Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 11 - Evidence - June 23, 2010
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 8:29 to study BillC-13, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
Today, we will deal with Bill C-13, though we have some wrapping up to do on Bill C-11 when we are finished, so do not bolt when we are finished with Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.
We are pleased to welcome the Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development; and Louis Beauséjour, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch.
Minister Finley, the floor is yours.
The Hon. Diane Finley, P.C., M.P., Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development: Thank you very much, chair and honourable senators.
It is a pleasure for me to be here today to discuss with you our important bill, the Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act. I am sure that many of you are familiar with how this bill came to be. My colleague, Pierre Poilievre, the Member of Parliament for Nepean-Carleton, was door-knocking. He met Lieutenant-Colonel James Duquette, who explained he had been serving in Afghanistan. While there, he missed out on his parental leave; he did not have a chance to stay with his new-born baby when he came back from serving because his parental leave had run out. This situation offended Mr. Poilievre. When he explained it to me, I said that is not right; that is not the way it should be.
This bill amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend the parental eligibility window by the number of weeks that a Canadian Forces member is serving. In that way, the 52 weeks for which they are eligible is extended, for the time they have been serving when they otherwise would have been eligible up to a maximum of 52 weeks.
In plain language, we are ensuring that when someone decides to become a member of our Canadian Armed Forces to serve our country and to promote and protect Canadian values around the world, they do not have to make the choice between serving their country and giving up the opportunity to bond with their children that other Canadians have.
This bill was passed with unanimous consent in the House of Commons. The bill was passed with an amendment, as well, to ensure it does not apply only to members of the Armed Forces from the day this bill comes into force but that there is a retroactivity clause so that anyone who is eligible — that is, they are on parental leave or serving an imperative military requirement — will be eligible, as well. It is not going forward; it will apply to anyone as of the day it comes into force.
This bill recognizes the unique circumstances of the Canadian military. The military are the only Canadians — and I stress, the only Canadians — who are compelled by law to deploy. Unlike all other Canadians, they do not have the choice about their deployment. That is what makes this situation so special.
Canadian Forces members are required to serve their country when called upon. They make major sacrifices. They spend time away from their family and their friends, often in dangerous and harsh conditions. Unfortunately, as we saw again yesterday, some of them pay the ultimate sacrifice.
[Translation]
They do this because they believe passionately in Canadian values and freedoms, so much so that they defend them not just on behalf of Canadians, but also on behalf of people all around the world.
[English]
They are bravely fighting terrorism and extremism in Afghanistan and they were among the first to get on the ground and provide desperately needed help and supplies to the people of Haiti. Those are only two of the countless examples where our Canadian Forces members are serving us and people around the world. We will be forever grateful to our Canadian Forces.
[Translation]
But it is not just the soldiers who make sacrifices. Their families do as well. They spend countless sleepless nights worrying about the safety of their loved ones and spend months without the help and support of their spouse, parent or child. We also owe them thanks for all of their hard work and sacrifice.
[English]
This bill reflects our government's clear commitment to family. We believe that family is the foundation of this great country and that parents should have the option to raise their kids as they see fit.
The bill also reflects our government's unwavering support for our Canadian Forces. With this bill, we can move a step closer to ensuring that soldiers have access to the programs and services to which they are entitled. When Lieutenant-Colonel Duquette appeared before the house standing committee via videoconference from Afghanistan, the emotion in his voice and in his face was proof that this bill is necessary, and will make a major positive impact on the lives of military families.
Canadian Forces members put their lives on the line to protect Canadian values and freedoms around the world. The least we can do in return is to ensure they are able to spend time with their newborn child when they return. Even if they have to miss that child's first steps, we want to ensure that they are there to hear the first words.
Honourable senators, I urge you all to pass this bill in a timely manner so that our military families receive the benefits they both need and deserve.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I will start off with a couple of questions.
Perhaps it is simply my lack of understanding of the bill, but in the section being added here relevant to duty for military personnel, there is a phrase that states ". . . parental leave is deferred or a claimant is directed to return to duty from parental leave." We well understand and support the condition military people and their families find themselves in, and we desire to support them in this endeavour.
However, what is that first part — "parental leave is deferred"? That is a general provision in the act, as well. How does that apply?
Ms. Finley: Right now, any Canadian has a window of 52 weeks after the birth or adoption of a child in which they can claim the 35 weeks of parental leave; it can be any time within that window. If a member of the military is serving on an imperative military requirement during any part of that window, they can defer the leave outside of that 52-week window.
Let us say they are deployed for three months. Their parental leave can then be deferred for three months. Does that help?
The Chair: That is a general provision, though.
Ms. Finley: It is a general provision, up to a maximum of 52 weeks.
The Chair: Other people can do this, as well, but you have added in the clause "or a claimant is directed to return to duty," which relates specifically to military personnel.
Louis Beauséjour, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: It is a completely new clause. There is only one case when the benefit window under the parental benefit can be extended. It is when a child is, or children are, in the hospital. In that case, we can extend the benefit period. The only case where we look at deferring the leave is when someone is directed to return to duty or when it occurs while on duty.
