Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 19th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good morning. This is meeting number 16 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of the first session of the 42nd Parliament.

We welcome the long awaited return of Kady O'Malley. It's good to see you again, Kady. We know you've been resting.

Today, we have the following witnesses: Gary Levy; from Equal Voice, we have Nancy Peckford, executive director; and to answer any questions from Equal Voice is Grace Lore, senior researcher and Ph.D. candidate at UBC, who is joining us by teleconference from Vancouver.

By video conference from the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Geneva, Switzerland, we have Kareen Jabre, director, division of programmes.

We're going to have each person make their opening statement of five minutes. We'll start with Kareen and we'll be going for at least an hour, but those who can stay longer, we'll keep you as long as the committee members have questions because there are four of you.

Ms. Jabre, the floor is yours.

[Kareen Jabre, Director, Division of Programmes, Inter-Parliamentary Union]

Thank you for this opportunity. It's really a pleasure to contribute to this important debate. We really welcome this chance, so thanks again for inviting us.

As many of you might know, the IPU has been working for many years now to promote stronger parliaments and more inclusive parliaments. One of the major angles of our work has been to focus on gender equality in parliaments, ensuring that women have more access in parliaments, but also have the opportunity to really influence policy-making in parliaments.

Within the context of that work, over many years now, we focused more and more on how parliaments functioned. We developed the concept of gender-sensitive parliaments, which was the result of a two-year survey of MPs and more than 70 parliaments from around the world. We looked at how they functioned and how they actually both embodied and delivered on gender equality issues.

In 2011, we developed this concept of gender-sensitive parliaments. We adopted an action plan to assist parliaments in becoming much more gender sensitive in their work. This is an important element for us because we really acknowledged for the first time that parliament was a workplace like any other, and that this workplace needed to be conducive to the equal participation of men and women.

Therefore, parliaments needed to look at how they functioned, how they facilitated the participation of men and women on an equal basis, and how they catered to the needs of young men and women who are the target for many of us in terms of renewing parliaments and making them, again, always in tune with society. This concept was really developed to respond to one of the first challenges identified by women themselves in running for politics, which is how can they balance family responsibilities and politics at the same time?

This is an issue. This is the first challenge identified by women. Most recently, the IPU has also been focusing on enhancing youth participation in parliaments. This, too, is an issue identified by young men and women in terms of going into politics and addressing how they are going to balance family and work responsibilities. I think it is very important to place this within the context of not just a gender issue, but also an issue that concerns both men and women, and especially young men and women.

We really look forward to Canada taking the lead in this respect. There are very few parliaments that have actually questioned and analyzed themselves to see how they were functioning and how they were actually catering to gender equality needs. It's difficult to engage in reform, so we really welcome that.

Ultimately for us, engaging in such reform makes for better and more effective parliaments. This is the message that we are also trying to promote when we work with parliaments in looking at how they function.

You have listed a series of questions of how parliaments have taken initiatives and some questions addressing the work-life balance of MPs. The important point for us, if we are to engage in this initiative is to, first of all, place the issue as a political one. This is an objective that we all want to achieve. It's important to make it a common objective for everyone. It's not just a gender issue or other issue. By placing it as a political issue, it's a very good and first way to approach it.

The second thing is for parliaments to acknowledge that this implies reform. It implies working at how parliaments function in a general way, and reviewing their work methods and their culture as well within parliaments. This is also very important in terms of mindsets that will facilitate or not, meeting this balance, and being a more family-friendly environment.

The third point for us is to look at the capacities and the needs that are required both at the level of parliaments but for MPs as well to address these issues.

If you were to engage on this question, for us you would need to look at how parliament works, what the needs are for MPs, and how to develop a more gender-sensitive or family-friendly culture in parliament.

Several parliaments have taken initiatives at different levels. In terms of how parliaments work, several have focused on sitting hours and days, of course, with some stopping work at 6 p.m. and others not voting on Mondays or Fridays and only focusing on votes Tuesday through Thursday. Other parliaments have fixed voting times and fixed days for votes, as I've said. This way of working and organizing work allows for better planning and, therefore, for freeing up time to meet both the family requirements and the constituency needs.

