Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 19th, 2016

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

We all went through this process. We all are legislators, and we know that the majority of our work is here in this place. That's what we do. You did rhyme off a bunch of things that we are. We're fundraisers. We're advocates. That's all true.

I agree with what Mr. Reid said. I was a political staffer for 11 years before this and when I said that my previous boss couldn't attend an event because he was in Ottawa, nobody said, “Oh, well, that's it, this is ridiculous.” I think they recognize that the job is here. You're a legislator. You need to be in that place doing your job.

I do agree with Mr. Christopherson. You can't be “Ottawashed”, if you will. You do have to get back to your riding—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

—but I think there's a delicate balance.

Also, I think that taking Fridays off or removing that sitting, with all that's going on around the country—job losses—just sends the wrong message. I think there are other ways to do this in terms of structuring votes after QP. We're all there anyway, and I think that's an easy way to rearrange your schedule.

Also, when we make changes, we have to recognize the flip side. There are a lot of people who already have moved their families here, and if we change something, that might affect the lives of those who have made that decision to bring them here to work. I agree that no solution is the best, that they all kind of suck, if you will, but “ya take the best ya got” and make a decision based on that.

I will also say, as a man, that family life did come in. That was the one thing that was thought of first. Before I ran for the nomination, before I ran for the election, and after I got elected, it was all factored in. I know there were a couple of men on our side—James Moore, Peter MacKay, and my predecessor, Barry Devolin—who made the decision not to run again because of their families. I think this is an issue. As times change, more men are getting involved in family life.

[Nancy Peckford]

Just to be clear, we think that what's key is flexibility. Whether it's Fridays, or Mondays, or some combination, I think it's the flexibility that matters. I would also suggest that I think Parliament has an obligation to structure it, and to not leave it to the subjective discretion of a whip that somebody gets a Wednesday off if they need it. I actually think it's incumbent upon you to create structures that are tenable for all 338 of you. As for what that comes down to, that is really your purview. Friday is one way to potentially accomplish that, but it's not the only day. I think it's the flexibility that's important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, for five minutes.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

First of all, thanks to all of you for your presentations today. It's certainly food for thought, and even though perhaps it's not all one-sided—it's a mix of information—it's really good for debate.

First and foremost, the government right now is not looking at eliminating Fridays as the absolute option, or having Fridays off. I really have a problem when I hear “Fridays off” because, again, it's going home and working in our ridings. But rather, our goal is really to achieve gender parity in the House, number one; and number two, to make sure that our Parliament is more inclusive. To achieve that is to have more family-friendly policies put in place.

I have no children, but six years ago I was asked to run for office and the reason I didn't was that I was taking care of my elderly mother who suffers from dementia. At the time when I calculated everything I just didn't think I could do it.

This time around I was asked again and I still had to shuffle things around, but I was encouraged that our party was looking at going towards these more family-friendly policies.

I just wonder if perhaps you could elaborate on the positive impacts that a compressed workweek or more family-friendly policies would have on recruiting more women in politics, having a more inclusive Parliament. How would it also benefit a work-life balance for the present parliamentarians who are here?

[Nancy Peckford]

I think anyone who is running doesn't want to shirk caregiving responsibilities, whether it's with a young family.... I have three small children, now four, six, and eight, and of course have the luxury of living outside Ottawa, but I still do a commute. Obviously I think we're trying to balance women being seen as professional women, as well as caregivers.

Obviously the work women do in this House is moving that stick forward because women are able to take up that professional and occupational space and show other generations of women that it's possible.

In our view, a compressed week that has been undertaken in other parliaments, combined with some technological innovation, allow you to be effective and engaged in your riding and could potentially allow some of the work that's happening in the House, be it at committees like this, where we're hearing from Ms. Jabre from across the world.... I think there are ways to lever technology so you don't always have to do the commute on a week where, in fact, your intensive caregiving responsibilities are amplified for some reason or another.

I think it goes back to flexibility and ensuring that MPs are able to achieve a very difficult balance. Nobody believes this is a utopia. Everybody understands that you all stood for election of your own volition. But that doesn't mean that we punish people who are here because of particular life circumstances that allow them to be human, that allow them to be the reasons they're here, which is as parents, community activists, caregivers, good neighbours—all of those things.

That's why the compressed week is interesting to us. It's been undertaken in other parliaments. It seems to have some use and effect. It's not deteriorating debate in any significant way. But it's one option of several.

We want you to be the best you can be as both a member of Parliament and as the person you are in the lives you lead with families and in your communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ms. Jabre, do you want to comment on that question?

[Kareen Jabre]

No, I don't have much to add. I think you've said it all.

Again, I come back to the compressed week issue. It's how you organize it, how much you allow for flexibility, and how much you use potentials that are out there. It's to strike a balance between being present in Parliament, being present in your constituencies, and being present in your families.

