Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 12th, 2016

[Some hon members]

Hear, hear!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Also in 1984 it was my first election, and Sheila kindly handed me my head on a platter, but I learned so much.

Again, it's so great to have you here, Sheila. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much for that very important point of privilege.

Thank you to all the witnesses. This has been very creative and helpful. If you didn't get in everything you wanted to, feel free to send a letter to the committee so we can use the other points you might have.

We'll break for a couple of minutes to change panels.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'll call us to order again. Anyone in the room—media, House of Commons staff, or members' staff—is welcome to the food that's left if they want. We'll start right away so we can get on with our three witnesses.

Welcome to Regina Flores and Michelle Warkentin from the Parliamentary Spouses Association, and from the Vanier Institute of the Family, Nora Spinks. We'll have five-minute opening presentations by each member, and then if the parties can let me know who they're going to have as questioners, we'll have a first round of seven minutes each for questioners.

We'll start with Regina.

[Regina Flores, Member, Parliamentary Spouses Association]

Thank you so much for this opportunity.

We're all very aware of the challenges that lie in MPs playing a dual role, one foot in their riding and the other in Parliament at all times, two demanding aspects of their job that are often at significant geographical distance from each other, placing significant strains on MPs' personal lives. The result is that MPs confront two imperfect choices, both entailing significant costs in terms of the time that can be spent with their families. This is a price that should not necessarily be paid by those wishing to participate in public service. We do welcome the serious attention being focused on establishing a work-life balance with concrete initiatives, and we hope that this is only the beginning. We're excited to work closely with you.

At one of the orientation sessions for new MPs and their spouses, we received some stark warnings and some anecdotes from past MPs, some of whom had chosen to not continue in parliamentary life. I think it's a warning that I'll never forget. I remember one quote in particular. They said, “If you have addictions, this will be the year when you go to rehab. If you have relationship issues, this will be the year that you have a therapist or get a divorce.” It was just very direct, but it was refreshing. I think that's one of the main points. Empowering the spouses and the new MPs from the very beginning with any knowledge and experience is one of the most crucial aspects. I can imagine I wasn't the only one Googling for any news article, or report, or study, or paper on balancing work and life for members of Parliament in Canada. There's not that much out there.

I will point out, though, that there is the Samara organization, which you're probably familiar with. Their paper, “Balancing Family and Work: Challenges Facing Canadian MPs”, which gathers a bunch of MP exit interviews, was quite enlightening and a good starting point, for me at least.

The good news is, though, I think we're currently experiencing a great atmosphere of collegiality and camaraderie among MPs across party lines. There's a really fresh energy to look at improvements, and the fact that there's time and resources being invested in this is very encouraging and refreshing.

Concretely, I think one of the easiest ways to allow MPs to feel less stressed about missing opportunities with their spouse and with their young children or with their families is to possibly look at the ability to expense some claims for family participation. I know that for our rural riding it's a constant—country fair, spaghetti dinner, church services, this and that—where sometimes the gas, or the accommodation overnight, or the entry fees, or donations really add up. Certainly, not all of them will be eligible, but rather than just the MP claiming their personal expense for that, to see where family can come as well. I know that's one way we try to creatively plan the family time so that the children can spend time with the MP. That would be one item.

Other spouses have mentioned additional points for family travel. They feel that in some cases there's not enough.

In the 10 or so responses that we received from the questionnaires that were circulated to the spouses, there seemed to be a resounding agreement on the need for calendars to be synced. Unfortunately, right now, unless I don't know something, we seem to have the family calendar, which constantly needs to be updated with the parliamentary calendar. That can be very frustrating for the MP's staff as we try to update, and it's in constant flux. It would be great if we could find some technological solution.

I'm certainly not the one to suggest it, but even talking amongst other spouses, they've said they've put it into Google. Anyway, I think that would be a great one because we just need to alleviate that stress for the staff and for the MPs as well.

Another item that has been raised is regional support groups for spouses. While we do have this wonderful association, a lot of people can't make it to Ottawa all the time, so by having smaller splinter groups regionally for areas like the greater Toronto area, Montreal, etc., there can be that feeling of support.

One interesting point that was raised was how easy it can be to get sucked into the vortex of endless receptions, events, and functions, losing sight of priorities such as exercise or family dinners.

In light of some of the stark warnings received regarding addiction issues, and I don't know how it could be conceived but we need some kind of comprehensive review of consumption habits, particularly alcohol, and their impacts on family and health. These are very alcohol-centric events in the receptions in the evenings. We don't expect to see a smoothie bar or a juicing station anytime soon, but perhaps baby steps toward alternative spirits.

