is my case.

Senator Nancy Ruth: With other sole proprietors who are incorporated with one or two employee operations, are you aware of them getting business from the Armed Forces?

Lt. Kane: I do not know, senator. I am not aware of that. I have not been getting contracts with them. When I first cut my teeth as a contractor, I was working as an employee of a firm that had a contract with DND, but I have not.

Senator Nancy Ruth: I want to ask you both something. There is certainly a general presumption that this is the neatest and best way to help the military get the people they need, both men and women, to do what needs to be done now at this time in Canada's history. In what ways do you see it to the advantage of either your company or your clients or to the place in the civil service that you are working? What benefits do you bring back to them and what are the areas of conflict?

Lt. Kane: I think we heard from the previous panel about what they perceived it to be. Perhaps we are not the ones to judge; we do not want to toot our horns too much.

Senator Nancy Ruth: You are the cream of the crop or you would not be in front of us. Let us hear your answers and we will distinguish from those who are not here.

Lt. Kane: It might be a dangerous assumption, but I will take it.

I will echo what was said previously: the thing that employers find from reservists is leadership. In my own case, I was given a particularly difficult job based on what they described as being communication skills. In fact, they could not put their finger on it; they did not know what it was. They said, ``You are bringing something and you have communication that we like.'' It was leadership. That is, being able to take charge and to stand up and to know what must be done. In other words, to see what must be done and to do something about it.

If you are the senior person in the room, you are the leader. We expect leadership at a very early age and at a very junior rank. In addition to that, and that would be the primary, there is a whole range of other skills such as communication. That is, having to speak clearly and to stand up in front of a group of people and present yourself. There is also paying attention to detail, your bearing and your personal dress. Those are the types of things. There are many things that reservists are inculcated with throughout their career, either knowingly or unknowingly. For example, a certain spirit of fun, being with a group of people where you like to do the same thing, and having a good time. There is a saying in the forces: If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right. People bring that to their employment. I am sorry, but I forgot the second part of the question.

Senator Nancy Ruth: Let us hear from the sergeant first.

Sgt. Kowlessar: I would like to add to what the captain said about leadership. What do reservists bring back to their civilian job? I have been through the infantry section commander's course, and I have trained several troops as leaders. I have received feedback from my employers on performance at work and I have seen the performance of other reservists. They bring back their disciplined organizational skills, teamwork, adaptability, flexibility and their ability to work under demanding circumstances.

When I was successful in the competition for deputy director at DFAIT, one of the contributing factors was my experience in managing personnel, very large groups. That has helped me out in my career. In my current position with the Aerospace Directorate at Industry Canada, Aerospace Defence and Marine Branch, it was an asset to have been on an operational tour working with Canadian soldiers and with the equipment that Canadian industry has a big part in producing, as well as coming back and developing those networks and relationships to help Canadian companies get more business in those sectors.

As a reservist, I could bring a lot back to my organization. I am thankful that they have been supportive. Being able to comment on the amendment is a good opportunity to bring that to light.

Senator Nancy Ruth: Can I ask you just to give me a hunch, because I do not think there is clear data or answers to this: Do those who have served in the reservists and who are working in the Public Service of Canada get promoted at a faster rate than others or at a slower rate?

The Chair: Just say yes.

Senator Nancy Ruth: Just a hunch.

Sgt. Kowlessar: One of my close colleagues has been promoted very quickly. He works as a civilian at DND. For myself, I would say yes, the skills that I received from the military have helped me significantly in my public service career.

Senator Nancy Ruth: The second part of my question was about conflict that happens in your places of work. It could apply to both of you because you are working with other colleagues and your networks.

When you have these skills, let us assume you have an advantage in terms of leadership ability to work hard, be disciplined and communicate well. What kinds of conflicts occur that you may hear about for the beer parlour or elsewhere?

Lt. Kane: Do you mean conflicts between reservists and their employers?

Senator Nancy Ruth: No, between reservists and other employees. When they go back, their skills are improved. They may be keener or faster. Their bosses like it and are promoting them. Leadership styles vary greatly. Some work in some situations better than in other situations. There is a lot of documentation on mixed gender groups. Those are the kinds of things I am looking for.

Lt. Kane: People make assumptions and when they hear that I have a military background or I am in the reserves, I have to force myself to learn a type B personality leadership style so that I am not marching around trying to give orders. That just does not work.

