BOIE
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 39
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you for those comments, Mr. Dufresne.
I think that we are certainly supportive of making the regulations, such that pregnant or new parents are....
Just to be clear, we're talking about mothers here—primarily pregnant women, in this case. We're not talking about parental leave. This is more of a maternity situation, as I understand it. I just want some clarification on that.
Could you address that right off the top? Does this also apply if a father wants to take some time for paternity leave or is this just for mothers?
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
Okay. You've done some analysis here. With the employment insurance maternity and parental benefits, there are a maximum number of weeks that an individual is covered. We're looking at 13 months, with what you've put on the table. Unless there's a medical component to someone's maternity leave, I don't believe they would get the same number of weeks.
Did you do that analysis? Can you speak to that?
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
Obviously, in this case we're talking about retaining 100% of pay and benefits, which is perhaps different from what our constituents would receive in most jobs.
For one of our constituents who works at a restaurant and pays into EI and goes on maternity and parental, I believe the maximum is 50 weeks, with a two-week.... I just want that knowledge for us. What number of weeks are we proposing here in addition to what someone would get if EI were the only support available to them?
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
Right.
What is the vision for how this would be recorded? Would it simply be recorded on the attendance form that we currently use, or is that a decision that has to be made? Right now, there's travelling, official business, illness, etc. Will there simply be another box there that will say “pregnancy” or “parental leave”? What's the mechanism for reporting?
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
—captured on that current reporting mechanism.
Okay. Thank you.
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
I don't know if it's in the note here, but if a new parent—a member of Parliament—decided to take the full 12 months and didn't tick any of the boxes, but simply filled out that they weren't here and they weren't pretending to be ill but just looking after their child, what is the financial penalty? It's $120 after a certain number of days away, but say they did not come to Ottawa for that entire 12-month period. Of course, we don't sit every week. What is estimated reduction in pay they would incur as a result of doing that on their own and accurately reporting their attendance?
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
That number is exactly what people who work for members of Parliament receive in compensation. My understanding is that if a staff member of a member of Parliament goes on maternity leave, they're topped up above the EI to 92%. Currently, a member who reports accurately receives the exact same benefit as the person who works for them. That's very interesting to me.
I understand what we're trying to do here, but I think we should have those numbers on the table. Even at that, the member is receiving 38% more in benefit than their constituents and exactly the same benefit as their employees, or those people who work for the public service. I throw that out there. It's a very interesting statistic and I think we need to bear in mind what we're proposing here.
We are already thought to be very well-compensated, with very generous benefits, and this is another step in that direction. I think we just have to be careful that we don't do anything that unintentionally puts our members in a bad light. I'll leave it at that.
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
Could you enlighten us on whether there is a limit for illness, for instance? Essentially, we had members in the last Parliament who were elected and who found they had very serious diseases. Unfortunately, in those cases, they've since passed away, but sometimes a battle with cancer or something like that could go on for years, right? We've had those tragic cases here.
I think what Ms. Bergen has reminded us of is that this is simply a way to justify your absence; it's not leave. Leave for someone in the private sector is just that; you see it all the time with maternity leave placements and things like that. They go away. They pack up their desk and they're gone for 12 months if they choose to do that. This is different, and obviously our constituents will be the judges, as they always are, of whether or not we have been away from this place too much. That's a reality. They don't care what box we tick. They might say, well, you missed too many important discussions, you missed too many.... We all make those choices when we travel each week, quite frankly.
To let you answer my question, could you be on any of those three things—I always forget the middle one—the public or official business, the illness and...?
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
Could you essentially be deployed for four years, be ill for four years or be on official business for four years and not have a single dollar deducted from your paycheque?
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
I'd suggest that's already more generous than any private sector arrangement.
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
It is, so perhaps I started a bad trend there. I'm comfortable with this, but in terms of what we need, even though we have given our stamp of approval of it, I think PROC should be the body that sets regulation and deals with standing orders, regulation and legislation regarding the Parliament of Canada. I would be happy to concur with Ms. Chagger and Mr. Julian's comments.
