BOIE
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 29 of 29
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2019-02-28 11:54
Expand
Ralph Goodale, actually, was here when it was built the first time.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2019-02-28 11:59
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The fundamental issue of the employer function that MPs also perform, in addition to their role as MPs, has long been discussed at Board of Internal Economy meetings. In fact, both Ms. Daigle and Mr. Parent raised it. Especially in recent years, some unfortunate events have occurred, and everyone has tried to improve processes. In my opinion, Mr. Parent and his team have succeeded in doing extraordinary work in an often difficult context due to the public nature of our duties.
These additional resources would be perfectly appropriate and would improve the services offered to members of all political parties in the House of Commons, professional and confidential services that would help to avoid all kinds of situations that would be less than ideal.
They would also better support MPs in their role as employers. Indeed, with the exception of some MPs who have already managed a business or staff before their election to the House of Commons, few new MPs have experience as employers. However, as soon as they are elected, they are expected to set up a constituency office, hire staff in Ottawa and therefore act as an employer in several respects. Everyone wants to do it properly. In my opinion, these services are truly an ideal way to help MPs, not only those who are already in office, but also those who will one day succeed us in Parliament.
I am therefore fully in favour of these additional resources.
I also wanted to congratulate Mr. Parent and his great team. In recent years, we have all benefited as MPs from their very professional and accessible work. It's a way to take this work even further.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2018-11-01 11:54
Expand
You have that many on your Facebook, don't you?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2018-11-01 11:57
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Congratulations, Mr. Robert. I agree with my colleagues. It is a very interesting and very well prepared report that gives people an understanding of the work done by all members of the House of Commons.
I would like to offer some words of encouragement.
As the Speaker just pointed out, the Teachers Institute and the Forum for Young Canadians are places where this report could be distributed, either in its current form or a modified version. The communications services team could give that some thought.
The schools in my riding really appreciate the material they receive to encourage young people to participate in the Page Program, and I see the Speaker agrees. This is a time of year when many MPs try informally to get school principals to encourage their best students to register for this program. In the material sent to francophone high school students in New Brunswick, perhaps attention could be drawn to this report or it could be included in some way in grade 12 classes that pertain to law or political, economic or legal institutions, in short, subjects related to the work of Parliament. There are all kinds of programs across the country that address the civic responsibility of youth. Such programs could be used to encourage young people to sign up for the Page Program, which we know is a success. That is just a suggestion.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2018-10-04 11:23
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry for being a couple of seconds late. I was coming from another meeting. Maybe Michel addressed this already.
I appreciate and understand the presentation in terms of the House.
Asking you to speculate is not fair, but I will do it anyway. In terms of what we understand from our colleagues on the Senate side—because we've talked about this at this table before—if our state of readiness is where it is, and it's thanks to all the good work that you describe, do we have a similar comfort that the Senate...? Do we have reason to think they're in a circumstance where they're going to conclude something different in a month from now or two months from now, or are you comfortable, based on what you hear? It could all change. I understand all of that.
I'm curious if people have an insight into whether the Senate process with respect to the train station facility is equally reassuring.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2018-10-04 11:24
Expand
Thank you.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2018-06-14 11:43
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you for the presentation.
I think all of us who have constituents or colleagues who have been able to interact with the guides, the staff the library hires to do the tours, will share my experience, which has been that they are a remarkable group of young women and men. It's a credit to the library and to Parliament that we're able to offer that high-quality service. Visitors I've had a chance to talk to are consistently impressed with the people they meet, and you can pass that on to your colleagues.
As we were discussing, at this time of year we all have school groups. I met one yesterday from a village called Cap-Pelé in my riding in New Brunswick. A bunch of grade 8 kids were here. It's a very busy time of year, and that's probably a function of why booking these tours and so on has to be done so far in advance. As Bardish said, because the Centre Block will likely be closing, the pressure has probably increased the demand on the services.