Other parliaments have tried to cater to the needs of young women who are breastfeeding or who have to cater to the needs of young children, so some parliaments have adopted a system of proxy votes for women who are breastfeeding. That's the case in Australia, for instance. Others have actually developed a system of e-voting, allowing MPs to vote from a distance. That's the case in Spain, for instance. This is for women who are either pregnant or breastfeeding and have to meet their children's needs. This is a recent formula that was adopted in 2012.

In many other parliaments, some of the initiatives taken have been aimed at looking at how IT can alleviate the work of parliaments and have parliaments function differently, and how IT can be used either to enhance the efficiency of meetings and the work of parliament or to enhance the link with constituents, which is of course one of the priorities for MPs: how can they also be present at the constituency level?

The second big point that I wanted to just quickly flag, because I know we'll speak about it, is that some parliaments have looked at the support required technically and physically in parliaments for women and men with children. This has of course been a case of developing child care facilities, which we've seen in many parliaments, whether that's a crèche, a nursing room, or a playroom, so many parliaments have experienced that, with more or less success in the challenges. I'll be happy to come back to those in our discussion.

Other parliaments have also tried to support parental leave. This is of course a very tricky issue, but some parliaments do allow for parental leave for MPs. This is the case in Sweden and many northern countries. This is of course intrinsically linked to the electoral system and the way parliamentarians are elected and also to the possibility of having substitutes. I'm happy to also go into that if it's of interest.

The last point I wanted to mention as we engage in reform for a more family-friendly parliament is there is a lot of work to do at the level of culture and changing mindsets and the ways people address this issue. In the research we've done, we've often seen that many MPs do not feel that they should claim their rights in terms of parents, because that presents as an MP who is weak or not focused on his/her work. I think there's a question of changing mentalities and acknowledging that this is important, that it makes for MPs who are maybe more engaged and also more effective, and that MPs are human, and by addressing those needs in a constructive way we will make for more effective parliaments. I think that changing the mindset and making this less of an taboo issue is an important thing.

Also, in terms of communicating with the public, the second point in terms of culture is that we've seen that we really need to push more for a more gender-sensitive culture in parliaments, and for gender equality to be better understood, both by MPs and staff, in how parliament functions, in order to really create an environment that is conducive to reform and respects the needs of men, women, and their families in parliament. For us, I think the question of culture, communicating, and breaking the taboo around these rights or this situation is a very important point. We'd like more prime ministers to speak up on these issues and say that it's important to address this.

I'll leave it there. I hope I wasn't too confusing. These were just some of the points we've noticed on this issue in terms of recent developments in parliaments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much. We really appreciate it.

We'll hear from all the witnesses before we get to the questioning rounds.

Now we'll go to Nancy Peckford, the executive director of Equal Voice.

Thank you for coming.

[Nancy Peckford, Executive Director, Equal Voice]

Thank you so much for being here today. It's a pleasure to see so many of you around the table.

As you likely know, Equal Voice Canada is the only national multipartisan organization dedicated to the election of more women. We communicate with tens of thousands of Canadians on a monthly basis who care deeply about gender equality. While we were extremely pleased, as you might imagine, to see this new government's commitment to gender parity in federal cabinet, Equal Voice remains extremely concerned about the under-representation of women, which is both chronic and historic in our federal institution and in many provincial and territorial parliaments.

We did an analysis during the election that suggested that based upon the last five federal election cycles there would not be parity on the ballot for 45 years, based on the one-third of candidates who presented themselves to the five major parties. Further, based upon the outcome of this past federal election and four previous elections, we are looking at 90 years before we attain gender parity in this institution if we take past performance as an indication of future progress.

