Evidence of meeting #12 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 process.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Just for the minutes, it was Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, the whip for the NDP, giving this report.
We'd also like to welcome Sheila Malcolmson to the rest of the committee meeting.
I don't know if anyone had any questions, or anyone else from the NDP wanted to add to that before we go to the other parties.
Mr. Christopherson.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I might suggest, by way of proceeding, that we hear from the other two caucuses and then throw it open to see how much we line up and whether there are any discrepancies, in which case then we would want to talk those through.
12:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Yes.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I'll be fairly brief.
Our caucus found it quite difficult, given the depth and breadth of the proposals that are out there, including that we heard some new suggestions and ideas in the report that the NDP whip just gave, to be able to provide a lot of opinion on proposals that I think are quite extensive and varied, I guess we'll say. Obviously there are a lot of factors in those that we haven't had a look at yet. With some of them, there's obviously a lot of cost that could be involved. There are unintended consequences that could be involved.
I think our caucus needs to have the committee narrow down a bit more what some of the proposals might be or what sorts of areas the proposals might be in, before we could give a lot of feedback in a lot of areas.
I think the one thing that was quite clear in our caucus was the idea that's been discussed quite heavily and has been in the media quite a bit, which is the idea of members not sitting on Fridays. It was something that our caucus certainly didn't feel it could support.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
We couldn't support that.
Whether it be in the name of family friendly or any other rationale that might be given, anything that would remove the accountability of the government to the House of Commons is something we wouldn't entertain or support. That would be one lens with which we would look at everything. If it's something that would appear to remove the accountability of the government in the House of Commons, that would certainly be off the table for us.
But with regard to other things, we would want to have a bit more information as to what avenue the committee is looking to go and get some sense from experts on what the costs might be, what some of the unintended consequences might be, and other implications to the proposals. There are a wide variety of things that have been mentioned and thrown out there.
I think it might be best if the committee tried to narrow things down a bit more before we could really provide more input.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you very much.
We actually delved into this quite deeply. In fact, we conducted a survey of all of our caucus members with quite a good response, so a lot of the numbers that I'm about to talk about are actually very indicative.
There's a lot of anecdotal discussion going on and there are people who say that it doesn't really affect all that many people because how many of us have kids anyway? We decided to actually look at the numbers and find out how much this affects caucus members. I will go through some of the results of the survey because it is actually very revealing and indicative, and it could inform the work of this committee.
On the number of children, we asked MPs how many children they had. Of the MPs that responded, 78% are parents and 17% said they did not have children. Another 10% said that they were expecting children or were planning to have children in the future. The reason that adds up to 105% is because 5% of those who already have children also said that they were planning to have more children. This means that 10% of our caucus could very well have children during the period that they are here as members of Parliament.
As far as the ages, 47% of the MPs who responded had children younger than the age of 16. That's about half of those 78% who have dependent children, young children that need more care. On the number of children, 39% have two children, 14% have only one child, 17% of our caucus have three children, and another 6% have more than four children.
Anecdotally, I spoke to one of my colleagues who has six children. He lives in a rural and very remote area, and he spoke about the difficulties that he's having, particularly if he wants to bring his family here to Ottawa. It uses pretty much all of his travel points just to bring them one time. I think there is an appetite for families that are larger to have some kind of accommodation, so they can actually bring some of their children to Ottawa from time to time.
Interestingly, almost 6% of caucus said they were expecting children. That is something that is self-identified, but about 60% of our caucus responded to the survey. That's something quite indicative. Another 5% are preparing to have children, so that would indicate that it would be imminent.
When we looked at some of the other questions regarding child care, 89% agreed that day care services should be more flexible. With regard to whether or not day care should be moved to Centre Block, or in the case where we might be sitting to West Block, 80% of the respondents said that the day care should be in the same building where members spend most of their time. Right now, that would mean Centre Block and moving to West Block when the chamber is in West Block. My understanding is that right now the day care is near the Justice or Confederation Building. That's quite a distance if somebody wants to go down and see their child.
There was also quite a bit of discussion about the flexibility of the day care in terms of the hours of the day care and also the fact that you can't use it intermittently. For that family of six who comes here, and might only be here for one sitting week and then home again for three weeks, that family can't avail themselves of the day care because the day care is only available to those who are there on a permanent basis. This was something that generated quite a bit of discussion. The day care should reflect the reality of the lives of members of Parliament.