In a civilian environment, you have to talk to everyone, get people together and listen to perspectives. There may be a time to give positive clear direction and those are fun. However, more often than not, you need to work with people and be laid back.

One thing I did not tell you at the beginning is that I am what is called a MARS officer, that is a maritime surface officer. I drive ships; I navigate and do bridge watch keeping. Typically, we are almost uniformly type A personalities, very competitive and sometimes aggressive. Clearly, those leadership styles do not work in most civilian employment. Therefore, you have to know your audience, know your environment, learn and adapt. If you try to be a sergeant or a lieutenant in your environment, I can largely guarantee that will not work.

Reservists learn quickly how much they can bring of their background to their civilian employment. In my case, I have a very different leadership style in civilian employment than I do in my military employment.

Sgt. Kowlessar: To respond to the first part of your question, when I served as Deputy Director at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I did a lot of staffing. The staffing procedure has certain criteria such as knowledge, personal suitability and abilities, on which we assess candidates. They are all governed by those policies. We look at the candidate's CV to see if they have that experience. They go through the written examination, the interview and reference check process in the same way that I did at various levels in the commerce field. Personally, I have not witnessed any resentment from my colleagues because of the outcome of a specific competition.

Senator Nancy Ruth: This is not about this bill at all. There is a move in the public service to give employment to the spouses of deceased members of the forces. I do not know if it includes reservists, but it would include police. What do you think of the idea that spouses should be given preference in the civil service?

Lt. Kane: This is the first I have heard of it. Personally, I cannot comment.

Sgt. Kowlessar: I am not able to comment on that.

Senator Mitchell: My first question is what was the nature of the briefing you had before you arrived at this meeting? It was a semi-serious question. Have you been briefed by your superiors or your colleagues for this meeting?

Lt. Kane: We were given a briefing on the format, what to expect, how it would proceed and what expectations you might have of us. If you were asking whether we were told what to say, no, we were not.

Senator Mitchell: In our discussion to this point, the obvious conclusion has come out. For someone like you that has their own business, going off is detrimental. You go off and you lose money or clientele or you do not develop it. However, is it not also true that there must be many reservists who do a deployment and get paid less than their salary? There is no guarantee their salary will be topped up by their employer or sustained. Some may, but many reservists must lose money?

Lt. Kane: That is correct. It depends on their level of pay with their employer. There are not any specific requirements that wages be topped up.

Interesting situations develop in the reserves where a junior ranking individual may be someone's boss, that is, the boss of a higher ranking officer in the same unit.

Senator Mitchell: I wanted that on the public record.

Are you aware of colleagues who have lost jobs because they have gone on a deployment? Any who have been inhibited by employers from going on a deployment, employers who would not cooperate? Do you know of colleagues who have not been able to get a job from a certain employer because they are a member of the reserve?

Sgt. Kowlessar: I am not aware of anyone.

Lt. Kane: Sometimes the reserves lose people because they are not able to get away to go on operations. They do not have enough time. Therefore, rather than losing their civilian jobs, we lose them.

That is why provisions to support reservists are beneficial. One element in advising or counselling individuals, were this available, would be the provision for the two week annual training. This is good because, as I mentioned in my own case, that was my only holidays. If reservists have to use their vacation leave for training, it means they have less time for family and personal time. Therefore, any provisions for training would be potentially quite beneficial to both individual reservists and the reserves that are trying to get training accomplished.

Senator Banks: How do you know that, lieutenant? Maybe I have not read this properly, but it seems to me the question you just addressed is one of the things that this bill says will be dealt with in later regulations. Is that defined to your knowledge?

Lt. Kane: I was not describing it as definitive. I was suggesting it would be beneficial if the annual training was provided for.

The Chair: I would like to thank Lieutenant Kane and Sergeant Kowlessar for appearing before us. You have been helpful in assisting us in the study of this legislation. We appreciate you as reservists taking time away from your families to come and talk to us. Honourable senators, is there any desire to have further discussion before proceeding with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-40?

