Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 19th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Next is Mr. Richards, for six minutes.

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

Thank you. I appreciate your being here as well.

I want to ask you a question, a similar question for both of you. What I'm going to do is characterize what I think I understand your proposals to be for changing the sitting days and sitting weeks. You both come at it from very different approaches and have very different suggestions, but both of you are advocating for some change.

I'm going to characterize what I think I've heard your suggested changes to be and then ask you a couple of questions around that. I'll then let each of you answer.

Ms. Peckford, you can go first, and then Mr. Levy, but I'll throw the thoughts out first, and you can correct me, if I'm mistaken.

It's based on something Mr. Levy said. He said there are 338 members of Parliament and that he expected each of us would have a different approach to family-friendly. I think that's an important point. Almost every member of Parliament has a different situation, and every change that can be contemplated could affect each of those members of Parliament differently. It could be family-friendly for some and maybe not so friendly for others.

Ms. Peckford, I think what I was hearing was that you're suggesting sittings Tuesday through Thursday, with longer days on those Tuesdays through Thursdays. We wouldn't be sitting, then, on Monday or Friday. Then you would suggest more consecutive break weeks or constituency weeks.

I didn't know whether you were suggesting that the number of days currently is about right. You can comment on this when you're answering. Would this mean more weeks, or are you suggesting that the number of weeks would remain as is, with the sitting days just being longer so that there is the same number of sitting hours? That's what I wanted to ask you.

I guess the question around that is, say for example, for a member of Parliament who has their family here.... Some members probably make the choice to move their families to Ottawa so that during the week, when they're here, they can be home with their family in the evenings, and when they go home to the constituency, they can focus on their constituents and really work hard to get around to a lot of events. The question is about the effect this might have—both the fact of longer sitting days and obviously more consecutive weeks—on a family like that, for example.

Another question is this. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but when Christine Moore was here, I think this is what she was indicating; I hope I'm characterizing it correctly. She mentioned that she didn't feel that getting rid of Fridays was something that would be helpful for her, particularly. I think this centred around the fact that being here through the week, she can have a focused week here, and the same thing back in her constituency. The question, then, is about the effect this might have on someone in that situation.

Then Mr. Levy, you felt that maybe getting rid of the Fridays would be okay, but that we'd need more sitting weeks, and not only more sitting weeks to accommodate the Fridays we're losing, but you think there should be even more days than we currently sit.

I guess I wondered a little bit. Obviously, many members of Parliament go back to their ridings for the weekends or whatever. Does the travel time involved in that then become...because there are more sitting weeks and you're losing more time both serving your constituents and being able to spend with your family?

The same thing goes, I guess, for those with young children. If we're going to have more sitting weeks, does that become...? I think it speaks to what Mr. Christopherson was saying: it almost becomes that you throw your family's routine out by being home. What effect would this have on that type of family?

I'll let you both comment on those comments.

Ms. Peckford, do you want to go first?

[Nancy Peckford]

Right. I think what we are saying—we've seen it in other countries and Ms. Jabre did speak to it—is there is this idea of a compressed week, which doesn't necessarily eliminate Fridays, but does give parliamentarians the opportunity to start the day earlier so that you maximize the time you have here in Ottawa by starting the day at 8:00 or 8:30 a.m. I know sometimes committees do meet a bit earlier than the House starts its sitting time, but, obviously, it's compressing and maximizing the time that you have here so that there may be more flexibility on a Monday or Friday.

We understand that some west coast MPs are taking red-eye flights to come to Ottawa to be at QP on Monday afternoon. I don't know about you, but my sense is, if you've been on a red-eye all night, how effective are you as a legislator? I think we have to balance the toll it takes for people to be physically present with the quality of work they're doing.

To that degree, we noted that the federal Parliament sits for the longest number of days of any provincial, territorial, or federal legislature. Is that enough or too little? I think that's for you to decide, but I think what's more important is how those days and weeks are organized so that people are at their best and that the toll that it takes personally on their families is not so egregious.

Obviously, the divorce rate and separation rate among MPs is extremely high, disturbingly high. This is an institution that's supposed to reflect Canada. If your working conditions are such that you are no longer reflective of the average Canadian, it's troubling. This is an institution that remains one that has women chronically and significantly under-represented. So talking about calibre of outcome, if women remain a minority voice for the next 100 years, can we really confidently assert that we're doing justice to women and men both?

Those are considerations that are primary, in my mind, to answer your question.

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

Mr. Levy, before you respond, could I just add one thing to what I'm asking you?

I understand that you're proposing more sitting, and there certainly can be merits made of that in terms of holding the government accountable on more weeks of the year, but I think what we're hearing from the Liberal Party is the suggestion that we would remove the Fridays. They don't want to sit here on Fridays, but they're not looking to increase the number of weeks. I want to hear your thoughts on that as well.