The Chair: Minister, let me ask you about police officers and why they are not covered under this bill. They are serving side by side and experiencing similar risks; their families experience much the same kinds of challenges as military families.
I realize there is less of a compulsion once they are posted. We do not have a draft system, so people voluntarily join the regular forces or the reserve forces. However, when they are sent to duty, they are sent to duty.
Police officers also put their lives on the line. Why do we not extend the benefit to those folks as well?
Ms. Finley: That is a good question and one we considered. There are many who are serving, for example, in Afghanistan and in other conflicts who are there and away from family and who may be giving up their parental leave. Another example is people in the foreign service. There are also people with non-governmental organizations who are in the same place and in the same kind of conditions. We appreciate the work they do.
You mentioned the key difference: For the military, it is an imperative military requirement. They are the only Canadians who do not have the choice about going and serving. There is a key distinction there.
We looked at police officers and we checked. We also checked with the RCMP. They have a choice as to whether they go. However, the members of the Canadian Forces do not have that choice. We believe that, since it is the government and our rules that are forcing them to go, we should change the rules so that members of the Canadian Forces receive the benefits that they otherwise would give up.
The Chair: There are other people, though, to whom these provisions could extend; there are various categories, including people in jail.
Ms. Finley: Unfortunately, that is a common myth; they cannot extend. The Canadian military are the only ones who are forced to go. The only other extension where there would be a longer period of time where one could take parental leave would be in the case where the child is hospitalized.
Senator Merchant: How many families does this bill involve? Have you prepared estimates about what the costs would be?
Ms. Finley: Yes, we did take a look at cost. We estimate some 60 families a year will be involved. Obviously, there is no exact number because we do not know how many will become pregnant, deliver a child at that time or even adopt, but we estimate approximately 60 families per year at an annual cost of roughly $600,000.
Senator Merchant: I need more clarification as to when this bill will come into effect.
Ms. Finley: It will come into force the Sunday after it receives Royal Assent.
Senator Merchant: When you talked about retroactivity, what does that entail?
Ms. Finley: Anyone on that day will be eligible for the parental leave, if they were not deployed, for example.
Senator Eaton: I think this initiative is wonderful. I thank you for being so good about taking up something that Mr. Poilievre discovered while canvassing one night.
I understand there was an amendment at the report stage in the other place. Can you tell us what the effect of this amendment is and how it will serve our military families?
Ms. Finley: Yes, I will be glad to do so. When we first drafted the bill, it was written in such a way that it would apply only to those who were to become eligible from that day forward. The amendment, which was agreed to unanimously by all parties in the other place, ensured that anyone who was currently eligible, who became eligible some time ago, will qualify as well. The amendment broadens the group to whom these benefits will be available.
Senator Eaton: It is retroactive to what — 104 weeks? It is generous, I think.
Mr. Beauséjour: If a child is born less than 104 weeks before the legislation comes into force, and the soldier was on imperative military requirement at some time during that period, an extension will apply after the coming into force, up to the maximum of 104 weeks after the child is born.
Senator Eaton: Following up on the retroactivity that Senator Merchant addressed, I was intrigued by something. You mentioned several times that if a child is hospitalized, there is a way of stacking benefits. If the mother or the child is sick, the parental leave is extended until the child leaves the hospital, is that correct — that there is some form of benefit in the bill that is generous?
Mr. Beauséjour: In the act, there is a possibility of stacking different types of benefits.
Senator Plett: My question has been answered so I will simply make a comment.
Mr. Poilievre told me about the bill in the early stages when he started to speak to you about it. I want to commend you for taking up this issue. I think it is a great bill and it needs to be passed as quickly as possible.
Ms. Finley: Thank you, senator. We are pleased to be able to offer this benefit. I worked closely with Mr. Poilievre on this bill. He seems pleased and I know I am.
Senator Plett: He told me about the conversation that he had when he went campaigning. That this issue had slipped through the cracks for so long is unfortunate, but, again, I appreciate it.
Senator Seidman: I, too, want to say thank you very much to Mr. Poilievre and to you, minister, and to your department for picking up on something that is critical.
I do not have a question; I only have a comment. I feel an enormous amount of gratitude to our Canadian Forces members and their families. There is no question that they make many sacrifices, both individually and as families. The least we can do is honour them in this way by ensuring that they have family time with their newborn children. Thank you for seeing this issue as a priority.
Senator Mercer: I had the honour — if you can use that word for such an occasion — to attend the funeral of a Canadian diplomat that was killed in Afghanistan. I happened to be in Britain at the time; this funeral occurred in January, 2006.
This bill would not affect his family. It dawned on me that he was serving on the frontlines in Afghanistan on behalf of all Canadians, and he was killed in the line of duty. I do not understand why we do not extend this bill to cover such situations.
I understand the whole problem with NGOs; I spent my career working for NGOs. We cannot extend it beyond the government's direct responsibility. However, we are responsible for military personnel and people from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canadian International Development Agency. These people are deployed.
You say they have a choice. That is true; they can say no. However, when they work for CIDA, they are pretty sure that, at some point, they will go overseas somewhere and that it will not be as safe and warm as Scarborough or Bedford, Nova Scotia. It will be a place that is probably more dangerous.