I like your idea in your presentation of extending the hours, simply because I have the anecdotal impression that a lot of groups would accept to come at a later time of the day or earlier in the day if they could get access. With the restrictions in the West Block that colleagues have talked about, I think that's going to be even more important.
As we see what it looks like after a year of operation, I guess you'd have to come back to this table. The funding issue is always of concern, but I think we should keep a very alert sense to the pressure in demand that's going to come and look at whether it's possible to extend the hours even further than what you're planning or to have additional staff during some of those extended hours.
I think we miss opportunities sometimes, and it's nobody's fault. It's a reality of Parliament's sitting late in the evenings, the security context. I think we should look for maximum opportunities to increase the access as we gain a sense of the first year of the new operation in the West Block, for example. This is a suggestion.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2018-05-24 12:08
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you for the work that you're doing.
I completely agree with our colleagues. I find that following the recommendations and the process you've provided has been helpful to us in many respects. My question is mostly on security issues. You've probably dealt with issues that have caused our colleagues concern on a number of occasions in their constituency offices. On the topic of security and data protection, I imagine that these computers contain an enormous amount of private information on the people who come to visit us in our constituency offices.
Are your concerns around security, or even vulnerability, going up? It's not just a matter of thinking about specific incidents.
If, as the Speaker mentioned, a future internal economy committee should ultimately decide to standardize or centralize the devices, computers and security resources in constituency offices, I hope that these changes will lead to a drop in costs. That would make sense. I hadn't thought of that, since I was focused on the security issue.
In going forward with this standardization, depending on the results of the pilot project, and based on your experience, would you say that the level of security and protection will increase?
Have we properly understood this?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2018-05-24 12:11
Expand
Thank you very much.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2018-03-22 11:35
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you for your presentation, and especially for the good work you have been doing for so long.
I have had the privilege of sitting on the Board of Internal Economy for a number of years, and I understand something about the scope of your project and the consequences that would ensue from bad decisions. Thank Heavens, I don't believe that we have made any so far, and it is thanks to your work and your expertise. Thank you.
My question is very simple. Mr. Chair, maybe you can answer it; I do not want to appear inappropriate. For example, we talked about moving to the West Block. I know that our colleagues in the Senate will move to Ottawa's former train station. When I talked to them, they told me their concerns, but I don't know if these concerns are warranted, because I don't know if they're up to speed on the details.
In your opinion, what will happen if, for example, we decide to move out in the fall, and the Senate concluded that, for its part, for operational and security reasons, it cannot move out? Both Chambers need to agree to move out.
As I said—and this is in no way formal information—I know that, just like us, they are discussing the same or other issues. However, they exercise their own due diligence with regard to their facilities. As I mentioned, I've been having informal talks for some time now, and I have concluded that they also have some questions and some concerns.
How will we bring the two together? What will happen if they decide that the station and their new facilities are not yet ready to accommodate them, and we move out. How do you see that?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2018-03-01 12:01
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dufresne, thank you for the presentation.
At the outset, it seems to me that these are perfectly appropriate recommendations. As you said, that will positively change the balance between MPs and employees in terms of the reimbursement of legal fees and protection. In the past, employees did not have access to this type of support. In my opinion, the step you are proposing today is extremely important and positive.
I just have three fairly specific questions, because it's important for everyone to understand a few distinctions.
You said, Philippe, that all of this of course has to be in the discharge of a member's parliamentary function. That's a phrase that we hear at the board often. I think it would be interesting for you to explain why that's the case, and why in the context of other expenditures that necessarily has to be part of the requirement.
The other thing that I think would be useful would be to clarify that when you talk about the $5,000 upfront support available to employees, which I think is a very positive suggestion, the reimbursement of legal fees that you referred to at the conclusion of a particular process has nothing to do with the payment of a settlement. There has been some confusion when people have asked me about whether the board is paying settlements—in order words, monetary awards—separate and apart from reimbursing legal fees that you and your office audit as being proper and being subject to that chart of hourly rates, which the Government of Canada maintains at lower than when our Speaker practised law. He wouldn't have charged such low rates, so congratulations, Philippe.