I would like to indicate that we only surveyed members of Parliament. We didn't survey staff and, of course, for staff some of the answers might be different. As we go on in this study, it will be very important that we also get the opinions of staff and try to perhaps do almost a similar kind of survey among some of the staff because they're here in Ottawa all the time. That would be very different.
One of the things that came up when were talking about an inclusive Parliament and work-life balance is the fact that there are dietary restrictions. I'm very pleased that my colleague from the NDP mentioned this as one of the barriers. We did include a question on this in our survey. It turns out that 8% of our caucus has food allergies of some sort.
I won't go into every single one. We have the percentages for the lactose-free and low cholesterol ones and all of those. I think the big ones are that 8% are some form of vegetarian, either vegan or vegetarian—that's as a category combined—another 3% are kosher, and another 7% are halal. Our hours often are incredibly long, and we can't leave the committee room, and we can't leave the chamber if we're on House duty, so the only food that's available may or may not be.... This goes to the inclusivity of Parliament.
Moving on to the issue of chamber reform, a majority of the caucus, when asked the simple “yes or no” question—I know that our committee has actually delved into this in a lot more detail than just yes or no—in discussing the Friday sittings, about three-quarters of the caucus said we should eliminate Friday sittings. Now, they haven't had the benefit of the discussion about parallel chambers or alternate methods, but what is interesting about this is that the exact same number—76%—said that we need to replace that lost time elsewhere.
I think that's very important to note. There was almost 100% agreement among those who thought that we should compress the workweek or find some way to eliminate Fridays, but that we need to not have less sitting time. We broke that down a little as well. Fifty per cent agreed that we need to add extra time on the days other than Fridays.
In the discussion on this, a lot of people were talking about starting at nine o'clock instead of 10 o'clock on other days of the week, or even trying to add, you know, two days...we talked about the dual sittings in one day and other possibilities like that. But there was a general perspective that caucus members and the government need to have the time to get our agenda through, to get legislation through, and there was virtually no appetite for eliminating Fridays and not making up those hours somewhere else. Twenty per cent said they would support extra sitting days. I think that's also indicative.
Just anecdotally, I did speak to some of the older members of our caucus, who said that a day that starts at 7 a.m. or 8 a.m. to begin preparing and then goes until nine o'clock or 10 o'clock at night is actually very difficult for some of the older members, whereas some of the younger members were saying that they need to be home in their constituencies to do the work there and be with family. They would rather sit those long, long days on Monday through Thursday. This is a much more complex topic than it looks at first. Then, interestingly, 30%—almost one third of our caucus—said they support both adding extra time to other days and adding extra sitting days. There's quite a bit of support for maybe changing the way that the calendar is set up, but not necessarily for any one way that has been proposed.
There were a number of comments. We had an open section in the survey. By the way, if any of the other caucuses would like a copy of what our survey questions were, I'd be happy to give them to you—not necessarily all the replies—if you wanted to survey your own caucuses or even the staff. There were several comments.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
On the chamber reform, there are a number of open comments. There were dozens, and I'm not going to go through every single one, but there were quite a few comments that talked about heckling and even applause. The idea was that we could actually make Parliament more friendly, more amicable, if there were less heckling. This particularly came from a number of women's caucus members. I think the reason for that, of course, is that we want to attract more people to Parliament, and seeing that kind of behaviour is not something that entices a lot of women or a lot of other individuals to run for office or to become members of Parliament.
Certainly, we've all had the case where we've had school groups who are looking at the behaviour in the House, and this is something their own teachers don't want their students to be learning. At one point Samara was doing a Twitter chat, and there was a 13-year-old girl in the lobby—the daughter of one our members—and I asked her what she thought about it. She said, “Well, if I tried to do this in my school, my teacher would dock me marks.” So I think this is just in terms of the lessons we're showing to the young people who might aspire to politics. Actually, there were quite a few comments about the decorum, the heckling, the game-playing, and the posturing.
But the one that surprised me a little bit was the applause. There were quite a few people who said we could save a lot of time if we didn't do standing ovations every time somebody spoke, with whom we agreed, and particularly in question period, where we regularly see that we're going over time. That's something that I actually see as a positive thing, but if it's something that's taking away from our work, that was certainly something that was brought up.