It's in this spirit that EV is with you today. We're delighted to see that this conversation is happening. It's one that we've been advocating for on the outside for many years and we want to bring you some proposals in the spirit of recognizing that we're dealing with a 150-year-old institution that was conceived before women had the right to vote or stand for federal office. In our view, just like our colleague from Switzerland, this is not a discussion about women, it is a discussion about working smarter not harder, it is about being effective, efficient, and using resources wisely. I think this Parliament has a tremendous opportunity to do things differently and, equally important, to do them well, so we can inspire confidence among Canadians in this most important institution.

In our view, the House of Commons has not fully leveraged innovations that have been widely adopted elsewhere in both public and private sectors. That includes a better use of technology, maximizing teamwork, and allowing for flexibility at critical periods of caregiving.

On average, as you know, MPs are representing approximately 103,000 constituents per riding—I realize this is an average—and you are expected to fulfill many roles: community ambassador, ombudsman, champion, liaison, troubleshooter, legislator, event convenor, spokesperson, party activist, fundraiser, and, increasingly, parent and caregiver among many other roles.

Finally, the average age of the MP is slowly declining, something we are excited about. Before 2011, you may be surprised to know, there were only five women under the age of 40 serving in the House of Commons as compared to 25 male colleagues under the age of 40, which already suggests some inequality. Fortunately, in 2011, 19 women aged 40 and under were elected and then in this Parliament we believe it is the same, though there is no disclosure of birth dates of MPs anymore, so we can't be totally accurate with those statistics.

In our view, to be optimizing their performance MPs should be guided by three principles of work-life balance: sustainability, predictability, and flexibility. With this in mind, we're here today to make five major recommendations.

First, we believe it is necessary to reduce the weekly commute. Canada's federal Parliament sits approximately 125 days per year in a non-election year. That is one-third of the year, the longest of any federal, provincial, or territorial legislature. Despite bringing people here from coast to coast to coast, the average commuting time for an MP outside of the Ottawa, GTA, Montreal corridor is approximately 12 hours driving or flying time, depending on what you do, approximately six hours per one-way trip.

To address this significant commuting burden, EV would urge this committee to consider the following: more consecutive weeks in constituencies. I was here last week when one of the spouses' groups noted the importance of having MPs in their home riding for more than one week to do very important riding work in addition to reconnecting with their family.

We are also interested in the possibility of compressing the parliamentary week by starting earlier on Tuesdays through Thursdays to allow for the possibility of longer but fewer days in Ottawa. This would maximize the time of MPs while they are here, but would not compromise the hours devoted to House business. I don't believe anybody wants that. A compressed Parliament as our IPU colleague just mentioned is now undertaken by several parliaments quite successfully.

In doing so, we think the Hill calendar could potentially be modified so that Mondays and/or Fridays could be treated with more flexibility, given the long commutes from west to east.

Second, we believe there should be an increase to the resources available for staffing among MPs. In our view, in the face of the constant demands on MPs, we believe you are thinly staffed given the high expectations for your engagement as legislators, committee members, ombudsmen, community leaders, troubleshooters, etc. We are asking all of you to bear a considerable burden without what we believe is the necessary support to ensure you have the team around you to be the most effective and responsive you need to be.

Our calculations suggest that most MPs have on average two Hill staff and two riding staff, which equals one staff for every 25,000 constituents if an MP represents a riding of approximately 100,000 people. We would recommend, then, in the life of this Parliament, that you consider devoting additional resources to an MP's office budget to allow for the hiring of one additional staff on the Hill and one in the riding.

Third, we believe this House of Commons needs to end the punitive treatment of new parents and mothers who are MPs. I was greatly disturbed by some of the experiences Christine Moore related here last week in terms of 14-hour drives back to the riding so she could have access to her car, and the challenges she's had navigating the Hill. In our view, it is not appropriate that there is no formal accommodation for women in the later stages of pregnancy, new mothers or parents, and the primary caregivers of a terminally ill parent or child. I believe this needs to end.

EV, as a consequence, supports the call for a minimum of three months of riding-based activity representation for MPs who face these circumstances. As a consequence, it would mean introducing the prospect of proxy or electronic voting for a small cohort of MPs who are in legitimate need of it. As we've heard from our IPU colleagues, it is something that other parliaments have undertaken with some success.