There's the fact that they'd be removing Fridays, talking about longer days, but it wouldn't be adding any sitting weeks. Does that then mean that maybe there would be fewer days or fewer weeks of the year that the government would be held accountable under that scenario that the Liberal Party is suggesting?

[Dr. Gary Levy]

That is exactly what led me to give the original interview opposing Fridays off, because I understood that there would not be any change in the number of break weeks. I think if you look at some of the newspaper coverage, the editorials, they've generally been opposed to taking Fridays off because it's seen as less work, even though the hours are the same.

If that were the case, then I would certainly be opposed to that because I don't think it's the right approach. Even if you have the same number of hours and even if you make some technical tricks to call a certain day two days in order to get your notice for motions, I think people would see that as a kind of gimmick, and a day is a day. I don't think you can fool people on that and I don't think it would help the image of Parliament to go to a four-day week and keep all of the break weeks.

I'd just like to make a couple of other smaller points. I found myself agreeing with what Sheila Copps said to you last week, I think it was, that Parliament is a relatively family-friendly place if you compare it to working in a steel mill in Hamilton. I think this is something to be kept in mind, that you may not want to go too far in pushing this. You have a lot of freedom. If pairing comes back, and you have a family birthday on a Wednesday or a Thursday and you want to be at that birthday or graduation, and there's a vote that day, you can arrange with the whip to be paired. I think this goes a long way to solving some of the problems of people with families.

About the commuting, I really don't have an answer to solve that. It's something everybody knows before they go into it. I think the calendar, being six months on and six months off, encourages members to keep their families in the ridings. This is a very personal decision, and I wouldn't presume to tell anybody what's right or wrong on that, but I think if it were the other way, you might have more members bringing their families to Ottawa, and it would be interesting to perhaps look at some studies that were done earlier and see how many did bring families to Ottawa compared to now. That's just an impression that I have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Before we go on to Mr. Lightbound—and welcome to the committee—Grace Lore, you haven't had a chance to speak much. Is there anything you wanted to add?

[Grace Lore]

No, I'm okay for now. I'll answer any specific questions directed to me, but I think Nancy has had the chance to answer from Equal Voice's perspective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

And Kareen, I thought you might have wanted to comment on some of the questions.

[Kareen Jabre]

Yes, thank you for that.

I want to support what Nancy was saying.

I think it's a question of how you reorganize the time if you were to shorten and compress the week, take the opportunity of IT to enhance opportunities, and being more inclusive in one way or the other. Spain has been looking at e-voting to allow women and men who have family obligations to take part in votes but now they're also looking at ways of taking part in debates and committee debates through electronic means. It's not just the question of voting, but also having more participation through electronic means.

I think this is something to consider in terms of how you organize and take advantage of the IT facilities out there. More and more I think it responds to what Mr. Graham was saying, how you can use IT not only to reach out to constituencies but to allow MPs to stay in their constituencies and also take part in the work of Parliament. I think you are the best to know how to organize this stuff, but maybe it's just to be creative.

The tendency in the other parliaments around the the world has been to go for more compressed weeks. I was looking at Australia, a big country with different time zones. They sit from Tuesday to Thursday. It's a smaller parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do you happen to know what Italy does with their diaspora when they allow members of parliament to live all over the world. How do they do their voting?

[Kareen Jabre]

No, I can check for you and get back to you on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you. And France too; our researcher could look at those too.

Mr. Lightbound, you're in a five-minute round.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you all for being here. It's very interesting.

We've talked a lot about making Parliament more family-friendly. I think that's a worthwhile discussion. I have no family yet, but I still find the job very demanding, so I can only imagine those of us who have families.

However, I was very interested in what you mentioned, Madam Peckford, in your opening statement about having parity at the ballot box. In the last election, I became one of the youngest MPs in Parliament, and I tried to recruit very capable young women to run. What I witnessed is that even not really knowing the demands of this job, there was different thinking. They would first see if they had the means to run, if they had the support, and then take the decision. Whereas my decision-making was more that I'm running and then I'll find a way. I was wondering if you and Madam Jabre had any recommendations in how we could make the process more attractive to young women before they get here, so they get here.

[Nancy Peckford]

I certainly think role models are incredibly important. I think it's true that some of the trail-blazing women believe the sacrifice has been so tremendous for them that they don't always seek out and encourage. Many other women and men do, as you say.

I think demystifying the nomination process is hugely important. It is the first barrier and the first opportunity. It's the only way you get on the ballot. I don't think enough Canadians understand what it means to run for nomination because there is a lack of regulation. It's up to every riding association in terms of timing, in terms of the rules around when you can sell a membership and when you can't. We certainly think that the system, and women in particular, would benefit from much more clarity around the nomination roles.