Senator Day: I am prepared to proceed with clause-by-clause at this time, although I know there are some who would prefer to have an opportunity to reflect on the evidence and do clause-by-clause at the next meeting. I would like to have a discussion on proposed observations, one being the following: In generating the regulations contemplated under proposed section 247.97 of the Canada Labour Code, I propose that the Canadian Forces Liaison Council be involved in a consultative manner. As well, we might want to think about having that section of the National Defence Act repealed if it is clearly a new policy direction of the current government. We should not have legislation sitting around that has never been implemented.

The Chair: I thought Senator Banks had introduced legislation to that effect a long time ago.

Senator Banks: My proposed legislation is not yet law. There is also the Public Safety Act. If this bill is passed, it would be the third piece of legislation dealing with the question in three different ways with three different groups of people. One of my worries about this bill is that it overlaps the present provisions of the Public Safety Act, which could be proclaimed tomorrow afternoon.

Senator Day: This is a policy decision to go in another direction, is it not?

Senator Banks: In this bill, then, should we not repeal that section of the Public Safety Act dealing with these questions?

Senator Day: I would say that we not repeal it but suggest in the observations that it should be repealed.

Senator Meighen: Does the Public Safety Act not operate within a certain context, i.e., where an emergency has been proclaimed, whereas this does not require that?

Senator Banks: I have to reread it to be sure. I do not think it requires that the emergency be proclaimed. I believe that it says, ``in the case of an emergency.''

Senator Meighen: That is what I am not clear about.

The Chair: We have legal assistance available if you would like an opinion.

Senator Meighen: I do not know whether we have time to bring in a legal argument.

The Chair: We have too many lawyers on our committee. I am simply advising you that that is available.

Senator Banks: I do not want to hold the thing up for reasons I am not clear about. The present act, which could be proclaimed but has not been, says that in the case of an emergency, the protection exists for everyone, not just for those defined people. ``Emergency'' is defined, according to the research from the Library of Parliament, as including an insurrection, a riot, an invasion, a war or an armed conflict. If that definition is included in the act the normal sense of definition, then it means that any of those constitute an emergency under the terms of the act.

Senator Tkachuk: We can only deal with what we know. We cannot deal with what we do not know.

Senator Banks: We can ask a question about it.

Senator Tkachuk: We know that this is a bill, and the other stuff is all supposition — if they proclaim the act or do not. We could mention it in the observations, provided we are clear on it. I am not sure if we have held hearings on that other bill. I hate to get into areas that might cause us a problem.

The Chair: I have Senator Meighen next.

Senator Meighen: I have no problem with an observation. However, I point out that this bill deals with areas such as training and voluntary participation in respect of Afghanistan that the other bill does not deal with.

Senator Day: On Senator Tkachuk's point about hearings on the other bill, I was the sponsor of the proposed Public Safety Act, 2002, and we held extensive hearings. I spoke at length on how attractive I found this initiative to support the reservists, but it has never been proclaimed. It was debated extensively.

Senator Tkachuk: That is not what I meant. The idea that they would proclaim the act while this act was passed is something that we had not contemplated. I did not mean to say that we had not studied that particular bill. Obviously, that bill was studied before.

The Chair: Are there other observations or comments you would like to make at this time?

Senator Banks: How interesting a question is it, chair, or is it worthy any consideration at all, if this bill were to pass, would there be any problem with that and the existence of the other bill occurring at the same time? Perhaps it is a non- issue.

The Chair: Inasmuch as the other bill has not been proclaimed yet, it will not be an issue.

Senator Banks: It will still be there.

The Chair: If it is proclaimed, there will be an issue. I have yet to see a government that is dumb enough to proclaim two overlapping bills in the same week.

Senator Banks: If it fails to do that in the next seven years, it will be caught by a certain other piece of legislation.

The Chair: Precisely. Practically speaking, it is unlikely; theoretically speaking, it is possible. I lean toward the practical, if that is of any assistance.

Rule 96(7.1) permits us to proceed if there is leave to dispense with the clause-by-clause. Do I have leave to do that? Otherwise, we will do clause-by-clause in the normal fashion.

Senator Day: Mr. Chair, you have put two questions. First: Do we proceed at this stage to clause-by-clause consideration? Second: Do we dispense with clause-by-clause consideration? I am content to dispense if we can agree to append observations.

The Chair: It would not preclude observations.

I will read the wording of rule 96(7.1) of the Rules of the Senate:

Except with leave of its members present, a committee cannot dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill.

