Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 21st, 2016

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

If we were looking at a compressed work week, where we would still sit the same number of hours but then have more time also to be in our constituencies, that would not necessarily have an impact, because the number of hours of Parliament sitting would actually remain the same. It would just be compressed from Monday to Thursday.

[Jim McDonald, Labour Relations Officer, Union of National Employees, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

One of the things that's going to come up with a compressed work week is that your going to elongate the days, I presume. Then people are going to work longer days, which is going to impact both their family life and their work life. They'll be required to work an additional three or four hours every day in order to make up the day that's been compressed.

I now work a compressed week, but it can be very difficult for people with child care. Most child-care facilities operate during daylight hours only, and most of them want the children cleared out by five, or at the latest by six o'clock in the afternoon. If you're a younger family with younger kids who are in day care, that's where we would end up going.

The other issue, of course, is the additional cost to the employer through the collective agreement, because of overtime, shift premiums, and so on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to sit in on this committee today for this discussion.

Perhaps I have a unique perspective. I was the child of a member of Parliament. I have worked both on Parliament Hill, and in a constituency office on staff prior to my election here, so I understand, I think, where you're coming from.

I would submit to you that—and I'll get your comments on this in a minute—for staff, a compressed work week is actually the worst of all possible options. As an Ottawa-based staffer, from Monday to Thursday you are expected to be supporting your member from earlier in the morning until later at night, thus robbing you of time with your family. Then on Friday you don't get to go home. You are here to work. You are in fact extending your hours. Most members of Parliament that I know will be going home to their ridings but will still expect support from their staff.

I would submit that this is bad for staff and also for the members of Parliament who have their families here, those who have made the difficult choice to relocate their families to Ottawa. Currently, with the arrangements that our House leaders have been making, the whips have votes after question period. Last night was the first time, I think, that we've had multiple votes in the evening.

Many members have been able, with that predictability, to get home to have dinner with their families or make those arrangements that you talked about.

Perhaps I could just get your comments on your expectations. Have you spoken to your employers? In the case of the NDP staff, does your collective agreement allow for...? Maybe you could walk me through how you could possibly meet all of the requirements without a significant increase in your own personal hours.

[Tara Hogeterp]

I would agree that having a compressed work week would be detrimental to family time. My kids are dropped off at school, and I can drop them off as early as 8 a.m., but I have to pick them up by 5:30 at the absolute latest. I think I will get penalized at $20 per 10 minutes if I'm late to pick them up. I don't have the luxury not to pick them up. Having a compressed work week would give me less family time, and I would imagine—

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

—and cost you more money.

[Tara Hogeterp]

—and cost me more money.

I would say that for families with young children, especially school-aged children, the critical time for families is between pickup and bedtime, that 5 to 7 period.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Absolutely.

[Tara Hogeterp]

That is the time when you find out what they've done for the day; it's the time when you have dinner together and that connection, and get them to bed.

It can be the most trying time, but it's also the most important time of your day. I would hate anyone, staff or MP, to lose out on those hours.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you. I understand. Certainly it's been a few years now, but when I was on staff, the maternity leave top-up that members who took maternity and paternity leave or staff members received was basically 92% of their wage. A Canadian receiving EI without any benefit package receives, I believe, 55%.

Is that the case? Do you have a top-up even further with your union, or is that 92% what you receive?

[Mélisa Ferreira]

It's with the House of Commons. It's 93%.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Okay, it's 93%.

I would argue, contrary to what Ms. Vandenbeld said, that the House of Commons actually encourages young families with that sort of support. That's something that most Canadians don't have. I know that many of my colleagues as members and many staff colleagues as well have continued working, with that generous maternity support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have two and a half minutes.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

I want to turn to Mr. Thompson, to clarify this concerning your SCI workers, just to be clear.

It's been my understanding, having worked here and now being elected here, that there are salaried members of the House of Commons staff who are here every day, regardless of whether the House sits or not. However, there are many services that are not offered when the House of Commons is not sitting, and therefore.... For instance, the parliamentary restaurant is closed when the House is not sitting. With a compressed work week, the people in that service would not get more money, because they would not be working more hours. They would in fact take a pay cut and perhaps lose their SCI status. Am I correct in that.

[Roger Thompson]

Yes, that could possibly happen. As Jim said, if you're working later hours, it doesn't mean that the employees will be making more hours. When the House is sitting, this is when these employees work—and not just in food services; there are also employees in transportation. When the members are not here, the buses are not running, and these SCI employees are not at work. Therefore, if this happens too much within a calendar year, and especially two consecutive calendar years, they lose all this.

I would say that the sitting hours would have to remain the same.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

From what you're telling me—the same as for the members' staff—essentially this would result likely in less pay for some people, or certainly no more. There would be a loss of benefits, loss of pay, and additional child care costs as well for many of your members.

[Roger Thompson]

Exactly.

Another thing you have to understand about the SCI employees is that most of them, especially in food services, have two jobs. When the House is not here, they have a second job that they rely on outside, so that they can make their money. Some of them have houses and rent to pay or mortgages to pay. When the House is here, they're working their seven hours a day. When the House is not in session, it's down to five hours, or possibly 5.5 hours; therefore, they have another job.

If somebody were to compress the workload and these employees had to work longer throughout the day, how would they pick up their kids? And if they have that second job, which they rely on, they would lose that job. Therefore, when the House is not in session, what other job do they get?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Chair, I don't know when I'll be back, but I would submit that cancelling a Friday, as the witnesses have said, will be detrimental to staff. It will cost staff more money and in fact will not result in a better work-family balance for either members or staff; in fact, it would make it worse.

One has to wonder what is really behind this motivation to cancel Fridays. I would submit that it is a 20% reduction in accountability. It is not looking to make life better for a work-family balance, because all of us know that when we go home on a Friday it is not to spend time with our families: we are expected to be working, as our staff are expected to be working.

This proposal, this trial balloon that's being floated, would actually make life worse for families, and not better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I am sorry. It's Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate your watching out for my interests. Maybe I will elect you as my union steward. That is a compliment. It's okay.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

David, when I met my wife, she was a union rep, so don't worry.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You have the three-piece suit. You could be a union boss.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is fantastic. Tom, I never thought I would see the day when you move from over there, assisting me to do what I am doing, and now you are right here as a witness. You just never know, eh?

I want to address my comments to you, as a modern-day union boss, although you sure don't look like the caricatures they paint of union bosses, I have to tell you. You have to get a little more....