As well we were also getting a lot of support on the idea of a proxy, a remote, or a different electronic system of voting. People felt that idea, along with the parallel secondary debating chamber, could be helpful. They thought that sitting periods could be shortened, and it would allow members extra opportunities to speak on certain bills, or reports, and at the same time free the chamber for debate on other matters.

That said it doesn't necessarily address the underlying problem of such demanding schedules. Compressing the sitting week by eliminating Friday doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a lighter schedule. The more critical point would be increasing the efficiency of the time spent in the House by shortening those sessions overall, employing a different system of the on duty roster, and perhaps starting the voting period earlier.

The child care facility point would only be successful if it operated with extended and creative hours, with half-day and full-day drop-in rate options, and in a perfect world evenings as well for the many functions that go on in the evening. If there could be that drop-off option of course it presents challenges for the operators of the facility in terms of figuring out those staffing schedules. A survey of all MP's families to see what the true needs are would be the first step. Possibly to make it economically feasible it would need local community participation as well, which might raise security issues.

There is also a concern about adequate parking spaces. As a side solution, perhaps we need some kind of babysitting central where it's on-call parliamentary babysitting services where certain babysitters have been approved, and they're there and available. I know this is a very specific thing, but it's something that people raise all the time in terms of being able to balance all of that.

I know that's something our association could certainly help with. There was a realistic reaction to the parental leave feasibility, most thinking that it wouldn't be realistic to have a very long period, but certainly wanting to encourage an attitude of it not being stigmatized, and not being penalized, and certainly that it should be offered. I wonder how much time I have left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

None. Thank you very much. When people ask you questions, you can extend.

Ms. Warkentin.

[Michelle Warkentin, Member, Parliamentary Spouses Association]

Good afternoon.

My name is Michelle Warkentin. I'm the spouse of Chris Warkentin, member of Parliament for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie. During the 10 years that Chris has served in this position, we've had three children who are currently nine, seven, and five.

Becoming a member of Parliament is not so much a job as it is an act of public service. Those who know this to be true are the families of an MP, in whose job there are no guaranteed days off, very little public understanding of the demands, and a whole lot of scrutiny. Add to the pressure the breadth of our country and throw a family into the mix, and you have 338 different ways to be a member of Parliament.

Of the dozens of spouses I heard from in preparation of my testimony this afternoon, I realized that every family makes accommodations for the demands of the job in different ways, but several themes became apparent. One universal theme was the honour it is to support our spouses in their roles as members of Parliament and the joy each spouse shares in their partner's passion. Each spouse spoke of the sacrifices they knew they would be making when their partners were elected. No matter what considerations are made, the job demands sacrifice from elected members and their families. This should be made clear by all parties to all potential candidates.

I've heard from some that it might be helpful if parties or Parliament provided better information about the specific time commitments and demands on members to help prospective candidates make informed decisions before seeking public office. This may lead to less disappointment or frustration upon winning.

Regardless where families choose to reside, sacrifices will be made. Time improvements made in Ottawa will not necessarily benefit families who choose to remain in the riding. Families with young children will find that there will always be periods of separation from the member as demands in the riding and in Ottawa require constant and unpredictable travel. I know this is especially true for our leaders, ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and opposition critics.

One way to encourage families to stay together is to find a way to promote spousal independent travel. Currently, travel points are available and the budget is appropriate; however, I've heard from several families that in an effort to avoid public scrutiny they are reluctant to make use of the travel points made available.

A change that has been made that has already improved work-life balance for MPs is moving votes to right after question period. This has allowed MPs more flexibility in their evening work schedules. Every effort should be made to continue this practice, as this allows local members the ability to go home at night and gives non-local members the time to connect with loved ones in the riding.

Those who have been elected for a number of years have recognized the importance of summer weeks in the riding and the ability to then carve out time with the family. These weeks should be protected so that summer flexibility remains.

Another consideration could be made with respect to spring break. Each province has a different time for spring break, and even within a province there can be different weeks off. What a welcome change this year to have Chris home working in the riding during our children's spring break and to have two weeks in a row. If the parliamentary calendar could allow for two weeks in a row during the spring break timeline, I believe this would then accommodate most members from all provinces.

With respect to compressing the sitting week, the responses were mixed, but the vast majority whom I heard from believe that Canadians expect question period to take place five days a week during sitting weeks. Question period happens earlier on Friday morning, allowing members to make it home for the weekend. Furthermore, party whips have the authority to accommodate members who have farther to travel or have personal or riding obligations, as no votes are held on Fridays. Concern was expressed that if question period on Friday were taken away, it would reduce our members' advocacy and accountability by 20%. Furthermore, at a time when many constituents are being laid off, it's hard to justify asking for a day off.