Would there be leave to dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, the Canada Student Loans Act and the Public Service Employment Act? Agreement must be unanimous. Those in favour, will please raise their hands. I should point out that Senator Segal is not a member of the committee.

I see unanimous agreement.

Senator Day: If he were a member of the committee, he would vote in favour.

The Chair: We have resolved one matter. Leave has been granted to dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-40.

Is it agreed that this bill be adopted without amendment?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Therefore, the bill is carried without amendment.

Does the committee wish to discuss appending observations to the report?

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Chair: Rule 92.2(f) allows us to go in camera to discuss a draft report. Does the committee wish to discuss the observations in public or in camera?

Some Hon. Senators: In public.

The Chair: Senator Day, you started off with some observations that you wanted considered. Perhaps you could repeat them for the benefit of the committee.

Senator Meighen: As a point of clarification, do we draft the observations now or just suggest what they might be and look at a final draft in due course?

The Chair: I think the procedure would be one of two things: You could give direction to the analysts to prepare a draft then have it come back to the full committee, or you could ask the analysts to prepare a draft and delegate to the steering committee to approve them. It is in your hands.

Senator Meighen: It is difficult to draft in committee. I would prefer the steering committee pass on them once the subject matter has been raised.

The Chair: Would you like to move a motion to that effect?

Senator Meighen: I so move.

The Chair: Those in favour of that approach?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: I am really learning how to do this well. The motion is that:

The Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of observations being appended to the report taking into consideration today's discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes required.

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

Senator Day, you started the discussions saying you had some things you would like to have included in a report.

Senator Day: I have two.

The Chair: Please give them one at a time and we will see if there are comments from other members.

Senator Day: In the drafting of regulations as contemplated under proposed subsection of the Canada Labour Code 247.97, it is suggested that ``the Canadian Forces Liaison Council be consulted.'' You can put ``inter alia'' if you like. Inter alia means that, in addition to anyone else they consult, make sure they consult the Canadian Forces Liaison Council.

The Chair: Are there any comments on that recommendation?

Senator Banks: Good idea.

Senator Mitchell: Good idea.

The Chair: Is anyone opposed to it?

Senator Tkachuk: I did not understand it. Does this take place by the minister or by a committee? For instance, we have a committee on regulations.

Senator Day: I said the minister. That is who develops them.

The Chair: Are you in favour, Senator Tkachuk?

Senator Tkachuk: I am neutral. I abstain.

The Chair: Present your second proposal, please, Senator Day.

Senator Day: I do not have the section of the National Defence Act that was generated by the Public Safety Act, 2002. However, whatever that section is, that section should be repealed if it is a policy decision of the government not to proceed.

The Chair: Do you mean ``not to implement?''

Senator Day: Yes, not to implement.

Senator Meighen: I have no objection, although I am not clear what Senator Day is asking. Is he reinforcing Senator Banks' legislative initiative in the Senate to speed up the abandonment of something that is not being proclaimed, or is he more worried about having two pieces of legislation, the Public Safety Act, 2002, if it were to be proclaimed, and Bill C-40 in force at the same time?

Senator Day: I am concerned about the public and the government not knowing that the Senate knows there is another piece of legislation already in existence that simply had not been brought into force. My primary purpose is to highlight that there is this other section that was not proclaimed.

My secondary purpose is to ask the government to consider the potential conflict between these two approaches and, if they have made a policy decision to abandon the earlier approach, then they should remove it.

Senator Meighen: Would you be agreeable to suggesting that, if the Public Safety Act does cover areas such as voluntary service and tuition that Bill C-40 does not — and this is what I am not sure of — that it should indeed be proclaimed and remain in service for the areas Bill C-40 does not cover?

Senator Day: Whatever way you want to put that.

Senator Meighen: For example, I do not think Bill C-40 would cover an emergency, however that is defined. The Public Service Act covers everyone, as you pointed out, whereas Bill C-40 does not. However, if we had a proclaimed emergency, then it would be useful to have this Public Safety Act in force to provide for those who are obliged to serve.

The Chair: Before we conclude, Senator Banks wished to speak.

