Committee
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 2034
View Darrell Samson Profile
Lib. (NS)
Okay.
My next question is about children. You talked about how you would like to do more research about the children of veterans. I think that's a very important theme. I was doing some door-knocking yesterday and that was brought to my attention as well.
Do you have any vision around that? Do you have any ideas of where you might go and do some work around that topic? It is crucial. We know that when a veteran deals with tough issues, so does the family and the children.
Do you have any ideas, if you were going to write a scope on how you might print something up as a reflective white paper or something? I don't know. I'm just throwing things out there.
Craig L. Dalton
View Craig L. Dalton Profile
Craig L. Dalton
2019-06-10 16:29
No. We're at the point of starting to scope so we recognize it because we've heard from veterans that it's an issue, but apart from anecdotal stories, we haven't had a chance to really examine this in a deep way.
We're going to do that work first. We're going to do a qualitative study. We're going to ask for veterans and their families to share their experiences with us. Once we've done that and we can identify where gaps might exist, then we will be in a position to make recommendations where appropriate.
Marguerite Barankitse
View Marguerite Barankitse Profile
Marguerite Barankitse
2019-06-06 13:20
Honourable members and Madam Chair, I first want to express my deep gratitude for this opportunity to tell you what has become of my homeland, Burundi, what's happening there in secret, and what the world doesn't know.
Since its independence, Burundi, my homeland, has suffered greatly from inter-ethnic massacres. These massacres can even go as far as genocide. The world has been silent. We've fought to raise our voices. These massacres led me, on October 24, 1993, to stand up like a mother to reject hatred and create a new generation of Hutu, Tutsi and Batwa children. These children are from the Great Lakes region, which has become greatly impoverished. I had believed and hoped that the new generation could stop the cycle of violence. Sadly, after 23 years of fighting to create this new generation, I was placed at the top of the list of criminals and targeted by an international arrest warrant.
Everything that we built, including the large hospital, has been closed. All the households, the 10,000 households in the co-operative that we had established, have fallen into poverty once again. Children are suffering from malnutrition. The microfinance bank that I had created was closed. People are starving to death. We look like beggars sitting on gold ingots, while in Burundi everything is growing.
Burundi has become an open-air prison. There are 500,000 refugees in three countries, including Tanzania. I'll focus on Tanzania right now. I must tell you, honourable members, that the country is turning away my brothers and sisters, your brothers and sisters, and forcibly returning them to Burundi. Once they get there, they're killed in secret. Others are put in prisons.
People are being killed in refugee camps in Tanzania. They had fled after being threatened, but Tanzania didn't protect them. I'd like to cry out in distress like a mother and tell you that Canada must do everything in its power to inform Tanzania that the total lack of concern regarding the death of these refugees is intolerable.
We had demobilized 1,500 child soldiers and helped them rebuild their lives. However, Burundi has just recruited 60,000 young militiamen from the ruling party, who are known as the Imbonerakure. They scour all the hills and instigate terror, violence and death with an air of complete indifference. Many young girls are now being sold. Over 230 young girls were trafficked to the Gulf countries and everyone remained silent. No one raised their voices. Young boys are being tortured and castrated and over 9,000 young people are unjustly in prison.
The Prosecutor General of Burundi has just signed a decision, a letter of expropriation issued to all the families and 32 people unjustly accused of being putschists. Their children, wives and spouses are in the streets because they no longer have a place to live.
They can't even flee the country because they're unable to obtain the necessary documents, since the documents include their parents' names. We're facing a very difficult humanitarian situation. Of the 500,000 Burundians in exile, 60% are malnourished children. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has obtained only 1% of the funding requested to assist them. We're doomed to poverty, but we've refused to accept this. I've refused to accept this status quo.
Thank you for listening to us. We must do something, because Pierre Nkurunziza, the President of the Republic, has become a fascist. It's a fascist regime.