If Canada's Parliament were to go down this road, MPs would have to be given the opportunity to teleconference and provide written comments on bills or debates, among other things. It is an ambitious task, but we believe it can be done.

Upon returning to Parliament, we want to echo our concerns on the lack of access among MPs to child care services on the Hill. As the chair of a day care board in the Ottawa area, I do believe child care spaces and centres can grow and be flexible if they are given the resources to do so. We believe, in anticipation of the fact that there may be more than one or two young infants on the Hill, Centre Block or another close building should be looked at to potentially care for young children six months and older.

Further, we do believe the provision of occasional on-site care in the House for infants under the age of 12 is also required, and attainable, to provide care for a baby during unexpected votes, a committee meeting that goes late, or other unusual circumstances. Again, I don't see this as an impossibility. Equal Voice provides child care at evening events. There is a roster of highly qualified day care providers in this area who I believe could be on call for occasional child care services.

These measures, of course, are not about reducing the amount an MP works but about facilitating, recognizing, and valuing the other work MPs are doing.

I'd like to wrap up by saying clearly, however, that this is not just about the structure of Parliament. It is also about the tone and language of politics. We have heard from many women and men that they are turned off by the kind of leadership they see on display in the House from time to time, particularly during question period. Other legislatures in Canada have eliminated the banging on tables and significantly reduced the heckling MPs dish out to their opponents. While theatrical, we think it is time to revisit these behaviours once and for all to address what we think is a reputational crisis in the federal political arena.

In conclusion, apart from this study, it is our view that a regular five-year review by this committee of House practices to assess them for their flexibility and reasonability is imperative. We think you can come up with predefined criteria based upon the literature of work-life balance.

We know this has been done before and that other modifications have been made in the past that have made the lives of MPs significantly easier. In the fall, you joined one of five countries that have gender parity in cabinet. We are regarded as a leader, and it is now time to lead on gender-sensitive Parliaments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Now we'll move on to Dr. Gary Levy. Thank you for joining us.

[Dr. Gary Levy, As an Individual]

Thank you for the invitation to appear. I suspect I was invited because of an interview I gave questioning the idea of changing the parliamentary calendar to a four-day week. In fact, I think a good argument can be made for that change, but I have not heard it so far in your deliberations.

You don't lose much by not sitting on Fridays. There are no votes in the House. Committees normally do not meet, few ministers are in question period, and many members are on their way to the airport before the House rises. But the idea has not been well received in the coverage I've seen in the media. Perhaps my presentation can help to explain why.

In 1982 I worked for the committee that brought in the first parliamentary calendar. It was 160 days, which replaced an average of 175 days when Parliament operated without a fixed calendar. The present version provides for a maximum of 135 days, but in the last decade the House has only sat as many as 129 days on one occasion, and in many years it sat less than 100 days. Put another way, you have a calendar which at best provides for six months on and six months off. If you came back earlier after Labour Day and after the new year and eliminated all but two break weeks, one in November and one at Easter, you could have a calendar of about 160 days with no Fridays.

I know members are unhappy when journalists or academics refer to break weeks as holidays, and I know all of you work hard during these constituency weeks, but they are holidays from Parliament. They are holidays from holding the government to account, and they're holidays basically from committee hearings.

The break weeks may be much loved, particularly by ministers who don't have to face question period, but I suggest there are three things wrong with our very generous approach to break weeks, aside from creating the erroneous impression that you're on holidays. First, I think break weeks encourage obstruction, because if the opposition can delay a bill until the Thursday before a break week, they have effectively stopped it for 10 days, and sometimes more. The result has been a dramatic increase in the use of time allocation motions. Even the dreaded omnibus bills are partly due to the limited time that Parliament is sitting. If nothing changes, I suspect the government, despite its promises, will have to result to both extensive time allocation and, perhaps, even omnibus bills before this Parliament is over.

