Evidence of meeting #1 for Status of Women in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was liberal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I do not want to be tiresome, but I would like to know one thing. Why did we change the word “greffière” for “greffier”? We are the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and, in French, we have replaced the word “greffière” with the word “greffier” throughout the text. Is there a reason for that?
We do not have this problem in English, because words have no gender, which at times can be useful. I do not understand why we have made this change. I do not want our first decision to be to masculinize the terminology used at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
NDP
The Chair NDP Niki Ashton
In response to Madam Boivin's comment, is it the will of the committee to ask that the male references to “le greffier”, and perhaps “le président” as well, be changed to the feminine form in the context of our committee here? If that is the will of the committee, we can direct the translation as such.
Conservative
Liberal
NDP
The Chair NDP Niki Ashton
Thank you, everyone.
On number five, working meals, do we prefer the old version or the new version that has been proposed to us?
A motion to accept? Does everybody agree with that motion on the new version?
Madam Boivin.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Why did we remove the wording “and that, reasonable child care expenses of witnesses be reimbursed”? Is that because these expenses were considered to be covered by the other ones mentioned above?
NDP
The Chair NDP Niki Ashton
Your question pertains to the sixth point, right?
Are we all in favour of motion number 5?
(Motion agreed to)
NDP
The Chair NDP Niki Ashton
Thank you. We can now move on to number six, on witnesses' expenses.
Madam Boivin, would you like to repeat your question on this?
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Yes, now that I'm really on number six.
I just wanted to understand why we were eliminating “and that, reasonable child care expenses of witnesses be reimbursed”. When I read the text, everything that we want to include, I do not see how that will be included in any way at all.
NDP
The Chair NDP Niki Ashton
The motion is now general in nature and applies to all committees. The one used during the last Parliament was changed to reflect the requirements of the witnesses appearing before our committee specifically. If the committee so desires, we can change the motion to include this section contained in the previous motion, or we could vote in favour of the motion used during the last Parliament.
Ms. Sgro.
Liberal
NDP
The Chair NDP Niki Ashton
Child care expenses are considered an expense. It's indicated that is covered, whether or not it's explicitly mentioned, and that applies to every committee, I understand. But of course if it is the desire of the committee to be explicit in that statement--or perhaps go with the previous statement--that option is also available.
Ms. Young.
Conservative
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
I would like to propose that we look at changing the phrase to something like “home care”. That also takes into consideration senior care, because many of us are moving into that area. So we won't just do child care; we would also look at the other spectrum of this.
Conservative
Susan Truppe Conservative London North Centre, ON
Are we talking about child care expenses once they get here? We're not talking about paying their airfare or anything else, just...we're taking the child and we're paying for a meal or whatever it is. I mean, as long as it's spelled out so we're not getting into additional costs, I think there would be no problem with paying for a meal for someone who had to bring a child with them or whatever happened to be....
If that's in fact the type of expense we're talking about...? What is the norm for child care expenses? Do we have anything on that?
NDP
The Chair NDP Niki Ashton
The clerk advises me that they don't have the figures here, but they can look into it.
I understand that both child care and elder care or home care are considered expenses that would be covered even under the general statement proposed here in the right-hand column.
Ms. Young.
Conservative
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
Having appeared on committee before and having been involved in government for 25 years, there are some standard governmental stipulations about this. There are standard rates and stuff. I would just say that we go with the standard governmental rates, but I would like to see that broadened to the seniors care as well.
Thank you.
NDP
The Chair NDP Niki Ashton
We are unable to alter the existing rates at this point, but thank you for your comments, Ms. Young.
So do we approve of the current form that's in front of us, that clearly covers both child care and home care?
Ms. Bateman.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
The proposed clause for this year covers both senior care--in deference to my colleague--and child care, and any other kind of care that might be envisioned. I think it would be great to just take the proposal; it would be fewer words to translate.
NDP
The Chair NDP Niki Ashton
Just to clarify, it does include costs that are involved with supporting dependants that the witness must deal with. “Dependants” is the key word.
If that is the proposal, Ms. Bateman, would you perhaps be willing to make a motion to accept the current proposal, the current number six?
