Evidence of meeting #160 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was regulations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I will talk afterwards. I'm in favour, but I will propose something else afterwards.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay, we'll vote.
That's carried. This is a report to the House.
Christine.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I don't know if we can have in our report that we should later consider modifying the Parliament of Canada Act to include a member whose partner is pregnant. We are not able to right now, but maybe we could consider it later, or maybe the minister responsible should consider that.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
PROC could discuss that now or at another time. It's up to the members. They only have to be there 21 days, so you're talking about only nine days or something in a month that, in the rare circumstances where that would....
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
The 21 days is available to everyone for any reason, so it could be used for that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay.
While you're here, on another thing which is related, in the message from BOIE, they also said that we might discuss at sometime in the future the proxy pairing or the pairing. I've asked the researcher to do a report, because since we turned that down, England has passed a provision on that. I asked the clerk to give us some information later on what England has done and what other people have done, for the committee's information.
Stephanie.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
I don't think we actually voted, the three Conservatives here. I think we were sort of.... In addition to the questions Ms. Moore had on the extension for those with partners having children, I think we wanted to look at more information relative to that, so that perhaps we could consider this.
It is a consideration, as my colleague Mr. Nater said. It's generally somewhat apparent when we have an expectant mother, for most cases here, in the House, but for someone who has a partner who will be having a child, we can't always see that, and we can't anticipate that. These people certainly deserve to be recognized and accommodated as well. We think that deserves some consideration. Perhaps we could look further into that. I think we wanted to do that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay. We'll add it to a future agenda to discuss that, or do you want to discuss it—
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
We were thinking that maybe we could even look at it further now. That might be a positive thing to do.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
It's possible to just add a line on the report that the minister should consider the question and maybe think about modifying the Parliament of Canada Act. Maybe we could refer that and ask the minister to consider it.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
I think it's a good consideration. Even further to the consideration, we could find out more information about those who have faced such a challenge before. There was an indication that some provincial legislatures have adopted different formats, one of the two models, and perhaps it might be worthwhile to take some time to evaluate those provincial legislatures as well.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
In the report, maybe we could add the different issues we want to go back to later. It will have to go back to proxy voting and to the question of the partner. In the report, maybe we could include what we refer to for a subsequent study.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I don't think we're going to change the report. We've done the report, but we're going to take Stephanie's advice and look into this further. We'll get some research on it and have a discussion on it.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I guess to tease it out a little bit, in terms of extending this and having.... My wife has given birth twice during this Parliament and to extend it beyond the 21 days, I'm looking for examples of it being necessary and whether there is a situation that exists where members need this time. I don't know if we're searching for a solution without a problem.
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I think Mr. Bittle said it may be a solution in search of a problem. I want to see, perhaps, if there is in fact a problem because it is something that BOIE recommended. I'd be curious to look into those reasons.
The example I use for myself is that I wouldn't have needed those provisions. I only missed four or five days both times. In both examples, neither was prior to birth. I can see where there would be a situation in which—especially for those members who are significant distances from Ottawa—the due date is close, and they want to be there for the birth. They may take a week or so off prior to the birth to ensure they are at home in the riding. I know that in the lead-up to the births of my two children who were born during this Parliament, I was well aware of the flight schedules for all hours of the day to ensure I could quickly get home if I needed to.
I think it's worthwhile to have a discussion at least as to whether this is an issue because BOIE did make that recommendation. I'd be curious to know where they're going with that and what the impetus was for that decision. I haven't read the blues or the notes from the BOIE meeting, so I can't see what their reasoning was for that, but I think it's worthwhile having a discussion at least.