Second, I think break weeks are really part of the permanent election campaign and a huge advantage to incumbents. They are essentially the importation of an American practice instituted because congressmen are always looking for money for the next election, and they use break weeks for constant rounds of fundraising. We have a different system and different election laws. I believe if constituency events and fundraising were focused on Fridays and the House met with fewer interruptions, the result would be a more functional as well as a more family-friendly Parliament.

A third point, which is perhaps a bit theoretical, is that break weeks reflect a view of the member's role as a delegate who primarily represents the view of his or her constituents. This is perhaps obvious, but there is a more traditional view of the role of an MP, first articulated by Edmund Burke. He thought the role of a parliamentarian was to exercise his or her independent judgment on the public issues of the day. Of course, that judgment is informed by views of constituents, but in this age of communication and social media, is it necessary to be in the riding in order to know the views of one's constituents?

A final point regarding the calendar is that I think a good bit of family friendliness could be injected simply by using pairing, which seems to have fallen into disuse. This was mentioned briefly by the clerk at your last meeting, but I think it bears repeating. A member on either the government or the opposition side advises his or her whip about an unavoidable conflict. The whip calls his counterpart on the other side, and an agreement is struck whereby one member from the other party will absent himself or herself from the vote and this will be indicated in the journals as being paired. As I said, that could be used a lot more than it is, or has been in the last decade.

I don't have any great knowledge of dual chambers, but I looked at the British Standing Orders, and they appear to be used partly for what we call private members' business and partly for questioning ministers. In the Canadian context, I could see a dual chamber used for specific debates. For example, the budget debate could be split and take half the time. The same could apply to the throne speech. Parts of private members' business, excluding the vote, could be moved to the parallel chamber.

However, my real question is, what are you trying to accomplish? If you're looking for ways for members to get their views on record, you could accomplish this by allowing members to append their speeches to Hansard. However, if the purpose is to free up more House time for discussion of legislation, I think there are better approaches.

Why not limit second reading debate to one day? This sounds draconian, but that is the practice in Britain. After the minister introduces and gives reasons for supporting a bill and the opposition party critics give reasons for opposing it, I think you only need a few more speeches by interested members, and then the bill should go to committee. Of course, there could be and should be exceptions to a one-day rule when bills are matters of conscience and members have a legitimate interest in putting forth personal views that differ from those of the party leaders.

Finally, let me conclude with a couple of general observations. In the last decade, Parliament became the subject of many criticisms, “dysfunctional” being perhaps the adjective used most frequently to describe our most important democratic institution. I hope this new Parliament will address some of the issues that led to those criticisms.

One such area is question period. I'm not sure if a British-style Prime Minister's question period is part of your mandate, but I hope you can push that forward.

Another problem is non-confidence motions, because the timing is largely controlled by the government. This led directly to two unfortunate Parliamentary incidents in the last decade. This problem could easily be corrected by changes to the Standing Orders.

I'm getting away from purely family-friendly issues, so I will stop here. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much to all the witnesses.

Just to remind people, it's not just a study on a family-friendly Parliament but also a study on a more efficient, inclusive type of Parliament. It's for a lot more things than just families.

Nancy will be happy to know that two weeks ago, we opened an Equal Voice chapter in the Yukon in my riding. My commute is 28 hours a week.

Gary will know that Edmund Burke lost a number of elections with that philosophy.

We'll start the questioning with Ms. Vandenbeld.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much.

This question is for Ms. Peckford and Ms. Jabre. Kareen, it's good to see you again after all the work I did in a previous life with IPU, especially on these issues.

I know that both your organizations have done a lot of work when it comes to the barriers to women running for office. Some of those include the self-selection of women choosing not to enter politics and also the problem with the retention of women, in the sense that a number of people will say they don't want to continue. A lot of that goes to the impact political life has on families and the added caregiving responsibilities that women often have.

I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the deterrent effect on running for office that the hours and the impact on families could have on women and other demographic groups, as well as the impact that has on the representativeness of a Parliament and the number of voices that are reflected in Parliament.