I think it's important to draw the distinction between the reimbursement of the fees, which are separate and apart from.... Obviously under no circumstances—I would suggest, and I think you can confirm—is the board paying settlement amounts, monetary awards. That clearly is a different discussion that is not part of reimbursing legal fees, but again I've seen people conflating the two in public comments. I thought that was interesting for you to clarify.
Finally, there is, again in the public discussion of this issue, some commentary around why there isn't, in the disclosure, greater transparency, which you're proposing, around these expenditures. Again that is something that I certainly think is positive. There is a concern or a question that's often raised about why we don't use the names of the person, for example, the member, who is being reimbursed. I think I understand, and perhaps you could refer to other similar workplaces—municipal councils or provincial legislatures—that have adopted similar policies to what we're discussing today with regard to why there is a valid reason around some of that disclosure. I suspect and believe it's around inadvertently identifying, for example, people who have been subjected to harassment. It could be used to discourage victims from coming forward. I wonder if you could enlighten us as to why, in your view, that transparency finds the right balance.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2018-03-01 12:31
Expand
Again, Philippe, thank you. I think that strikes the right balance, for the reasons you outlined. I am also pleased that it's consistent with other public institutions and quasi-public institutions that deal with these issues. Frankly, the Senate has, for some time before this board became public, wrestled with this and has found, in my view, the right balance on some of these personal matters.
My question is with respect to security matters. I remember having been on the board after the difficult events in 2014 and there were meetings, for example, with security officials who talked about improvements that were possible, and so on. Would that be a unanimous consent circumstance where, if the security professionals were presenting operational changes or expenditures around security equipment, I assume the board would give its consent? I don't imagine you have those conversations in public.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2018-03-01 12:33
Expand
And these bylaws go beyond the strict elements of the Parliament of Canada Act, is what you're saying?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2018-03-01 12:33
Expand
Thank you.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2018-03-01 12:44
Expand
I recall that, at the end of question period, you are the one who is disappointed, Mr. Speaker. You could have felt the same about this meeting of the Board of Internal Economy.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2017-12-07 12:03
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will ask the following question because it is important for everyone to understand.
The budgets of members and House officers have gone up very slightly. Does the increase correspond to the consumer price index you have previously set?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2017-12-07 12:04
Expand
So it's fixed. The index was discretionary and it was the best way to go. I remember other discussions with colleagues, saying that this was the best way to ensure that the staff working for us, both in our ridings and in Ottawa, benefit from a salary increase commensurate with that index. It was a way to give this opportunity to members.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2017-12-07 12:04
Expand
Had the budgets not increased according to the index, theoretically, it would not have been possible to find the money to increase employees' salaries.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2017-11-23 11:52
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Sgro.
I would like to talk about the report you submitted.
I think, Judy, you correctly identified.... If you look on page 74 of the English version of what you submitted, it shows a significant increase in 2016-17 as compared to previous years. I do recognize that in the first year of a new Parliament and in an election year it necessarily will be different. That's why I thought the 2013-14 comparison was a better one, and that was the one that you referred to in your presentation.
Maybe you could elaborate, for people who would wonder about this, as to whether an increase in special committees.... It is a privilege of the House to set up a special committee. That, obviously, is done pursuant to a process in the House of Commons, and for perfectly worthy initiatives, such as the two that you mentioned. If you want to add something to what you said about the number of hours the committees met or more importantly the travel, go ahead.