The question asked about operating a child care facility on the Hill was posed to the spouses, and I was able to speak with a member and spouse who currently have their child in the Children on the Hill day care centre. They gave rave reviews and suggested that MPs receive priority when it comes to the waiting list. Another spouse suggested that the age of acceptance be lowered from 18 months to 12 months and that availability be granted on a drop-in basis for visiting MP dependants. Most spouses noted that setting up a separate day care facility would face many challenges, as the hours and days spent in the House of Commons are not consistent or year-round.

While we appreciate the discussion of parental leave, of the dozens of spouses who responded to me with respect to this issue, all voiced concern. Skepticism was expressed by spouses that paternal leave, even if made available, would not be used, because of the impression among the voting public that the member was unavailable to them during their elected mandate. I note the experience of other members who required extended sick leave from their responsibilities and who faced significant criticism about not being available to their constituents.

I believe all parties currently make concessions for the birth of a child, medical emergencies, or severe illnesses, which help to cover the MP's responsibilities. To set up a structured parental leave, however, might leave a politician open to attack during the next election. Furthermore, concern was expressed about how this would work in a minority government, when every vote counts.

Regarding the idea of electronic or proxy voting, the opinion was expressed by the majority of spouses I spoke to that members should be present together in Ottawa to vote. Much discussion takes place between members and parties, which goes on outside formal meetings, that would be adversely affected by members not physically attending votes. There is much to be said about the ability to come and reason together in the House of Commons. I heard it from many that the ability to vote is the privilege that members earned by winning this election.

Technology has improved by leaps and bounds in the 10 years we have served. FaceTime, Skype, texting, etc., has allowed us all to stay connected and maintain communication. Many requests were made, however, that the members' calendar be made more easily available to the spouses via electronic measures.

In conclusion I'd like to again express the privilege each spouse has felt as they have supported their partner in pursuit of their passion and the honour it is to be part of making a difference for our country. While there may be many ways to improve a better work-life balance for MPs, each current member ran in an election for the privilege of having this job. While some MPs will choose to move their families to the Ottawa area, some will make the choice to commute every weekend. Every change might benefit some, but it's unlikely to overcome the challenges faced by the majority of MPs. Everyone around this table knows that regardless of what changes are made, out of a desire to serve, the vast majority of MPs will continue to work long hours and through weekends to advocate on behalf of their community, their constituents, and their country.

On behalf of the spouses, we thank you for your service and appreciate your efforts to involve us in this discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go on to Ms. Spinks.

[Nora Spinks, Chief Executive Officer, Vanier Institute of the Family]

Thank you. Thank you for those wonderful remarks.

My testimony is going to be completely different. I'm here with my colleague, Sara MacNaull, who has just completed a study on flexibility and flexible work arrangements, including at several crown corporations. I'm here as a researcher but also as somebody who has spent the last 30 years working with organizations to create environments that are supportive of families and not just friendly but actually fully inclusive.

In my experience, successful organizations that take on this task take it on usually out of the goodness of their hearts because they understand that it's the right thing to do. There's also a tonne of evidence that shows that when organizations make accommodations, and adjust what and how they conduct work, there is a win-win-win: productivity increases, efficiency and effectiveness increase, and individual health and wellness increase.

When we look at the organizations across Canada and around the world that are involved in looking at the same issues that this committee is looking at, about 50% take a very strategic view. The other 50% take it on as it comes, so whatever the issue is they deal with it and take care of it and then move on to something else. Those that are successful over the long term are the ones that look at this phenomenon very strategically. There are many motivating factors for organizations getting involved in this, some of which have been discussed here today, whether it's changing demographics, whether it's inclusion, whether it's competition, and that's looking at different organizations.

But I think looking at it from Parliament's perspective there are a couple of things that are unique to Parliament. I think the first thing that needs to be made really clear is: what is the frame? What is the framework that you're going to be hanging all of these initiatives around? I also think that it's going to be really important because we're looking 20 to 30 years out. We're looking at a framework for a policy not just for today. As one of the questioners said, what about the future when there might be 10 or 15 children?

As the complexities of families increase and as there are more blended families, more skip-generation families, more families responsible for elder care and caring for disabled siblings in adulthood, it’s important that we don't just look at family from one perspective but that we look at it much more holistically. Not only is Parliament going to be addressing the unique needs here on the Hill and with parliamentarians and the extended family associated with Parliament, the people who work and support and who sit around the edges of these rooms, but also the people in the riding offices and in the homes back in the ridings.