Video conferencing technology was brought up both in the discussions we've had in caucus and also in the comments. I think there was a lot of support for the idea that, you know, we're all sitting around the table right here. If one of us had something, an emergency with our family or something very important in our constituency.... I know a number of my colleagues who are women had to fly back to their ridings to do International Women's Day events on Tuesday and then fly back. In fact, one colleague said her flight was at something like six o'clock right after the House adjourned. Then she flew home, did a 7 a.m. event, then did another one at 9 a.m., and then went straight to the airport to fly back in time for question period. People do have to be away. With the committees, there's no reason why we wouldn't be able to have video conferencing. We allow the witnesses to video conference, but we're not allowing our own committee members to video conference.
That was something about using technology more, the recognition that this institution is still working exactly the same way it did 150 years ago. That was a time when, if you wanted to come and have a talk with one of our colleagues, you actually had to get on a train and come to Ottawa and then spend the time here. Today, we can have a teleconference in which all of us could be in completely different parts of the country.
There was a strong sense that we need to modernize Parliament. Most businesses, certainly when I was working internationally.... At the United Nations, I had staff on five continents and we were able to function predominantly through Skype, and we were functioning as a coherent group and knew each other as if we were sitting side by side. That was probably the largest one, and I do know that there was a draft report of an all-party women's caucus that talked a lot about the use of technology. So that would be something I think we could delve into.
Then, there were a number of suggestions about improving technology on the Hill, including the idea of electronic voting. But notably, 63% of our caucus members believe that you have to be here in person to vote. Then there was another 30% or so who said you can use technology. If you're on the Hill somewhere, you can vote, but you have to be somewhere in the Parliamentary precinct. So for instance, if a young mother is with her child but she's at least here in Ottawa in the Parliamentary precinct, there might be a mechanism of voting that way.
Then of course, the votes after question period was another one that came up. I know we've been doing that.
I want to specify, Mr. Chair, that none of these things affect me. In some ways I'm the ideal spokesperson for this because my stepdaughter is grown up. I don't have dependent children, and I live in Ottawa. My home is a 15-minute drive from here unless there's snow or traffic. In most circumstances it's a 15-minute drive. I'm not speaking to this because of any personal interest.
I think it was indicative that some of my caucus colleagues didn't want to speak publicly. They only wanted to speak privately about this or through the anonymous survey because they felt if they were to raise this kind of issue they would somehow be seen as lesser or not wanting to do their work. There were a number of people that responded privately to the survey, but didn't want to say it publicly.
I agree with some of the comments that came up through the NDP, as well as about the sixth floor and things like that.
I don't want to take too much of the committee's time. We went to a lot of effort to put together this report, and I think it was worth it to be able to go into it in some detail.
Thank you.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Briefly I would thank everybody for their feedback.
I'm going to ask our whip to give her thoughts.
I have a couple of things. We're clearly going to run into a problem on the Friday thing because your caucus was overwhelmingly interested, even though the time would be made up. Ours overwhelmingly was not interested, mostly because of the trade-off. When they started looking at losing constituency weeks, or sitting later, or the whole idea of compressing two days into one, all are more problematic to our caucus than being here on the Fridays. That could be a major area of disagreement.
Another thing I want to mention is a personal thing. Under the issue of security we haven't yet had a chance to talk about the green bus system. The last government all but decimated the green bus system. It's inefficient and costs all kinds of productivity. We've had to change the hours of committees meetings because it takes so darn long to get around. The one I want to raise in particular in this context is that one hour after the House is done, the buses stop. There are an awful lot of us that are still meeting in Centre Block, in East Block. Not so much for myself, but I'm thinking of others walking around at 10 or 11 o'clock at night and even ordinary MPs walking around. Being on the bus is the first casual bit of security that's there. Without the buses it means at 10 o'clock at night you have MPs wandering around on Parliament Hill. It's not the greatest kind of safety, not to mention for women or others who may feel particularly vulnerable being out in the dark that late at night, or not to mention people who have any kind of a disability. The older I get, I get more and more of them. It's a long walk from the East Block all the way down to the parking lot.
There are a whole host of issues. I'm hoping at some point the government will indicate they're reviewing that whole system. It all started with a cost-saving measure and they laid off droves of the drivers. That's what led to cutbacks in the service. It's not efficient. It doesn't serve members or staff well. I do hope the new government is going to undertake a review of that green bus system to make it the system it should be.
Chair, I'd like to ask my whip to maybe provide a couple of comments as to what she has heard.
Thank you.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There is something that has often emerged in the NDP talks. Whatever decision is taken on work-life balance, we must take into account not only the needs of members, but also those of all the people working with us, namely our teams, our assistants and the House staff. That is very important.