But I would also say that women need to see that they can make an impact so it justifies what they believe is a sacrifice. I think women are motivated by impact, they're motivated by what they can get done. In the absence of truly understanding that, I think some women tend to be more hesitant if they're not familiar with the parliamentary process. As you may know, Equal Voice is launching a very ambitious initiative, Daughters of the Vote, to bring 338 young women to Parliament next March 7 and 8 to do just that, to connect them to the institution in a way that will hopefully motivate them in years to come.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ms. Jabre.

[Kareen Jabre]

I fully support that. I think, first of all, the image of politics needs to change. Again, I come back to heckling or the way politics or Parliament is presented. That is really a great deterrent for young women who are asking, why am I going to get myself into this? What's the point? They often seem much more interested in local politics, where maybe they have more direct contact with citizens. I think, to change that image and the usefulness of being in Parliament, that's key.

Role models and mentorship need to be promoted more in order to encourage young women to run. And I think there is a challenge in political parties, if I can say so, because they remain a bottleneck in terms of supporting women to run, and the rules are not necessarily always clear, as Nancy mentioned. They need more incentives from political parties, proactive measures, in order to say, we will support you. So before thinking of the means, if you're interested, then say it and we will support you, if I can simplify it. I think we need to change the culture in political parties as well and have much more proactive approaches to supporting women.

[Nancy Peckford]

Can I just ask Grace if she wants to comment on this?

[Grace Lore]

I think with regard to the nomination process, some of the structural changes that we've talked about also work in that direction in that they signal to women that it is a space for them, that they can see that there is an opportunity for them to be there to balance these things. I think that at the stage of deciding to opt in, when others are encouraging women to opt into politics, some of those structural things being present signals the opportunity for them. So I do think that helps not just once people are elected but in who we get deciding to run for politics. Everybody might have their own personal way of balancing family and their responsibilities as an MP, but there is something that does deter women more than men, and some of those structural changes I think will have more women opting in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Mr. Schmale for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much. I appreciate all of your comments so far. This is a very interesting debate. As you know, I have a young family myself, so I'm very interested in what's going on here. I appreciate those comments.

I just have a few things. Actually, I wasn't even going to go in this direction, but I just want to touch on the heckling part too. I don't think it's just parliamentarians; I think it's everyone. If you throw 338 lawyers into a room or real estate agents, or what have you, and say, discuss this very hot-button issue, I think you're going to have disagreements and rising temperatures. But I agree with your point about saying that you can heckle, but you shouldn't stifle someone's voice. I do get that point, but I do think heckling has its place, especially if you're not getting an answer you think should be coming your way.

I want to go back to a few things that you mentioned.

I do appreciate, Ms. Peckford, what you were saying about hiring staff. We all like to do that. Unfortunately, we just got a 20% increase in our budget, so I'm not going to go and ask for more money. I do appreciate that.

[Nancy Peckford]

We're not saying that you have to ask. We're asking.

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

Okay. I think we're already borrowing on it to pay our bills.

[Nancy Peckford]

That's the value of external voices. Yes, we understand that you have an increase, but after many years of a freeze. I think you can appreciate the merit of our point, understanding that not everyone would see it as politically tenable to agree with us.

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

Okay. Perfect.

Having said all of that, as we went through the process, and you say people need to learn how Parliament works, I think one takes it upon oneself, as an individual, male or female, if you want to get involved, to learn more about it. If you want to know how the nomination part works, get involved in your local EDA, whatever the political stripe, whatever party you feel best represents you, and learn how that works. I think that's how many of us did that.

[Nancy Peckford]

Yes, of course, that's absolutely how you do it, but you might recall the Samara study that came out about three years ago and said that less than 15% of riding associations had websites. I think riding associations actually fly well below the radar of many busy women and men in our communities. Unless you're naturally connected to political brokers, you're not always sure about what's happening, or it's not always as transparent as it needs to be.

As a consequence, I think there's great merit in being clearer about the process from the get-go, so that women understand where the opportunity is. You can appreciate that most riding associations meet in the evening, as they would; they're volunteer-driven organizations. We all understand that, but I think information is power.

The studies out of the U.S., where they have far more resources to do this in a very intense way, show that women really value being asked and approached to run. You can't do it three months before an election; you have to do it two years out. Because women plan, right? Often, that's because they are primary caregivers, or because they care significantly about their spouse and they want to ensure that it works for everybody. As a consequence, I do think better information, as well as outreach to key groups, would make a significant difference.

What we've seen through the NDP—and this is specific to their party and their culture, but it matters—is that they fielded 43% women. They have a policy that they go out to under-represented groups. It's systematic, it's thorough, and it has worked for that party. Is that the solution for every party? We don't know, but that shows it can be done. You can achieve better success.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives were the one party in this past election that dropped in terms of the percentage of women fielded. I think we do have to look systematically at where we can do better. But overall, clearly, with only 33% women on the ballot, I think this is a collective challenge and an opportunity to recruit more women.