Evidence of meeting #16 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parliaments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I think I'll just request a future round, Mr. Chair. A minute is not really enough time to get in the questions that I would like.
April 19th, 2016 / 11:40 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Very good, thank you, Chair.
Thank you all very much for your presentations. It's helpful when witnesses disagree because it gives us an opportunity to get into some back and forth, which I'm going to try and prompt in a moment.
At the risk of regretting saying this, but in defence of heckling—
11:40 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
11:40 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Obviously anything that is intended to drown out someone who's speaking, regardless of who it is, that's not even heckling. That's just plain obscene, rude, and unacceptable behaviour. I have to tell you, Chair, my experience is—and I've been doing this for a long time now, in all three orders of government—I'm always mindful of the fact that whenever I'm in session, whether it's city council, or a legislative chamber, or the House of Commons, that the debates we're having, the procedures that we have, and all of that replaced the way we used to decide who has power and who gets to decide things, and that used to be on the battlefield. You can't argue there aren't a lot of emotions going on when you're on the battlefield. To me, a good heckle is like a good political cartoon. It causes you to laugh, but it underscores the issue you're trying to amplify.
I just want to throw that out there. I think it has a role. I think of things that matter. If someone was giving a speech, and I was in the House, and they're going on and on about how the steel industry is yesterday's history, and because of the environmental issues we ought not to be even looking at the steel industry, I have to tell you that my constituents expect me to do more than just sit there at that moment. There has to be an acknowledgement there's a certain amount of reaction that's said, and it's part of it.
I understand the point that's being made, that it becomes such a hostile place, but to me it's only like that when it's in the extreme. Anyone who doubts my commitment to that can ask Sandra Pupatello, who was a former high-profile Ontario cabinet minister when I was deputy speaker, and what I did in that House when the opposition, males, late at night, drowned her out. Ask her. I'm there on that part of it, big-time.
I guess this idea we would always, without exception, sit very quietly, like we were in church, to me that doesn't reflect the reality of the place and what it's for. I just throw that out there because I'm a glutton for punishment.
I want to go on about the eight months, because of course it seems to be at odds with where Madam Peckford was in terms of more back-to-back in the riding. I'm not sure the two are marriageable, if you will—there's probably a better word. Madam Peckford, if you wouldn't mind, I'll give you an opportunity to respond because maybe I'm misinterpreting. Maybe you're seeing something that Mr. Levy's proposing that isn't that far, but it seemed to me they're two different concepts. One was the focus on the consistency here in the House, and the other one was a little more consistency in the riding, which common sense might suggest would be a hard balance to achieve.
Your thoughts, Nancy, please.
11:45 a.m.
Executive Director, Equal Voice
I think you're very capable parliamentarians, and I think with some work you could marry the two, if you will. I think it's the toll of 28-hour commutes that is particularly objectionable. If there's a way to cluster more riding time, apart from summers, obviously an extended period in the riding around the winter holiday, Christmas, as it's known by many. I think if you could look at other periods for which, in fact, maybe you do more two-week periods in the riding so you get a chance to situate, adapt, acclimatize, and meet the needs of your constituents, but also meet the needs of your family and potentially cluster more time back here on the Hill, I think it's possible.
I think it takes some creativity. It means House leaders and others have to sit down and look differently at the schedule. I think it may be doable, but I defer to Mr. Levy for further comment.
If you don't mind, I wouldn't mind saying a little about heckling.
11:45 a.m.
Executive Director, Equal Voice
I come from a very emotional and animated Newfoundland family of the Peckford ilk. I know all about emotion in debates and I appreciate some of your sentiments.
Where I think it's problematic for us—and I know you know this, but just to have it on the record—is when it looks like bullying, when it feels like bullying, when there's humiliation, denigration, and a diminishment of one's voice. I think that for women who come into a House of Commons that's predominantly male—we have 250 men, 88 women—I think some of that heckling takes on a tenor that's not necessarily gendered, but has a gendered effect.