Even international NGOs have recently been made to sign an ethnic quota decree, and the NGOs that can't sign it must leave the country. We're asking parliamentarians to help us so that peace can return, so that justice can return and so that these children can grow up like yours, because they're your children. May the Burundian people regain their dignity. We've taken in 2,000 young people who had to leave university. If these children have no hope, they'll take up arms. These young people must return to school, in full view of everyone.
In Uganda, 7,000 children aren't in school in the 21st century. What will happen to all these children? You'll see them again when they become child soldiers and it will be too late. We wouldn't want another depressed General Dallaire. He cried out, but no one listened to him. I'm now standing here like a mother who's crying out for something to be done before it's too late, before genocide is committed in Burundi.
Madam Chair and honourable members, I would like to express my deep gratitude once again. Thank you for honouring me today. On behalf of all the victims, thank you.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2019-06-06 11:01
Good morning.
Welcome to the 160th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This meeting is being held in public at the moment. The first order of business today is consideration of regulations respecting the non-attendance of members by reason of maternity or care for a newborn or newly adopted child.
We're pleased to be joined by Philippe Dufresne, the House law clerk and parliamentary counsel, and Robyn Daigle, director, members' HR services. Thank you both for being here.
Members will recall that our 48th report recommended that the Parliament of Canada Act be amended to provide members of Parliament with access to some form of pregnancy and parental leave. The legislation was subsequently amended to empower the House of Commons to make regulations. As you're aware, the Board of Internal Economy considered the matter last week and recommended that PROC consider a set of draft regulations that it unanimously endorsed.
I would note for the members that the draft regulations distributed in the morning have some slight differences from what we received from the board last week, and it's my understanding that the law clerk will explain the reasons for the changes.
With that I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Dufresne, for your opening remarks.
Philippe Dufresne
View Philippe Dufresne Profile
Philippe Dufresne
2019-06-06 11:02
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, following last week's letter from the Board of Internal Economy, I am pleased to appear before you today with my colleague Robyn Daigle, director of Members' Human Resources Services, to discuss the potential regulations on non-attendance related to maternity and paternity.
You will likely be familiar with this issue because, as the chair mentioned, it comes from a recommendation the committee itself issued in one of its reports presented to the House earlier in this session.
Under the Parliament of Canada Act, a deduction of $120 is to be made to the sessional allowance of a member for each day the member does not attend a sitting of the House of Commons beyond 21 sitting days per session. Days in which a member is absent by reason of public or official business, illness or service in the armed forces are not computed as days of non-attendance and no deductions are made in such circumstances.
There is, however, no similar exemption if a member does not attend a sitting due to pregnancy or providing care for a newborn or a newly adopted child. Your committee considered this issue earlier in this session. In its 48th report entitled "Support for Members of Parliament with Young Children", this committee, after reviewing the relevant provisions respecting deductions for non-attendance, concluded and recommended as follows:
It is the Committee’s view that a member should not be penalized monetarily for his or her absence from Parliament due to pregnancy and/or parental leave. Therefore, the Committee recommends
That the minister responsible for the Parliament of Canada Act consider introducing legislation to amend section 57(3) of the Parliament of Canada Act to add that pregnancy and parental leave be reckoned as a day of attendance of the member during a parliamentary session for the purposes of tabulating deductions for non-attendance from the sessional allowance of a member.
Following that committee recommendation, Bill C-74 was introduced in Parliament and passed. It amended the Parliament of Canada Act to authorize the two Houses of Parliament to make regulations regarding the attendance of their respective members and regarding amounts to be deducted from the sessional allowance for the parliamentarian missing meetings owing to their pregnancy or any parliamentarians missing meetings to take care of their new-born or newly adopted child.
Earlier this year, the Board of Internal Economy asked the House Administration to prepare a bill for its review. While preparing the proposal, the administration took into account the fact that members are not employees. Members hold public office and are not replaced when they are absent as would be, for example, an employee on parental leave. National emergencies or other important matters can always occur and force the member to return to the House or to take care of an issue in their riding.
