Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 14th, 2016

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

I have another quick question that I was going to ask the IT department, but I guess it goes for you. One of the issues that we have as MPs is sharing our calendars with our families. It's a very simple thing. Some of us use Google Calendar. We go off the “reservation” to share our calendars with our families. Can we explore options to fix that problem? Can we explore options of providing spouses with email accounts so they can use a phone giving them access to our calendar, or something like that to permit us to share our calendars?

[Marc Bosc]

I was aware this question was likely to come up. I'd already spoken to the chief information officer about this, and he is currently studying the matter. As you know, there are security issues around access to the Parliamentary network. That's the big stumbling block. He has assured me that he will look into it actively to see if a solution can be found.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Mr. Richards.

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

As you heard me reference in my point of order at the beginning of the meeting, there was a series of seven question that were sent around to all the potential witnesses. You're unique among our witnesses as you're part of our administration here at the House of Commons. Were you sent those questions?

[Marc Bosc]

I did receive them.

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

That's obviously because they've been sent to other witnesses and will frame a lot of our discussions with the witnesses we do have here. I wanted to focus on those to some degree.

There is a series of six of them I wanted to ask you about. I have three questions about each of them, and we'll go through them one by one. I'll give you an idea ahead of time as to what I'm looking to get your feedback on.

In each of these areas I want to get a sense of what you think might be the potential unintended consequences of any changes we make in each area. I want to get a sense as to what you think some of the costs might be in the area. Most importantly, I want to get your sense as to what kind of impact changes in each of these areas might have on our constituents.

I'll go through them one by one. Hopefully, we'll have enough time. If not, maybe I can get another round and continue to ask about the the other parts.

The first one is in relation to the House considering shortening or compressing its sitting week, or otherwise altering its sitting calendar. For each of those three themes, could you give us some sense as to what you think the unintended consequences might be, and the costs, and what impact there might be on our constituents?

[Marc Bosc]

Unintended consequences are difficult to predict, because that's the nature of them: they're unintended. With regard to reducing the sitting week by one day, there are in the standing orders right now several provisions that provide for fixed numbers of days on certain types of business. For things like private members' business, there's an hour a day. For things like supply proceedings, there are seven days from September to December, seven days from January to March, and eight days from April to June. The proportions of these as a part of the whole calendar year would obviously change. The number of days allotted to a budget debate is a fixed number of days. The number of days allotted to a throne speech debate is a fixed number of days, and so on.

Those are the kinds of things the committee ought to look at as unintended consequences with the compression of the time available to conduct business.

In terms of costs, I see very little impact. The salaries of House employees are payed on a full-time basis yearly. There might be a few savings, but they're negligible. I'd have to do a proper analysis. I wouldn't see a huge impact there one way or the other.

As for an impact on constituents, obviously if members are in the constituency more, there's a positive impact on constituents because they see their member more.

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

I'll jump around a bit with my questions and not necessarily follow the order of the questions listed here. The next one I wanted to ask about in the same regard, that is, in terms of potential unintended consequences or pitfalls, is parental leave for MPs. One of the questions was whether that would be feasible. For each of those same questions....

[Marc Bosc]

I'll turn this one over to Pierre.

[Pierre Parent]

Parental leave would probably require—and I don't want to speak on behalf of the Law Clerk—modifications to the Parliament of Canada Act where attendance is regulated by section 57. The attendance regulations include illness as a reason for being absent during a sitting day, but they don't necessarily include the reason of giving birth to a child, parental leave, or even taking care of a sick child. These provisions are included in the Parliament of Canada Act, and my pay service is administering these provisions for you as members. These, of course, would require higher change to the legislation.

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

Okay, have you any sense as to the cost or the impact that would have on constituents if parental leave were to be granted to a member of Parliament?

[Marc Bosc]

Again, on that aspect of the question, it would really depend on what the member availing himself or herself of such parental leave chose to do. If the member chose to still carry out duties to a degree, then the impact on constituents would be negligible, because the member's staff would continue to function, and so on.

With regard to costs, members receive an annual salary. There would be no change to that.

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

Okay, then we'll go to electronic voting or proxy voting, the idea of those two things. What would be the impacts in those areas?

[Marc Bosc]

On electronic voting, the House has looked at this in the past. This committee, in a previous incarnation, looked at this on more than one occasion. It really comes down to a decision by the House on how it wants to conduct votes. The House is equipped electronically for that to happen, but in my experience, the whips tend to like to have members present and voting. And I've heard it expressed that members themselves kind of like the atmosphere leading up to a vote. The bells are ringing. There is a more informal atmosphere. They are able to talk to colleagues. It's kind of a place where business can be transacted fairly efficiently on an occasional basis while the House waits to have the formal stand-up vote.

In terms of proxy voting, right away you're into a completely different debate and discussion, and that is the nature of a deliberative assembly. Is it necessary for members to be present here? You will hear from some people—not from me, necessarily—who would say that allowing this kind of thing is the thin edge of the wedge; so if you'd allow proxy voting, what's next? Are you going to allow the next step? That's the kind of debate you get into.

That said, it does happen elsewhere.

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

Do I still have some time, Mr. Chair?

Thank you, then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll go on to Mr. Christopherson.

Just before we do, though, in Sweden they all push their button, but they have to be there, so it takes five minutes for what it takes us two hours; but they have to be there so they can do all their talking with everyone.

Go ahead, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks very much for being present. I indicated earlier that I was going to focus on one area. I will acknowledge right up front that part of it is a pet peeve in terms of my experience here on the Hill, but it does lead to what I think are matters that are far more substantive than my feet getting cold.