I also think there are introverted male MPs who don't in fact enjoy that to and fro in the same way that you might.
I think you can strive for better. Obviously, the Speaker is constantly seeking a balance between letting people respond and giving people a chance to say what they need to say. I think you can set a higher standard and, more to your point, I believe it would be impactful and that it would make a difference.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Fair enough. Before I go to Mr. Levy I want to put this out.
In my experience, two things happen when you're away from home and family. You come home on the weekend, and rather than life becoming normal for your family, quite frankly, you're the interruption to “normal”.
I know it sounds funny, but after enough years, that becomes a problem in terms of how you're perceived by your family. When you have an apartment in Toronto, or Ottawa as is the case now, the risk is that that becomes home, that you start thinking about your apartment away from home as your home.
I even catch myself saying to my assistant Tyler, “Well, I'm going to go to this meeting. I'm going to drop in to those two receptions and then I'm going to head home.” I try and catch myself. That's not home. That's my apartment. My home is in Hamilton with my wife.
The ability to stay in one place is important from a constituency perspective, but if you're in Ottawa for too long at a time, even with weekend breaks, that becomes your “normal” rather than your real home, which should be your “normal”. I know I'm out of time. Thanks, Chair.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you, David.
Because there are not a lot of westerners on this committee, I'm glad you raised the point, Nancy, about the three-hour time difference. It takes an hour every day, so by the time you readjust it's time to go home again.
We'll go to Mr. Graham who's sharing with Ms. Sahota for a seven-minute round.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Chair.
I was trying to imagine what military role Mr. Christopherson would have had in the war scenario that would have existed prior to legislative bodies and I think it would have been the regimental bagpiper, but I digress.
Mr. Levy, I have a few questions for you. If, thanks to technology, it is not necessary to be in the riding to know the views of constituents, then doesn't it follow that it's not necessary to be in Ottawa to share those views?
11:50 a.m.
As an Individual
Yes, but you're in Ottawa for other reasons, for question period, to hold the government to account, and to have committee meetings.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Right, but if we can use technology to have less time in the riding so we can have more time in Ottawa, then we can also use technology to have more time in the riding and less time in Ottawa. The argument doesn't necessarily flow and that's the point I'm trying to get at.
You can't overstate the role of social media. In a riding like mine, the biggest issue we have is a lack of Internet access. I live in a rural riding. It's not very far from here. My riding is big enough that it takes as long to get between the constituency offices as it does to get to my riding from Ottawa.
What would you say to rural regions that don't have the benefits of these modern technologies that would allow us to spend less time there? I have 43 municipalities. I have to spend every minute that I possibly can there. The idea of spending less time in the riding is an anathema to me. I need that time there. I'm not spending enough as it is.
11:50 a.m.
As an Individual
It goes back to the old debate about the role of members of Parliament. Some are primarily constituency people; that's what they're interested in. Others are more interested in the policy debates that go on in Ottawa.
I'm not sure if we can resolve that, but I think, in looking at things like the calendar and the use of time, we have to come up with a compromise. I'm not sure that six months on versus six months off is the best compromise.
I'm suggesting more like eight months on and four months in the constituency, but people will disagree upon this depending on how they see the role of the member of Parliament. I don't think there is a hard and fast answer to this.
Related to that, on the whole issue of family friendliness, I think there are 338 members of Parliament, and I expect there are 338 different approaches to what is family friendly for them. I'm not sure we should be constructing things like the calendar to deal with an issue of family friendliness.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
If we don't, we'll have fewer and fewer families who are here.
I think the debate needs to take place on Ms. Peckford's points on these things. The calendar is one of the most important avenues for how we control our lives here. The fact is, I was late for this meeting because I still had to be in the House. I had to rush here. If we compress that even further, my life is going to be rather chaotic, as if it isn't sufficiently already.
I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of why you'd want us to sit an additional 25 or 30 days, because you're saying you want it to get back up to 160 which seems like a lot.
11:55 a.m.