So the issue before you is not a matter of leave in the strict sense. It is rather about whether absences related to maternity or paternity should be considered as less justified than those related to other motives such as illness, public or official business, or service in the armed forces.
The administration examined the rules in provincial and territorial legislative assemblies in Canada. We have also reviewed Great Britain's practice. That review helped us see that the majority of legislative assemblies allow members to miss sittings, without a financial deduction, by reason of maternity or paternity, over a definite or indefinite period of time.
The members of the Board of Internal Economy unanimously endorsed the following proposal in terms of potential regulation: first, that no deduction be made to the sessional allowance of a pregnant member who does not attend a sitting during the period of four weeks before the due date; second, that there be no deduction to the sessional allowance of a member providing care for his or her newborn child during the period of 12 months from the child's date of birth; and, third, that there be no deduction to the sessional allowance of a member providing care for a newly adopted child during the period of 12 months from the date the child is placed with the member for the purpose of adoption.
This proposal is in line, in my view, with this committee's 48th report, presented in 2017, and with new section 59.1 of the Parliament of Canada Act.
I note that the proposal is not about a period where members will not attend at all to their parliamentary functions, but rather, as mentioned, members of Parliament are not replaced when absent. They are not in the same situation as employees and there will always be issues of either national or local importance that will warrant members and require members to attend either to Parliament or to their constituency. As such, the aim of the proposal is to make sure that no deduction is made to the sessional allowance of a member who misses a sitting of the House because the member is pregnant or providing care for his or her newborn or newly adopted child.
The document entitled “Draft Regulations”, which has been circulated to the members of the committee, contains the legal text that, if adopted by the House, would implement what is proposed. I note that we've made small editorial changes since it was first sent to the members by the board. They do not affect the substance of the proposal. We also removed the coming into force provision, presuming that the committee and the House would want the regulations to come into force immediately upon their adoption, but if the will is otherwise, a different date could be inserted.
I also note that the letter from the Board Of Internal Economy to this committee indicated that the board was also supportive of having no deductions made for the period of four weeks before the due date for a member whose partner is pregnant. In so doing, the board recognized the important role that the non-pregnant partner plays in the weeks leading up to the due date.
That idea is certainly worth exploring. We have analyzed the provisions of the Parliament of Canada act to determine whether, in its current form, the act would make it possible to include those circumstances in the proposed regulations.
Following that analysis, I'm of the opinion that extending the application of the four-week non-deduction period to members whose spouse is pregnant would go beyond the wording of the new section 59.1 of the Parliament of Canada Act, which sets out situations where the House of Commons can make regulations. It states that non-attendance could apply to its members who are unable to attend a sitting of the House by reason of:
(a) being pregnant; or
(b) caring for a new-born or newly-adopted child ... or for a child placed with the member for the purpose of adoption.
The English version is similarly drafted and does not include the situation of a member whose partner is pregnant, and so I note that under the existing regime a member whose partner is pregnant could still be absent prior to the due date for some or all of the 21 sitting days without any deductions.
Under the circumstances, I am not suggesting that the committee recommend extending the application of the non-deduction period prior to the child's birth to members whose spouse is pregnant. The implementation of that suggestion would require an amendment to section 59.1 of the Parliament of Canada Act.
However, this is an important issue that is worthy of consideration. The committee could decide to explore this issue in the next session to find potential options. Those options could include legislative amendments or data analysis to clarify trends and measure the repercussions of the current rules on pregnant individuals' spouses.
Last, the board raised the issue of vote pairing for members who are absent from the chamber for family reasons. The committee may also wish to consider this as a topic for a subsequent report.
This will conclude my presentation, but we will of course be happy to answer any questions you may have.
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
I would like to clarify certain aspects, to ensure that we understand the situation properly.
