Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 14th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

In an effort to keep on time and get the maximum time possible for the committee to question the witnesses, we will start.

Good morning. This is meeting number 15 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of the first session of the 42nd Parliament. Today we continue our study of initiatives towards a family-friendly House of Commons.

The witnesses from the House of Commons administration are Marc Bosc, the acting clerk; and Pierre Parent, chief of human resources.

I'll just remind committee members that the witnesses are here to answer all questions about the House of Commons, day care, or the buses. Anything that comes up related to the House of Commons administration should be answered by these two, which is why they are here for two hours. We'll have a lengthy time to cover all of these topics.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

On a point of order, I didn't want to bring this up at Tuesday's meeting because we had a lot of witnesses, and I know we have a bit more time today.

I'll be brief, but I wanted to ask about a series of questions that have gone around. I think most members of the committee have probably seen them by now, but they went around to all sorts of people whom we're inviting here as witnesses. I was curious how the questions were determined, because there has been a lot of discussion in committee about them. Maybe my memory's faulty, but there are some questions here I don't recall our discussing at committee. Certainly, if we did discuss some of them, it may have only been very quickly or tangentially.

I'm not suggesting that the committee needs to approve everything that goes out when we invite witnesses and things like that, but I am a little curious how the questions were derived. I'd like to get some indication of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's a very good question. I didn't know they'd gone to the witnesses, actually.

I'll get the clerk to respond to that.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Joann Garbig]

Thank you, Chair.

The committee members had had a discussion about how they wanted to approach the study and said that they would like the witnesses to be informed of these items when they were invited to appear, so I consulted with the analyst who developed a list, and we passed it by the chair before any witnesses were invited.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

That's fine. I don't mean to sound like I'm questioning you or our analyst. I know you both do a great job. I just was curious as to how these specific questions were chosen, because I know that on some of them we had quite a bit more discussion, but on others I don't recall. Maybe that's just my memory being faulty, but I was just curious how they were developed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I apologize. I don't remember seeing it actually.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

You don't need to give details.

I ask because, to some degree, these obviously frame the discussion from the witnesses. I'm not suggesting that we need to know every piece of correspondence that goes out to a potential witness, but when we're talking about the broad set of questions, it might be something the committee might want to make sure we have proper direction on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That makes a lot of sense.

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

I have another point of order on a different topic.

This just relates to having these witnesses for two hours, just two witnesses as opposed to the half dozen we had at the last meeting.

Are we reserving time to discuss motions at the end of this committee meeting today? If so, I'll be wanting to introduce the motion that I've already circulated related to inviting the Senate advisory board back during the month of May.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes, certainly, if we have time at the end and people are finished questions.

We have the five things I mentioned at the beginning of the last meeting: your motion, Mr. Christopherson's motions, the conflict of interest guidelines on gifts, the Speaker's emergency motion, and approval of the budget for this study. We'll definitely do any of that we can, depending on the time.

Keep in mind that you have to get in all the topics related to the House of Commons. Make sure you've asked all your questions of these two witnesses.

Thank you for coming. I know you two are very busy with huge responsibilities, and we look forward to short opening comments and then lots of questions.

[Marc Bosc, Acting Clerk, House of Commons]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm obviously pleased to be before the committee this morning to speak to your study on initiatives toward a family-friendly Parliament.

I am accompanied by Mr. Pierre Parent, who is the Chief Human Resources Officer. One of our colleagues is also in the audience, the Director General of Parliamentary Precinct Operations, Mr. Benoit Giroux.

We've done our best to follow the work of the committee over the last little while, so we are somewhat familiar with some of the issues that have come up. I must say at the outset that I am pleased to share with you that the House administration under the Speaker's leadership has recently made a number of improvements to facilities and services available to members with young children. There is the creation of a family room, among other things, including parking spaces, and other facilities that have been improved or upgraded. We have made some progress.

As you move forward with your consideration of this study, we remain available to you and poised to act on the recommendations that the House may make. Obviously informally as well, with members who express special needs, we work with them and try our best to accommodate their requirements.

We are of course at your disposal to answer all of your questions this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Parent, did you have anything to open with?