It's also a very significant role that you will play not only in Canada as a role model as a leading organization taking a look at these issues strategically, but also around the world as well. Other parliaments around the globe are also trying to deal with the demographic phenomenon that we're all experiencing in our lives today, but it's also going to be under the microscope for not only those who may be considering running and those who cast votes but also those who are looking at modelling based on the experience here. I think from looking at where you're at today and where you want to be, and being really clear around what your priorities are, it will become much easier to identify the leading and promising practices that are out there to learn from.

In my 30 years as a consultant working with organizations, I spent an enormous amount of time around boardroom tables in the automotive industry, in pharmaceuticals, in manufacturing. Just before I came to the Vanier Institute I spent time with the teamsters. This is an issue that crosses over every possible workplace.

What's unique about finding a way to create a culture of inclusion, and not just family-friendly policies and practices but embracing the concept of inclusion and making sure that everybody feels not only welcome but fully supported to participate in their respective roles, whether it's the member of Parliament, whether it's the spouses or the circle of support around them, whether it's their constituency, or whether it's the members in their ridings.... I think this is a really important opportunity for Canada to build on the experience of the past.

There have been non-strategic, one-off situations. We also need to recognize that you're going to be under the microscope from the perspective of the child development specialists and the pediatricians across the country, and that it's not just about finding a place to park infants or to put children but about creating a healthy environment for them so that it not only makes it possible for parliamentarians to survive and fulfill their responsibilities, but for the children to truly thrive in an environment in which their child development is as optimal as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much.

Unless there is a huge outcry in the committee, I think our limited time will reduce the questioning to five minutes a person.

I'd like to start with Mr. Chan.

I can say, Mr. Chan, on behalf of all the committee members, that we're delighted that you're back.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you.

Let me take a moment, before I turn to the witnesses, to simply thank everyone for their tremendous support, given my recent announcement. I guess I face the same challenges that parents face, as someone who potentially may be on long-term disability. I'm pleased to be here and I intend to be here as long as I can be.

I want to thank both organizations, the Parliamentary Spouses Association and the Vanier Institute of the Family, for coming here. I think we've had a very productive day in terms of getting a sense of each of your organizations' and your memberships' perspectives with respect to how we can make this a more accommodating place, not only for the members but for the entire support system that goes around all of us. Whether it's a matter of the spouses or of the staff, we want to create an environment that is ultimately inclusive, yet at the same time maintain the spirit of the purpose of Parliament, which of course is to deal with the nation's business.

I'm going to turn my first set of questions to the Parliamentary Spouses Association.

My spouse has actually joined your organization for their activities today. Jean has joined you. She waded in quite strongly in advance, so I already had a precursor of many of the comments that you've raised. I think it was very instructive to have a sense of the collective will of the spouses. I note that, even as Ms. Spinks has noted, the nature of family is changing. It is no longer, as traditionally, just the women; many of the spouses are now men. I congratulate you on the fact that one of the vice-chairs within your association, in fact, is a man.

The challenge has always, certainly for my family, been the issue of coordination. I take to heart all of the comments you have made. My spouse is an incredibly active participant in the work I do. In fact, yesterday she actually did an interview on OMNI television in Cantonese—her Cantonese level is better than mine, but believe me, not much better—and it was quite a challenge for her to do that. I really appreciated her doing so, basically to give people an update on my current health situation.

The question I really wanted to pose to you was the whole nature of supporting spouses and making sure they can integrate more effectively the demands of family and our demands as parliamentarians.

My spouse, for example, spends probably two or three hours a week talking to my staff to figure out where the heck I am, what I'm going to be doing, when I'm going to be doing it, and whether she has to cover me, especially in my current health condition. She finds it very challenging. I know Mr. Graham, who is not here today—one of our other committee members—does everything on Google Calendar, which of course takes things off our parliamentary calendar.

Would it be helpful to have access to a parliamentary spousal email, a parliamentary Blackberry, an integration of access to our parliamentary calendar? That's my first question to you. Would you find it useful? I know my spouse certainly would find it highly useful. It might reduce the stress on my staff, as she tends to talk to them somewhere between 10 and two in the morning, in order to get an update on what I'm up to. I know it should be my responsibility to do it, but I'm usually at some event when she's trying to figure out where I am.

[Regina Flores]

I would say definitely. It was in the comments. I didn't raise it because I didn't think it was financially feasible to have parliamentary spouses equipped with that, but it was certainly in the comments that we received.