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
I would think that that would be more appropriate for PROC to consider in a more comprehensive review of the Standing Orders. I know there have been members of our caucus who have believed that the whip should not have a role in pairing, for instance. That matter has been brought forward—that two members should be able to make that arrangement. I think we could, in looking at exactly what that meant.... I'm uncomfortable with any suggestion that we would start to erode the value or the importance of a member being present to vote in the House. I think you'd open Pandora's box there: “Well, if it's okay because I'm on maternity leave, then it's okay because I'm ill, and then it's okay because I need to be at home because I have a family emergency.” You would open it up to interpretation: “Why is your emergency or situation more valid than mine for having an automatic paired vote or an automatic proxy vote?" I think, if we're going to entertain it at all, it's a very, very serious discussion that members need a lot more time to consider than the 17 sitting days we have left in this Parliament.
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
I'd like to get clarity as well.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, you have replied to Ms. Chagger with the indication that.... I know that the royal we wants to deal with this, but I think we need to determine who should be asking for those recommendations. Are we asking for recommendations that we then give to PROC, or should PROC be asking for those recommendations that they then report back to the House?
I think we're all in agreement that we want to address this matter. I think we just want to make sure we're doing it in a manner consistent with the law and your guidance on this matter. That's simply where we are, wanting to know the right path.
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
Tangentially, I think we did address some of those third party website donation restrictions with our communicating with constituents changes to the ten percenter program in the last meeting. I believe there was some relaxing of the rules, in terms of putting a Red Cross flood relief link on our products, etc.
Putting that aside, I think we have to be very careful here that this is a comprehensive review. This cannot be done in a haphazard manner. I think there are unintended consequences or complications that you might have. Does a public figure who runs for office, who has 100,000 Facebook followers when they come into office, lose all of that personal branding? Do they lose all the ability to communicate with those people because they're suddenly elected as a member of Parliament? Can they never use that for a partisan purpose?
I think as well there has been some clarification offered by Elections Canada on what counts against a spending limit or what is permissible to use when it comes to social media. We need to be in close consultation with Elections Canada to ensure that we are doing things that are compliant with their rulings or their predeterminations that they have now. If we get into it and we suddenly make declarations that certain products cannot be used.... Certainly at this point in the game, six months before an election, I think Mr. Holland would probably have a riot in his caucus. Similarly, everyone would be concerned.
We've operating under a certain set of assumptions, rules and understandings and to now say that we're going to change course or prohibit things that have previously been allowed, I think would be very difficult at the end of a Parliament. This might be something that should be looked at at the beginning of a new Parliament so everyone is clear that the rules are all laid out when they start this process.
As to this website in particular, I would agree that no further action needs to be taken other than making all members aware. Again, I think this is another one. I think Mr. Angus quite clearly in his reply indicates that he feels the intention behind this letter was again to damage him politically. Look, we can all find websites from our political opponents. I have one in front of me right now. I'm not going to name the individual who has a “Donate” button and a big picture of one of the more photogenic leaders in this place. The donate page comes up. I will give that to Mr. Holland after this meeting.
Again, we are approaching an election and I think these are clearly politically motivated interventions here. If Mr. Sheehan actually wanted taxpayers to be protected, he could have gone to Mr. Julian's whip and said, “This is an issue and I would like you to deal with it.” Instead, now that we're in public, this is designed to politically damage Mr. Angus. Again, if this is what we are to become, I think it will become a three-ring circus and not what we intended to be here.
We want to make sure the rules are followed for everyone, not that we're using this to now score political points. We have many committees at which this is a primary objective. I'm hoping that doesn't become the norm here.
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
In terms of the question of Mr. Holland, I think both of his interventions have been addressing, whether directly or indirectly, that portion of this. I think that's what's in question here, so I don't know if we can come to a conclusion. I think we're all in agreement with the idea that we want to be reminded of our obligations, but if we want to get into what constitutes an indirect use of a House of Commons resource, I think you're opening up that Pandora's box that we've all identified here.
Results: 1 - 15 of 39 | Page: 1 of 3

1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data