As an Individual
As I say, that was reduced from 175 before there was a calendar, but I think it has to do with the time available. I don't think all the time allocation helps the atmosphere in Parliament. In fact, coming back to what Mr. Christopherson was saying about heckling, I don't see heckling as a problem but rather as a symptom that the place is not working the way it should, and there are many reasons in the Standing Orders why it's not working. The one I'm focusing on is the lack of time available to have a proper balance between the government's ability to govern and the opposition's ability to oppose.
Looking back on changes in the 1990s, when we went to this 125-day year, we lost that proper balance. As a result, we have a much more combative aggressive Parliament because there's not enough time to get things done that should be done properly, maybe without as much time allocation and as much pressure for the limited time available.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
One final question before I pass over to Ms. Sahota.
You're suggesting that we reduce second reading debate to a much shorter period of time. If we do that, do you still see a need to have more sitting days? It seems like you're getting it from both ends.
11:55 a.m.
As an Individual
The idea I'd like to leave you with is that the use of time is a whole package. Obviously, one thing is tied to another. If you limit second reading debate, that implies you want to have more time in committee and maybe this is going to need reforms to the way our committees work. So you kind of have to look at the whole thing together. I'd agree with that.
But as a general point, having so many speeches saying the same thing over and over again, often written by departmental officials on the same bill, I don't think adds a lot to the atmosphere in Parliament. That time could be used more productively and in a better way, and this would lead to a better atmosphere, and a better atmosphere would lead to less heckling, although maybe not no heckling.
The same can be said for the change to question period that I mentioned. If we had a Prime Minister's question period, a lot of the focus, the heckling, would be on that day, and the other days, where you'd have a rotation of ministers, I think would be much calmer with much less heckling and much less attention from the media, and would be better overall for the public interest.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Thank you all for being here. It has been quite enlightening to hear all the different ideas that you have. When I first decided to run for this position, I had a very prominent female political figure ask me why I would do this to my family. I was quite shocked, because I thought she was also doing it to hers. She said that if I was interested in politics, I should stick to municipal or provincial politics, that federal politics may not be best for somebody with a young family, that I would really destroy my family.
I thought about this for quite some time and that idea is definitely out there. It is why we see fewer women participating in federal politics, I believe. We keep asking the question, why aren't women more involved? Why aren't they getting into federal politics? I think it's quite clear. It is quite demanding, the role you have, although it's constantly changing, and each family is trying to adapt and change the role of what each partner does in terms of family care.
As we stated before, a lot of demands were traditionally placed on the woman and it's quite interesting.... Nancy, you mentioned that we are the longest sitting federal parliament, one of the longest, and definitely the longest sitting legislature compared with provincial legislatures. However, Mr. Levy, you think that we should go back to 150 years ago when we sat even longer, when this institution was created by males who, perhaps, didn't have that same kind of demand on their lives when it came to families.
Which is it? I'm really confused. Should we be sitting longer? Are we already the longest sitting as it is? Should we be sitting less? I'm quite perplexed by the presentations today.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Let us have very short answers, because the time is up for the round.
Noon
Executive Director, Equal Voice
I compared the data for the number of sitting days federally with data for the number of sitting days provincially and territorially on average. The data I looked at clearly suggested that the federal Parliament sat the longest of any of the provincial, territorial, or federal legislatures.
Noon
As an Individual
We're a Parliament of a G7 country. I think that's slightly different from a provincial or a territorial legislature.
Comparisons are difficult, but in the U.K. they don't have a calendar. One year they sat for 142 days, and the newspapers called it a zombie Parliament because they thought it was not long enough. It depends, then, what year you look at.
If you look at the IPU statistics, you'll see that we're in the mid-range, at 125 days. There are many that sit less, but quite a few sit more.
Noon
Executive Director, Equal Voice
I would just say, to Mr. Levy's point, that we are also one of the largest countries geographically anywhere in the world, and that, I think, necessitates a rethink of how we get our MPs here and what kind of physical time they need to spend in this House.