I remember in previous Parliaments, for a bunch of reasons, including in a majority Parliament—and I understand in a minority government it's always more complicated for committees to travel in some cases—committees, as I have seen and heard, have made decisions, approved by the House, to travel more outside of Ottawa to hear from Canadians in communities that are often not accessible or that are even expensive to get to, if you're thinking of northern or remote communities. The cost of travelling there would be different from the cost of travelling to a large urban centre. I'm wondering if you would elaborate on why the number on the chart appears to have gone up. Am I correct that it shows, as does one of the other pie charts, travel having a significant increase?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2017-11-23 11:57
Expand
Thank you. That's certainly my understanding as well.
Perhaps as a final quick question, am I correct in understanding that a number of committees also undertook travel in the United States? There's no doubt that that relationship is important to Canada and that the relationship between parliamentarians and American legislators, both at the national and arguably at the state level, can be important as well. Am I correct in understanding that some of that increase would be due to committees deciding, with the approval of the House of course, to travel to the United States for their work?
Finally, I know, just from members of Parliament travelling over the last number of years, that there have been significant efforts that have reduced the cost of travel by members of Parliament rather dramatically in some years through the use of, for example, flight passes and so on. I assume that there are fairly rigorous efforts to keep.... Once the decision is made to travel on a certain itinerary, perhaps you can give us a sense of what efforts are made to ensure that the costs are as modest as can be, reflecting the itinerary that the House would have approved.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2017-11-23 11:59
Expand
Thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Speaker.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2017-11-23 12:26
Expand
I'd like to make a brief suggestion on that idea, which I thought was interesting.
If we do that, we should note in an election year that it is an election year, because Canadians will look at a five-year time frame. Necessarily, an election year has some increased costs for new members, but it also has committees travelling less during a writ period, clearly. If we are going to do it, let's be as descriptive as we can, to reflect the reality of those time periods.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2017-11-02 11:28
Expand
No, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to be on your list, please.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2017-11-02 11:33
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Like Mr. Julian, I am happy to be here. I am very pleased to be with you today since I was unable to attend the last public meeting of the Board of Internal Economy.
Thank you for your presentation, Ms.  Labrecque-Riel.
I have a few specific questions. I know that several associations charge membership fees. If Canada wants to join them, Parliament must pay to attend their meetings and conferences. Can you give us a few examples of associations with the highest membership fees that we are required to pay? Do you agree that this is a valid expense and that participation by parliamentarians justifies the annual membership expenditure? I believe, and seem to recall, that the amount is quite high in some cases.
Furthermore, in table 5, on page 8 of the report, for example, you talk about additional or miscellaneous expenditures. These expenses amount to several tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the year in which they are incurred. What do those expenditures include? What kind of expenditure does this category include?
Thank you.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2017-11-02 11:36
Expand
I do not mean to interrupt, but you just made me think of another question.
To your knowledge, has Canada previously informed a secretariat that it was charging us too much relative to other countries, or has it asked questions about the formula that results in a bill for x dollars? I understand that there is no negotiating, but is there at least a discussion between us and the secretariat in question? Could it be that, for all kinds of reasons, more specifically financial pressure, the secretariat believes that the membership fee charged to Canada or to the Parliament of Canada is a way of obtaining a sum of money that it will not charge other partners?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2017-11-02 12:43
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you for your presentation and your excellent work, which you have been doing for many years. I know this is an extremely complex project that will be difficult to carry out.
We have previously discussed one question. I would like you to recall for us what was said or to reflect on the question of moving the Centre Block to the West Block a few months or a year before a general election.
When the long-term plan was established, we did not know there would be a succession of minority governments. Electoral cycles change, and there should be a general election in 2019. Is it appropriate to move everyone in 2018?
Many members believe and hope they will be re-elected. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. A natural change may occur following a general election, and I wonder how you would explain this scenario in view of the upcoming election? I am not suggesting we should wait until 2019. I simply want us to think about the appropriate time. That is all.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2017-11-02 12:45
Expand
Thank you.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2017-11-02 12:58
Expand
You, Mr. Speaker, would be particularly familiar with those important responsibilities.
Collapse
Results: 1 - 29 of 29

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data