[Pierre Parent, Chief Human Resources Officer, House of Commons]

No, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, we'll start the first round of seven minutes.

Mr. Graham will be followed by Mr. Richards.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Good morning, and thank you.

I have a number of questions. I was expecting to speak to the departments individually and get a little bit more technical, but we'll go with what we've got.

My first question is on—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I don't think you should be worried about asking technical questions. You have to ask all your questions here, so ask the very technical ones.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

We'll get the answers later, if need be. That sounds good. Okay.

First of all, day care is a big issue for us. We understand there is a fairly lengthy waiting list to get in the day care and that there are a lot more kids than slots. I'd like you to address the possibility of having the day care much more open and freestyle so that people could drop off their kids for the day and not be tied into it for the month, or that they could sit for longer hours, until midnight if we sit until midnight, so that there's an opportunity for somebody who has a kid here in Ottawa to actually use the day care.

[Marc Bosc]

I'll perhaps start, and Pierre can fill in some blanks on the parameters around which this day care, Children on the Hill, operates on the Hill.

I am a former president of the board of directors of the day care service, having had our two daughters attend. It was started by Madam Sauvé. Really, the issue becomes one of the day care programming and the costs associated with having a service that is more flexible and has longer hours, but with a complete absence of information on the levels of usage. That is the issue.

Pierre can fill in on the parameters that we must govern ourselves by and that the day care must govern itself by. Maybe Pierre can talk about that, and then I'll come back to it, because we think we've found another solution to this situation that is very positive.

[Pierre Parent]

Thank you, Marc.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's important to add that the day care doesn't operate under the management of the House of Commons. It operates by its own board of directors and own management. We've had in the past, I would say, 18 months several discussions on how we could arrange the day care for members with the help of Children on the Hill. We've looked at these options. For instance, we've looked at the option of having a drop-in at any time, and having the day care hours extended from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. when the House sits.

The issue has always turned on the business model of the day care. Of course, they're not there to lose money, so they would staff the day care accordingly. Then the question would be, if there's less usage than the staffing required, who would actually pay for the difference? That's the kind of balance between the offer of service from the day care, being an independent body, and the level of service especially from a drop-in perspective where the facility should be there and people should be there to accommodate drop-ins, and without knowing exactly the level of usage. That was one of the difficulties.

Also, from their perspective, and I can't necessarily talk on their behalf, but mixing their full-time program and the drop-in program is problematic. I won't necessarily go into the details, but that was problematic from their perspective, so they would see two different operations and two different facilities.

That's why we looked into a third option, which is maybe a nanny service, which would require probably a booking fee. We spoke with different providers and usually what they require is a contract with the employer. In this case there's no employer. Depending on the provider, there would be a booking fee on a specific booking, or a booking fee that would be paid on an annual basis, and then paid by usage.

We're looking at different providers, and in that context the services could be provided here in Centre Block, or be provided in the family room, in the member's office, their home, or even a hotel room. That's much more flexible, and that's where we're looking.

[Marc Bosc]

I should add that this avenue is very promising because it speaks to the main issue that members face, and that is flexibility. It's sometimes unpredictable for members what's going to happen in the House and committees. They may not know from day to day, and this service is aimed at in fact allowing members to make those arrangements themselves on very short notice and have that service available for the number of hours or days required. They pay the supplier directly. Once this contract is entered into by the House, with a nominal fee for the service, the members who are availing themselves of it would pay for it directly, and it's a market fee, $14 or $15 an hour. It's very reasonable.

I think that's what we're looking at. Of course, this kind of decision is one that's made by the board. There's a board meeting next week.

I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

A minute and a half, David.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Okay. I was going to ask briefly, could we have some kind of a written explanation of how it would work and what it would cost? When would that be available? What kinds of timelines are we looking at?

[Marc Bosc]

Just for clarity, what exactly do you mean by “what it would cost”?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

If you're talking about having an off-site nanny program, where's the development of that program at? You're saying it's coming, but how far is it? When are we going to know about it?

[Marc Bosc]

I would say it's very close. I have to be careful because the board deliberations are confidential. I'll leave it at that.