[Michelle Warkentin]

I find that it's so good, so beneficial for spouses to speak to staff. Ultimately your calendar changes faster than even you know. I think that is the thing, especially for new spouses coming into this, to realize that not even the MP knows things that are coming.

Even if the staff says to the spouse, you should be speaking to your husband or wife, not even the MP really knows what's going to happen next. It would be highly recommended to make a calendar available. I know it depends. My husband is on a BlackBerry and I'm on an iPhone, so sharing a calendar is going to be challenging. I guess I rely on staff quite a bit to make that available.

Technology has jumped so much to date, I think we should be able to make calendars available. I don't know about allowing more electronic devices, but certainly we can find a way. Everyone has a phone already. Make calendars available to spouses. It would certainly help.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

The question is the IT challenge, I think.

[Michelle Warkentin]

Absolutely, and I rely on my staff.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I'm in the same boat. I am on a BlackBerry and my wife is also on the iPhone, so I'm in exactly the same boat.

[Michelle Warkentin]

Yes, exactly. I think if we could make staff say, hey, this is a method to share calendars easily.

Security is the biggest issue, absolutely.

[Regina Flores]

Even with technologies these days there could be a layer, a filter, a security, so that red is only staff and the MP. But at least we know that it's blocked. We don't need to know where they are, or what the meeting is, just that they aren't available. There could be layers.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I had a question, but I think my time's up. I'll catch you after.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to come back to the calendar issue. I just wanted to start with something here. I think with the electronic voting and the proxy voting it was unfortunate that they were put together.

Speaking for myself, the idea of having electronic voting so we can get through votes more quickly would alleviate a range of problems, and we would be unlikely to have very many of these multi-hour voting sessions that Christine Moore was complaining about, quite correctly. We could all cast our ballots, or press our buttons, or whatever, all at once from our desks in the House of Commons. I think there's a lot to be said for that and we should look at that in our report.

Proxy voting is a different story. That's where you give your vote to somebody else. Most frequently this is exercised when dealing with masses of shares for corporate boards of directors and so on. It's fine for shareholder meetings under certain circumstances but we are not shareholders, we are representatives.

I think the idea of one member of Parliament assigning their vote to their party whip so they cast it on their behalf, or whatever arrangement it is that deprives that MP of the individual decision-making on that point, is, first, I'd argue probably unconstitutional, and second, completely antithetical to what we are here for. That's just an editorial.

I'll now go back to the actual matters that you raised. I struggled with the issue of calendar syncing. I've been here for 16 years; the system has never worked. We keep working on improving it. My goodness, technology can handle these things, but given the firewalls we've put in place here, I think my sense is that we're either never going to get there or it'll be so slow and painful that....

In the end, what my wife and I do is we're on Google Calendar. We have a Reid family calendar and we have a team Reid office calendar. She can see and make changes to the team Reid one. The office can't see the private calendar that let's us put up things that aren't necessarily for sharing. That is the only way we've figured out doing it.

The other thing that we do, which I'd actually recommend anybody to do, is that we have a meeting once a week. In our case it's Thursday mornings, right before this committee, where we sit down with the staff, we get Robyn on the phone out in the riding, and we go through my calendar for the upcoming week and any invitations. That helps a lot. For anybody who wants to not drive their spouse insane, some version of that system really works well. This is actually for you guys, and not for the spouses here. It took me 15 years to figure that out. But now that I have, I want to share my new religion.

Actually I did have a question relating to the travel point thing. It's simply this, and Michelle this goes to you because you are from far away, whereas Regina, you're like me. You're from very close to Ottawa. Is the problem that we have a one-size-fits-all spousal travel points system, where actually we need something that's different to deal with the people who are further away and therefore essentially have greater needs when it comes to travel?

[Michelle Warkentin]

Quite possibly, that is exactly it. I know that because we have to travel so far. For me to come, I start ranking up in the budget, and then that is released to the media and it falls under public scrutiny how much is spent just to get someone from farther away to come visit the MP and to be here on the Hill, even for events. Yes, you bring the children less often to come see dad at work, or come see mom at work, because you know that you will be scrutinized for how much you're spending.

That could be looked at, even if it's just consolidated so that it's one bill. I think spouses are separate right now from dependants, so even to say that it's just all a family allocation, and even allowing members from farther distances a bit more latitude, but ultimately each province.... Isn't it broken down by province, and which members spend how much on travel and different things, and then that is released? It's great for accountability and we need that, but I do know that if you want to stay out of the public eye then you don't fly, and you don't come as often.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you, all, for coming out here. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Madame Boutin-Sweet.