[Kareen Jabre]

Thank you.

First, it's great to see you again. It's really nice to be in contact and working together again.

In general, at the IPU all the surveys we've carried out over the past 15 years have really highlighted the challenges for women running. We've also surveyed candidates and within groups of civil society, etc. The first thing that comes up as the first challenge or cause for the hesitation of women is the anticipated difficulty in managing family and work responsibilities.

You'll be interested to know that we asked the same question to men and to men MPs, and this issue, sadly enough, did not come up as one of their major challenges.

This is why I come back to the change in culture. For us, whatever we're going to do and whatever reform is carried out, you're going to have to have reform in the public space, but there's going to have to be reform in the private space as well. It's going to be linked to redefining gender roles in families as well. If this part of the reform does not take place, then you're going to have a limitation in terms of the impact of whatever policy you take at the public level.

However, it is definitely one of the biggest deterrents. This is why we are so happy to see this debate, and not only for women: it's becoming a deterrent as well for young MPs and younger people who are interested in running. You have an eager younger population, but they are also realizing that they have lots of other objectives that they want to carry out in their thirties, or whatever it is, whether it's studies or families, etc. and they wonder how they are going to do that all together.

I think this is definitely a key issue in terms of participation and having more inclusive parliaments.

[Nancy Peckford]

Maybe I'll ask Grace, who's on the line. She's just finished a 15-country study, where she interviewed 90 female elected representatives from countries the world over. She could speak to some of the insights that elected representatives gave her in terms of the deterrent effect and the sustainability of parliamentary life.

[Grace Lore, Senior Researcher, Equal Voice]

Yes, certainly. Balancing family and caregiving with being a representative was something that came up in all of the seven countries that I was conducting interviews in.

To the questions of deterrence and retention, a number of women reported that if they could, if they had the opportunity, they would not do it again, both because of the difficulties in balancing family and being a representative, but also because of the points of tone, language, and aggressiveness. There was a lot of concern about their children watching them participate in this or fall victim to some of the more aggressive styles of politics. Again, it's both the structure but also the culture of politics.

There is an interesting point to be made about deterrence and retention and dealing with these issues. For example, a lot of women in my study reported that being asked about this all the time—and this being a question about women in politics—to some extent recreated the problem as their problem rather than a broader problem, as was said, for younger MPs, or men who are also navigating having families and being representatives. At the same time, it is fundamentally a gender issue. It is deterring, primarily, women, as the IPU study in particular finds the difference in reporting that as a deterrent.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'm interested that both of you talked about the tone or the culture, and particularly decorum in question period and the heckling as one thing that is deterring women and affecting retention. Do you think that an effort to minimize the heckling and to minimize the aggressive tone of politics would actually lead to more women running for Parliament?

[Nancy Peckford]

There was an interesting study commissioned by the Manning conference, in fact, undertaken by André Turcotte, a well-known, widely respected pollster. He interviewed a small subset of leading businesswomen, many of whom said they were less concerned about work-life balance issues in terms of contemplating a run for federal office, and much more concerned about the culture of politics and whether or not they could thrive in that environment, and whether or not they could recreate the success they were having as leading businesswomen.

I think very ambitious women, in some respects, have made the adjustments required to accommodate family and other personal obligations, but they come up against a political institution that they think may not be receptive to their leadership styles, which I think often are more collaborative, do leverage better teamwork, espouse a kind of innovation that I don't think we always see associated with our federal Parliament. I think that is certainly something to keep in mind.

To answer your question, Ms. Vandenbeld, I believe, and certainly our organization believes that to reduce the visual...that most Canadians see, which is banging on tables, would in fact be a highly symbolic gesture to showing Canadians that in fact we're a serious body and that we take the issues of Canadians very seriously. We see it nowhere else. We don't see it in corporate Canada, we don't see it in schools, we only see it in Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Mr. Reid, who's sharing his time with Mr. Richards, for a seven-minute round.

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

Thank you. I'd like to address a couple of questions to Mr. Levy, if I could.