Did you give any thought, minister, to including those people? I will vote for this bill, there is no question about that. However, have we missed people here, namely, the people serving us in our missions around the world and people who are serving CIDA in strange and not so nice places, trying to make this world a better place?
Ms. Finley: We are appreciative of the efforts of those people. They take on challenges that I am not sure I would want to take on. Having been to some of those places makes us appreciate home, there is no question about it.
We looked at a broad range of people that might be included: for example, people who are in the foreign service; the NGOs who provide so much valuable work; and the RCMP and the local police who sometimes go there to help out, and probably will more and more in the future.
The key difference is that the group that we are talking about — members of the Canadian military — are described in this act on specific terms as being on imperative military requirement. That means they do not have any choice in whether they go. We are compelling them to go; there is no alternative for them.
We are denying them the benefit, the opportunity, to spend that time with their child. We are depriving them of rights and entitlements that every other Canadian has. We think it is fair that since we are the ones that are taking away that opportunity, we have an obligation to provide it to them.
As I said, the members of the Canadian military on imperative military requirement are the only ones who are denied these benefits. Others have a choice. It may not be the best of choices, but it nonetheless is a choice that our military do not have. That is why we clearly determined that it would be members of the military and any reservist who is on imperative military requirement that would receive this benefit.
If they are not on imperative military requirement, they are not eligible. It is clear in the act. Only when we deny them those benefits as a government and as a country do we have the obligation to replace them. That is what we are trying to do by deferring their eligibility.
Senator Demers: Minister Finley and Mr. Beauséjour, thank you for being here. I spent time in Europe with hockey people who entertain the Canadian Forces overseas. One comes to know them. Some give their lives. When they return, they have their picture in the paper and then, all of a sudden, the family goes their own way, and no one talks about them. They are forgotten; it is sad. When we raise something like this issue, it shows that we are thinking about them. When one comes to know them, they feel their frustration. I can see that everyone here seems to be together on this issue. Nothing is perfect, but you will make a lot of people pleased.
These people in the forces do a lot for us. A lot of them return home — excuse the word — screwed up. They have difficulty living a normal life for different reasons. Some have to be hospitalized because they are not the same people, given what goes on over there. Thank you so much.
Ms. Finley: Thank you, senator. From my point of view, it is a question of fairness.
Senator Demers: Absolutely.
The Chair: That completes my list. Unless there are other questions, I thank you, Minister Finley, for appearing before the committee this morning. You are right that extending the benefits is a fair thing to do. As one who has been involved in public life for many years and campaigned a lot for both myself and others, it shows the value of door- knocking. We meet our constituents and find out what the problems are.
We will now move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-13, if the committee is ready.
Ms. Finley: Thank you for your support, senators.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: You all sound in good voice today.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill without amendments or observations to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. That completes our consideration of Bill C-13.
We will move to observations for Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act. Senator Jaffer proposed a couple of observations yesterday. Your steering committee members, Senator Ogilvie, Senator Martin and I, worked on this matter and developed two suggestions:
The committee was pleased to learn of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's plan —
What is the department's formal title?
Senator Seidman: It is the Department of —
The Chair: The minister has a title that is different from the department.
Senator Martin: It is Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC.
The Chair: Yes, it is Citizenship and Immigration Canada. We will put the proper title in the observations to read:
The committee was pleased to learn of Citizenship and Immigration Canada's plan to conduct an internal evaluation of the immigration system as reformed by the bill three years after implementation and requests that the Minister make this report available to both houses of Parliament for their consideration.
With that one change to the name of the department, does that sound all right?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Plett: If everyone wants this wording, I will not vote against it, but I still have a bit of a problem with the word "request." In the second paragraph, I like the wording much better when we "urge" or "encourage" as opposed to "request." I still think that, as an observation, we are specifically asking someone to do something. Again, I do not think that is correct in an observation. I much prefer to see the word "request" changed to "urge" or "encourage." Again, that is my opinion. I will not vote against the observations if everybody else agrees with this word.
Senator Ogilvie: As you will have gathered, the steering committee agreed with this wording, which means that I agree with the wording. I will explain the basis for the wording.
I agree with the idea that we should not attempt to order or direct but a request is a request. Clearly, it was the view of the committee yesterday that this observation would be a good idea. I think it would enhance our awareness of the importance of this program. I appreciate your point, Senator Plett, but I feel comfortable with the word "request," and I believe it will be well received.
Senator Plett: Thank you, senator. As I said, I will not vote against it; I will support it.
The Chair: Thank you. The second observation is:
The committee was pleased to hear from all officials that the quality of personnel will be critical to the success of the implementation of the bill and we urge every effort to secure appropriately qualified personnel to the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division.
The first division of staff will be hired under the standard employment processes, and the second division of staff will be Governor-in-Council appointments to the Refugee Appeal Division.
The paragraph should read: "secure appropriately qualified personnel for" instead of "secure appropriately qualified personnel to."
We will change the preposition "for" to "to." Are members agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We have dealt with the observations and are agreed.
Senator Seidman: Nicely done.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill, with the observations, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We are finished with Bill C-11 and the meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)