There is no miracle solution, that's for sure, and there are always going to be some people who will benefit more or not from any system you adopt. But I think the question is to offer opportunities and use tools that are out there. As Ms. Peckford said at the beginning, it is an opportunity today to reform the way you do your work, and maybe by organizing the debates differently, by fixing things in a different way, by allowing MPs to be visible in a different way by not necessarily being in the room, that will allow us this communication and this presence both in the media and in the constituencies. There are many ways to creatively meet the same objectives, but in a different way.

I don't have the right solution for you, but I do think there are ways of using the advantages of our time today to better meet your needs.

[Grace Lore]

Perhaps I could just briefly add something.

In addition to thinking about compressed workweeks or flexibility, Nancy mentioned in her opening presentation the accommodation during critical care periods, whether caring for newborns or for terminally ill family members. This does disproportionately fall to women. Having some accommodation over a set period of time, for specific small groups that need it, can leverage that technology, can use creative solutions to enable that and make it possible.

I'm actually eight months pregnant, so I couldn't be there in person, but I am able to call in today, right? There are options, in addition to the compressed workweek, that I think would be beneficial at critical periods.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Mr. Christopherson, three minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'll give just a few thoughts, then, and if there's time for some comments, fine. We see the end coming fairly soon.

First of all, I think one of the best things we've done is a simple matter: having more votes right after question period. What a difference it is not having to come back or to break where you are for 6:00 or 6:30, which just takes the guts out of the evening when you still have receptions. That was a great move, and it didn't cost anything. The surprising thing is that we didn't do it a long time ago. It just makes so much sense.

Next, I appreciate the shout-out on the NDP procedure. I was trying to figure out a way to do that without looking like I was bragging.

There are two things on that. One is that there is also a reporting obligation on the part of the riding back to the party where they haven't gone, where they don't have candidates from under-represented groups, showing what the search procedure was, just to ensure that it actually was done.

The second thing I'll say, just to put the human angle in here, is that not all the ridings are real happy about that. It's not an easy one. There are a lot of ridings where they know who their candidate is, or they have an idea, and they look at this thing and go, “What's this nonsense they're sending us now? We have to do all this kind of stuff.” You will get that kind of push-back, and it's no different in the NDP.

It comes down to leadership. It takes the top-of-the-house to lead it at a conference or convention, to get it as part of the fabric of the party, and then it's baked into the way you do things. My understanding is that there are fewer and fewer complaints now as we've gone on. It's just become part of the culture. But I'll tell you, in the beginning, holy smokes; you'd thought you'd ask them to give up their firstborn.

Next is the flexibility. I just wanted to mention that I was talking to our whip's assistant, and one of the advantages of having Friday the way we do it—I just put this out there to chew on—is that in and of itself it provides some flexibility. Because we don't hold voting that day, it's the same as every other day, but it does allow people different opportunities to come in and make speeches they otherwise wouldn't, or to trade off days so they can go back into their ridings. We never have enough time in our ridings. You can set up a meeting. You can maybe set it up for a Friday and get a switch, even if you're scheduled to be on House duty. There is some flexibility that the Friday being in there provides us, which we would lose if we took it out.

The other thing on that is, look, colleagues from all parties are workaholics. You know what? It's really geographically disadvantaged no matter how you do it. I can work late, late, late, staying in with family members at a barbeque or something, or hitting a backyard thing, or a 50th anniversary on my way out of town. I can massage it, because relatively I'm not that far, compared with some.

There will always be those who are coming in on the red-eye. My heart bleeds for my colleagues from B.C. when I see them on a Monday morning. Without saying a word, I can tell which ones went home and which ones stayed, just by looking at their faces.

So a lot of this is really the disadvantage of being further away from the capital, in that you'll always have more of these problems than we will.

[Nancy Peckford]

Let's come to terms with that. We're the second largest country in the world. Maybe that does mean that you condense and cluster your Hill weeks to maximize time and to ensure that everybody gets their turn to debate. I think we come to terms with it. I don't think we need to passively accept that one of the largest countries in the world has to fling their MPs from coast to coast to coast on such a regular basis. That may not have a meaningful impact on sitting days, but I think you can do it differently.

I would beg everybody in this room, please do not be partisan on this Friday issue. I know it's turning partisan, and we are not taking a hard and fast line on whether it's Fridays or Mondays but for the women and men who are in this Parliament and in future parliaments, do the right thing, whatever it is, and find a way to make the commute tenable. I think that is the ask from the outside as the organization that sees and is saddened by a very slow and incremental rise in the percentage of women in this House. Ten years ago it was 22%, and now it's 26%. That is not huge movement. That's a slow movement.

I don't mean to intervene, I respect you greatly, but I think we have to deal with it. The human cost is, in our view, on all MPs. It's not fair, and the price is extremely high.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you. You ended my remarks. I appreciate you jumping in.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's a good way to end.