It's about what we call the “green bus service”. Now even that's changing. It's no longer going to be the green bus, I guess; it's going to be the white bus. Anyway, there have been cutbacks. I've been around here going on 12 years now, and it has been cutback, cutback, and cutback. That's not to say that there aren't times when you can make changes and improvements and when cuts are even warranted, but my experience is that with the expansion of Parliament Hill now spilling over more onto Queen Street and Wellington Street, and with the opening in the last few years of what is now the Valour Building, we're actually going off the Hill.

There was a time—and you can tell I'm getting old—back in the good old days.... But there was a time not that long ago when you got on the green bus and it came very quickly and very efficiently. One bus took you everywhere, because there were only a handful of locations. It's very different now. It's far more widespread. At a time when we have more destinations, the vehicles now have to leave the Parliament Hill precinct and go onto the public streets of Ottawa, particularly along Wellington and Queen, and get all the way around the national monument to get over to One Wellington. At a time when we have an expanded need for the service, there have been more and more cutbacks. Now, I'm not saying that there hasn't been some expansion, but relatively speaking, in my view, there's been a diminishment of the service.

I'll just get this off my chest and then I'll move to what is the more substantive matter. From my perspective, the amount of efficiency and productivity lost by the number of times people have to wait for a bus, and by how many times committee meetings have been delayed, or by staff people having to use them to get around when they're bringing things for the members because something has changed, or the agenda has changed, or you need information.... On the efficiency waste, if you had experts look at it, I have to believe—and I'm no expert—that they would tell you that this is a false economy and that you may be saving on the one budgetary line item that says “transportation on the Hill”, but if you look at the effect on the efficiency and productivity, not to mention just the frustration level....

I'll get to the point: it's cold in Ottawa. I'll say parenthetically to my new colleagues that I'm from Hamilton, and I knew it was cold when I got here and the people from Winnipeg said, “Aw, Dave, it's really cold here.”

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It is cold in Ottawa. It has bugged me that the ones who are driving around in the limos and staying nice and warm are the ones directing the rest of us poor schmucks who have to stand outside and wait.

Now, all of that is a bit light-hearted, but it has some meaning, as you can tell. However, far more important and germane to those points is this: staff and members who have physical impairments. The buses used to go longer and further. Now, on the parking lot.... It's lucky for us MPs, of course, as we're treated very well here on the Hill. Everything exists to support the members and the work of the House, so my parking spot is fine. I don't need a bus to get to my parking spot unless I'm leaving from here, but some people have a long way to go. If it's not that late at night but into evening, it's dark and cold. If they have a bad knee, a bad leg, a broken leg, arthritis, or whatever impairment, or if they're just getting older and slower when moving around, I don't know how those folks are getting around. Are we paying for cabs? Do they have to arrange for rides? Do they have to change their personal life to have somebody come and get them?

Then there's the fact of.... For instance, last night I attended a meeting here in the Centre Block that started at 7:30 and went until 9. I had to leave a little early. I got lucky and got on the last bus as it was leaving at five or ten minutes after eight, but for everybody else who was at that meeting, staff included, there was no bus.

I know there's more security around. Sometimes it's like an armed camp from what we see. But I have to tell you: walk around the Hill at night and you'll easily see opportunities where members are alone and walking. I'm not even talking about those who are maybe more vulnerable than others, but just about MPs who are walking around in the dark, late at night, and relatively alone. There may be help, but it's a little further away. Wellington's not that far; you can get access. As a safety concern, I'm worried. So for all those reasons....

I accept that most of what I just said, Chair, was a rant, fair enough. But I've been waiting a long time to get somebody in that seat so I can have this rant.

I realize you can't comment on the cuts, and I don't expect you to. You're the embodiment of appropriateness, fair enough. But from a management point of view, you also have a responsibility. It's your staff in many ways as much as it's our staff, and I'd like your thoughts on this.

I'll make it easy for you, Marc. I would like your thoughts on any part of what I've had to say, including being dismissive. I'm prepared to accept that, but these are my feelings about this and I'd like to know what you think.

[Marc Bosc]

Well, first I need to know from the chair how much time I have.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have about a minute.

[Marc Bosc]

Okay, I'll do my best.

I'm a Winnipegger. I know how cold it gets. My way of dealing with that is just to walk. I find walking is way more efficient. I'm not suggesting other people want to do that or should do that. That's just how I deal with it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If you're able-bodied.

[Marc Bosc]

That said, there's no doubt that the bus operation is a very complex proposition, for the reasons you've outlined. The precinct has gotten bigger. Committees are meeting in different places. Trust me when I say that, Benoit. I have had numerous conversations about this. It's not an easy puzzle to resolve, particularly given that the decisions around levels of service were made in the context of a general restraint era. All parts of the broader federal government were affected, the House included. We reduced our expenditures by 7%. That was one of the services affected.

That said, we must remember that the buses are there not for the staff, not for the employees, but for members. The reason they're there for members is so that members can get to the committee meetings they're supposed to get to, and to the chamber that they need to get to for votes and whatever other reason. That is the reality.

From a safety angle, I have had a very good conversation with the Director of the Parliamentary Protective Service on that subject. Sometimes trying to plan exceptions for a service like the bus service is not the most efficient way to go. Making individual arrangements, such as having a hotline you can call for an escort or whatever, if you really feel your safety is at risk, may be something to explore.

I know I haven't addressed all the points you've raised, but I've tried to cover as many as I could.