You didn't say this, but I got the impression, when you were talking about a four-day week and a larger number of weeks, that effectively you're suggesting we ought to have the same number of sitting days, but if our weeks are 20% shorter, we would have 20% more sitting weeks. Is that a correct characterization of what you're saying, or are you saying something different?

[Dr. Gary Levy]

What I'm saying is that at present you don't sit long enough, and that the proposal to take out Fridays and simply add those hours onto Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, leaving you the same number of hours, doesn't resolve that issue. I'm saying that I think we'd have a better Parliament if you sat longer, more continuously.

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

Now I am completely uncertain as to what you are saying.

Are you supportive or not supportive of terminating the Fridays?

[Dr. Gary Levy]

Yes, I am, if it is accompanied by a longer overall sitting period.

Now, I just pulled 160 out because that was a previous standard, but if it was 150 or more.... We are in the low 120s now, I think, in a normal year.

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

I think of it as being, essentially, that we sit 26 weeks of the year, exactly half of the year, and then we have 26 weeks of something other than sitting—work for some people, and maybe play for others.

Essentially, there would be more days of actually sitting in the House of Commons, whatever that works out to.

Am I right, then, that you think the fact that our Fridays are structured as they are means that they are not fully functional days, and that effectively we should either make them into normal days like a Thursday or a Wednesday, or eliminate the Fridays and add more Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays?

[Dr. Gary Levy]

I don't think there is much you can do about Fridays, given the country that we have and given that you have to be in your constituency. Some people have these horrific commutes, as has been mentioned. I would hope that by having a four-day week you wouldn't turn Thursdays now into Fridays, in other words with no votes, no committees, and so on. You would have to see how that works.

If Thursday was a normal day, as it is now, and Friday was off, I don't think you would be losing that much.

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

There is something I have to say that nobody has brought up before; it is just my observation. People say that they are constantly in demand back in their riding. I have a rural riding with many small communities—the classic place that makes many demands on your time—but in my experience, when I say that I can't be at someone's event because the House is sitting, I have never once in 16 years up here had someone say to me that this is not good enough. Everybody accepts that this is my first job. Of course, there were times when people came from all over the country by train and could not get back.

It strikes me that more availability inevitably means more demands on you, and if you aren't available simply because you have to stay in Ottawa for the job, there would be a reasonable accommodation on the part of constituents. Maybe I just got nicer constituents than most people. I actually do think that, but others will disagree.

I have one last thing. You mentioned the idea of one day for second reading, except for special bills. We all understand that Bill C-14, the assisted suicide bill, is a matter of conscience. They are not always so clearly distinguished this way. Do you have any tests that would be applied to allow us to tell when a bill is of the ordinary run and when it is not of the ordinary run?

[Dr. Gary Levy]

I think it's more about whether it is a free vote. Something that is a free vote is usually a free vote because it is a matter of conscience. I think that is the case with that bill. Most bills are not, so I don't think it would come up very often.

However, I do see that as a big problem with your schedule. You have two break weeks between now and the time when that bill is supposed to be passed, according to the Supreme Court. The number of members who will be able to speak is going to be limited by that, and maybe further limited by time allocation.

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

In all fairness, if we take this seriously enough we could say we are sitting here. This is a matter that overrides the need for me to go home and attend maple fest in my riding, in my case, and that sort of thing. Alternatively, it supercedes my need to go home and get a good night's sleep every single night during this period. I could stay here and give my speech to the House of Commons at one in the morning or two in the morning, if need be.

Those are reasonable things that could be done. You wouldn't want to do them for every bill, but it could be done here.

[Dr. Gary Levy]

Yes, I remember the capital punishment debate, which was before we had a calendar. Almost everybody wanted to speak. I think well over a hundred members spoke on that. I don't think anybody thought of imposing a time allocation or limiting that in any way. It was a very important debate. Many people felt very passionately about it, and the proper thing to do was to let everybody speak. I don't think you can do that anymore, the way we are set up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Mr. Richards.