Senator Banks: I do not think we want to recommend the repeal of that section of the act for the reasons that Senator Meighen talked about. However, I will be a stickler and revert to type with respect to that legislation that I introduced: We must not admit in a recommendation that this or any government is within its right to decide as a matter of policy not to implement an act of Parliament or any section of it. When Parliament makes an act of Parliament, that is an instruction to the government. If we were to ask for a repeal, we would be asking the government to bring forward a bill of repeal rather than making a policy decision not to implement part of legislation, which is an act of Parliament.

In this case, I think we ought to ask the minister to very carefully look at the provisions of the Public Safety Act which address the same question and see if they can be reconciled and suggest how that might be brought about.

Senator Tkachuk: I was going to bring up as one of the concerns I had the same one that Senator Banks had: We would be making an observation which would be in contradiction to the argument you made in the Senate in favour of your bill, which is not a good idea.

The other part is that I was not there. This is not to say I do not respect your knowledge of the bill, Senator Day, but I was not there to study the Public Safety Act and have no knowledge of it.

Senator Day: I think you asked me a couple of questions.

Senator Tkachuk: I do not know what was in that bill; I do not know if you gentlemen are correct. I feel very uncomfortable making a recommendation on something that some of us are not qualified to discuss. I do not know if Senator Nancy Ruth was here during the study of that bill but I was not. I do know about Senator Mitchell, but we do not know what is in that bill so it becomes difficult. I think a study or something of the sort would be useful.

The Chair: If I may, Senator Banks proposed that we have a study of it. Would that be acceptable?

Senator Day: Absolutely. My purpose is to highlight that we know of the other legislation and want to ensure that the minister is aware of that other legislation.

The Chair: Ms. Radford, could you tell us what you have taken from this conversation please?

Melissa Radford, Analyst, Library of Parliament: I have that the Canadian Forces Liaison Council should be consulted. As well, to take a look at the section in the National Defence Act. The conclusion is that we are either going to do a study or that the minister should at least know that this other piece of legislation exists and that they have done all that could be done to reconcile the two legislations.

The Chair: If I understood it correctly, it was that somebody conduct a study, not us. Is the committee okay with the minister?

Senator Day: I think putting the words ``conduct a study'' is not what we want to say. To consider, in whatever way the minister decides to consider is better, I think.

The Chair: Are there other points you would like to have included in the observations?

Senator Meighen: I do not have great pride of authorship, but you have asked for the Canadian Forces Liaison Council to be consulted. I asked them if they would be prepared to follow its progress and to report, if this was passed. Could that be added to Senator Day's suggestion for a role for the Canadian Forces Liaison Council?

The Chair: Are there comments by committee members on that, please?

Senator Day: I do not have difficulty with that. I think it is a third item, though. Mine was ``in generating regulations, the Canadian Forces Liaison Council be consulted.'' This is another issue. I think it would be a third observation.

Ms. Radford: Will you repeat that option again?

Senator Meighen: That the Canadian Forces Liaison Council be asked to monitor and follow the effects of Bill C-40 and to report thereon to the minister.

The Chair: And that the minister shall table the report?

Senator Meighen: That would be a good idea.

The Chair: In both Houses.

Senator Day: In both official languages.

Senator Meighen: And, without delay.

The Chair: Let us ensure that Ms. Radford has this thought together.

Ms. Radford: Yes, I have it.

The Chair: Read it back to us, then.

Ms. Radford: That the Canadian Forces Liaison Council be asked to monitor and follow the impact of Bill C-40 and report this to the minister and the minister will therefore report this to both Houses.

Senator Day: Of Parliament.

The Chair: Any further observations that members would like to bring forward?

Seeing none, after considering the observations, is it agreed that the bill be reported without amendment and with observations to the Senate at the earliest opportunity?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you. The bill is then carried and I would ask that, at the earliest opportunity, if you could prepare a draft of the observations and circulate it to the members the steering committee, then they will meet as soon as is convenient after we receive a copy of the draft, if that is agreeable, colleagues.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Is there any other business before the committee at this time?

Senator Moore: I move that we adjourn.

The Chair: There is a motion to adjourn. All in favour?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: This meeting is almost adjourned. For members the public viewing the program, if you have any questions or comments, please visit our website at www.sen-sec.ca. We post witness testimony as well as confirmed hearing schedules. Otherwise, you may contact the clerk of the committee by calling 1-800-267-7362 for further information or assistance contacting members of the committee.

The committee adjourned.

---