Before we ask the witnesses if they have any last quick closing comment on something they missed, does anyone have a pressing question on the committee they didn't get in?

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

I want to go back to this idea of spending time in the constituency versus on the Hill and ask about the fact that the modern era, particularly the era of social media and participation... I mean, internationally, IPU now talks about participatory politics.

The expectations on the part of the population of citizens to be engaged, to have a voice, and to have a say, have gone up significantly in the past decade or two. Not being in the constituency today, as opposed to 20 years ago, has far more implications because people do expect that kind of engagement. When you can talk a bit about the trends over time, I remember Ms. Jabre said that internationally the trend is that more time is being spent in constituencies and engaging populations because of this change toward more participatory politics and the involvement of citizens in politics.

[Kareen Jabre]

The trend has been to acknowledge there has been a gap and a weakness in politics. The way it is done is that you need to be much more inclusive and bring in the voice of your constituencies in your work.

That's been more present as you say, but what parliaments are doing more and more is using IT to get this participation in. That's where even Twitter is used in a constructive way to listen to people and to get their feedback and their input in whatever work is being carried out in Parliament. This is a way to respond to this need for a more inclusive political process, both in terms of being more present, but also compensated by a better use of IT and new tools of communication in order to bridge this gap.

This is definitely the next challenge for MPs. In part it's to remain relevant to their constituents and to not be completely an elite that is up there on the Hill and not present. That's definitely a challenge that you're going to have to constantly address. That's why transforming the way you work, the way you communicate, and how you reach out using tools is considered very crucial in making work more effective and more relevant.

[Dr. Gary Levy]

I think Ms. Vandenbeld may well be right in her analysis of the impact of social media and the need to be in the constituencies, but I'm not sure that is going to lead to better Parliament or better public policy.

Since we're nearly at the end of the meeting, let me toss out a controversial idea and say that I'm heartened by what's going on in the Senate. Maybe we'll have a Senate with people who will have expertise and who will have the time to spend studying public policy issues and doing it in a less partisan way. This may devolve more to the Senate and less to the House.

That's an ongoing issue, and I'm sure that will set Mr. Christopherson off.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Nancy Peckford]

I know Grace wanted to add something to this.

[Grace Lore]

Someone mentioned that some MPs have their families move to Ottawa. My research suggests this is more common among men, both in Canada and in the U.K. It's easier for them to move their families than it is for women, so I think there again the flexibility and thinking more broadly about ways to combine families does matter for a number of women in politics.

I think we also talked a lot about compressed workweeks and hours and Fridays, but I think there is still the critical question about critical caregiving time, either at the start or the end of life. Because this disproportionately falls on women, it should be addressed to make a more inclusive parliament. It can be done using technology and by recognizing the work that's also going on in the constituency at the time.

[Nancy Peckford]

To add to this very briefly, Sheila Copps is on our national advisory board; she's one of the reasons I'm in politics. She was one of my role models when I was growing up in Newfoundland; I have tremendous respect for her. I believe her experience of a family-friendly legislature is unique to her because at the time, she was the only woman in the House with a baby. Obviously, people were very personable and human and compassionate about her need to juggle in an age where you couldn't even bring an infant into the House of Commons.

It was said last week with one baby maybe you can make something relatively family-friendly, but try five babies in the House; it's not going to work. You need to anticipate the very real possibility that women will give birth during this Parliament; men will become new dads, and there is a need to be in close proximity to your small child in those very early months. It is about the children too, and having had three children, I can tell you that access to primary caregivers in those very early weeks and months is critical. Having to go back and forth from the Hill to your riding, especially when it's very far away, has as much of a toll on a small child, on a baby, as it does on the MP.

It's not ideal; I don't believe it's ethical to be requiring women, postpartum, to be doing that kind of commute. I think it's incumbent upon you to come up with the solution that won't only meet the need of NDP Christine Moore; her kid will age out and she'll be able to manage what she's been doing now. Upon the birth of any other child to an MP in this House, I think you're going to have to deal with it, and I would hope that this committee has the courage to anticipate and put structures into play that make sense for mother, dad, and child.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do any of the witnesses have any closing remarks or something that hasn't been covered already?

Thank you, everyone, for being here. It's been very enlightening with a lot of diverse opinions. We really appreciate it, and if you forgot something feel free to send it in writing to the committee.

We will excuse the witnesses.

I've raised this a couple of times and we've all had the chance to look at it, but I'm wondering if it's possible to deal with, as the Speaker suggested, giving him the ability, in a very short time, I think it's within a week, to set the hours that make sense when there's an emergency in Parliament. We could have an emergency any day.

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

I was supposed to talk to Andrew Scheer and I forgot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. Let me ask you another question.

We got a letter this morning—it seems fairly administrative to me—from the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who would like to reflect the change in wording that's used with the department to change to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. Basically changing the word “aboriginal” to “indigenous”, which is a standing order change, so we have to recommend it.