Ms. Vandenbeld's report made me think of something about travel points, for example for the children. There are also people who bring someone with them to help care for their children, such as a grandmother, aunt, sister, brother, or someone else. For now, it is not possible to make the travel points system more flexible in order to help families.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Perhaps I can respond to Mr. Christopherson's comment.
First of all, about the Fridays, there really wasn't consensus. I think our committee has quite a bit of latitude—particularly for those who have a lot of travel time, such as our chair—because we didn't really come to a consensus. As well, the yes-no question didn't delve into a lot of the things we've been discussing in the committee.
An issue that came up amongst the women was I think very telling. One woman said that she could see, once she got here, that she could trade her Fridays, and that we're not always on House duty. Often on Thursday evenings she's able to go home, because there are people like me who are quite happy to take on the Fridays. She said she hadn't known that before she ran. In fact once she gave up running for the nomination because she had young children and didn't want to be away five days a week. Had she known she'd maybe be able to get home on Thursday nights and sometimes maybe come in a little later on Mondays, she said it might have actually changed her decision at that time during that election cycle.
We're all here, and we know how it all works, but we can't forget the deterrent effect on a lot of people with young families and on a lot of women when we're looking at the Friday sittings. We haven't come to any conclusion on that, but I think it's something that's certainly worth considering.
With regard to the security, I'm actually very pleased you brought that up. One thing I noted when we had the security officials here the other day was the discussion about constituencies and the fact that there's nothing provided for residences. As an Ottawa MP, obviously I'm a lot easier to follow home from Parliament, for instance, or something like that; that line isn't as blurred. For instance, some of my colleagues who don't have security alarm systems in their homes are installing very expensive alarm systems solely because of the nature of their public responsibilities. These are things that haven't been discussed, to my knowledge.
From a woman's perspective, I'm walking down to the parking lot quite often late at night. As you said, we have meetings that go till 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock sometimes, and I'm walking to that parking lot, getting in my car, and then driving home. I think the issue of security could very well be one of those topics that we should come up with, both because we are the committee that is responsible for the estimates for the security service but also because of the family-friendly Parliament. It can be a tremendous deterrent to you as a woman who wants to run if you are concerned about your security, especially if there are people out there—there always are—who may not necessarily be pleased with what you're doing and who take that out on you in certain ways as a public official. I think it's something that probably affects women predominantly, a little bit more than men.
I think it definitely would be something to add to our study on inclusive Parliament. Thank you for bringing it up
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
David, if nothing has been done on the buses, you might also bring it up when we do main estimates. Maybe you can warn the Speaker in advance that you'll be bringing it up so that they have an answer.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes. I was hoping for a chance to shoehorn it in the other day, but it seemed kind of small compared with what we were dealing with.
But I appreciate that. Thank you.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
I'm not sure if this is germane to the conversation, and maybe everyone realizes this, but I think it bears repeating. When we get elected, we have one fundamental choice of either living here or living in the riding. When it comes to the Friday situation, I'm sure many of those with families here would opt to sit on Friday to avoid the compressed time.
In our decision, we should be careful that we don't put the people who decide to bring their families to Ottawa in a precarious situation. It could very much do that, even though the numbers may be overwhelming that most families live in the ridings, for whom that Friday option would be good.
I would think the first place to start would be to find out where most of the MPs live and move your regulations and your rules and your changes around that.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I think that when it comes to Friday sittings, we're going to have to defend our position on it to all our caucuses and all our colleagues, whichever way we go. There's not an obvious answer. Whether we say we're going to keep them or we're going to toss them, we're going to have to defend it, and it's going to be a challenge, with a lot of arguments to be had on that.
I want to make sure that we don't fall into the Michael Chong trap of using legislation to solve problems that could be solved through whips' offices. If it can be solved with House duties, great, let's look at that as the new, clear option to go farther than that.
On the buses, I really want the buses to talk to us eventually. We can make buses better, more accessible, with more efficient routes, instead of going all the way up to the parking lot and all the way back. I ran into Senator Nancy Greene Raine the other day at an event at Mont Tremblant, and she chastised me for even considering using the buses. That's a whole other point, but I'll leave that there.
I'm very much looking forward to tackling the bus issue head on. We have other options too. Why don't the buses run to the airports on Monday mornings and Thursday nights? There are so many things that we could explore that we should be exploring.