Let's use the example of a pregnant member whose riding is very far. If ever, as of the 28th week of pregnancy, it became very complicated for her, medically speaking, to get to Parliament, she would have to provide a medical certificate justifying her absence from the House, as far as I understand. Basically, the days in the period between the 28th week and the 36th week of pregnancy would be considered sick days. As of the 36th week, they would be considered pregnancy days.
In short, before the 36th week of pregnancy, a member's non-attendance must be justified through medical reasons that prevent her from coming to Parliament. In that case, the individual must provide a medical certificate.
Philippe Dufresne
View Philippe Dufresne Profile
Philippe Dufresne
2019-06-06 11:12
Yes, that's right.
In its current form, the Parliament of Canada Act already accepts absences due to illness. In any circumstances where medical or illness reasons can be established, be it related to pregnancy or not, members can miss sittings.
The idea behind the committee's recommendation is that the period leading up to the birth be included even without a medical certificate.
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
Great.
I want to clarify something else.
During those days of non-attendance, the member remains responsible for all the administrative aspects—so anything that cannot be delegated to employees. The member continues to fulfil their duties, such as by approving their employees' various absences and their office's spending. The whole administrative component related to the management of the member's office remains the member's responsibility, correct?
Philippe Dufresne
View Philippe Dufresne Profile
Philippe Dufresne
2019-06-06 11:13
That's correct.
In fact, the member also maintains their responsibilities toward their constituents. That is why, in the context of the rules defined here, we think that the situation of members cannot really be compared with that of employees on parental leave. Even the expression “parental leave”, in my opinion, is not the best expression to be used in this case. Members are in a different situation; they are not truly on leave in every respect.
What is proposed is to specify that, in some cases, it will not be possible to attend sittings of the House. At that point, the absence should not be treated more harshly than non-attendance for other reasons.
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
Ultimately, a member with a critic role can be called by their party to provide advice on positions to take, for example, while a nurse on maternity leave would not be called at home to be asked whether a patient should be given a particular medication.
Philippe Dufresne
View Philippe Dufresne Profile
Philippe Dufresne
2019-06-06 11:14
Exactly.
In theory, an employee on parental leave is replaced by someone else, or it is expected that the individual will not be available to do the work. In the case of a member, the situation would be different.
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
Concerning the 12-month period, that is left to the member's discretion. There is no obligation to take 12 months of leave. A member can make a judgment call and decide to be present for two months because an important issue for them is under consideration, and then decide to take a month to be with their child.
The parliamentary calendar is often made up of three-week blocks of sitting, after which members can return to their riding for a week. The member could elect not to return to the House during the week in the middle of that block, to avoid having to make a round trip over the weekend. In general, members make a round trip in less than 48 hours, to make the trip less difficult. So a member could choose to spend the middle week in their riding, to avoid round trips over a weekend. That would be possible to do over a 12-month period.
Philippe Dufresne
View Philippe Dufresne Profile
Philippe Dufresne
2019-06-06 11:15
That's right. During the 12-month period following the birth of a child, the adoption of a child or the placement of a child for the purpose of adoption, the member's absences will not be counted. If there are no absences, it does not apply, of course. That does not mean the member cannot or must not be in the House. When they decide not to attend for those reasons, those reasons are good ones in the House's view.
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
I have one last question. It's about financial penalties. Basically, that amendment shelters members from financial penalties.
Often, all the $120 deductions for every day of sitting that will be missed are added up. We tell ourselves that it may not be a very large amount, but Parliament could decide at any time to increase that amount. For example, it could decide that, from now on, there will be a $500 deduction per day of non-attendance. In that case, the estimated cost of absences for maternity reasons would no longer be the same at all.
Do you know when the $120 amount was last indexed or changed?
Philippe Dufresne
View Philippe Dufresne Profile
Philippe Dufresne
2019-06-06 11:17
The $120 amount has always remained at $120. That amount has not been modified. However, the House can modify it. The act states that the House can, through regulations similar to the ones proposed here, decide to increase it. That is a possibility.
Results: 1 - 15 of 2034 | Page: 1 of 136

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data