Evidence of meeting #17 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 staff.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
How many other staff are there, roughly, on the Hill in total?
12:50 p.m.
Labour Relations Officer, Union of National Employees, Public Service Alliance of Canada
There is a total of 450 in the bargaining units that we represent, and 102 of those are seasonal certified.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Okay, so it's less than a quarter, or 20%. I just wanted to get a sense of how many people are impacted, because the experience of others might be quite different with respect to a compressed work week. Also, it sounds as if there are things we can do here on the Hill that will make it not so MP-centric—for instance, if we look at the staff who are here even during the constituency weeks who could possibly alleviate some of those problems.
I also want to go back to the political staff. Having worked on the Hill both in caucus research but also as a ministerial staffer, what I found was that the work day, during the days we are sitting, revolves very much around the member or the minister. For instance, ministerial staff will spend much of their morning preparing for question period. There is a lot of work that comes around that. We have staff here sitting behind us who, when we're here and we're in committee, have to be with us. They are following us around all day, but things such as correspondence and briefing notes and all those sorts of things pile up.
From my experience, had there been a weekday to be able to catch up, when you were not immediately having to respond to the member and could catch up on those things.... I often worked weekends, and I've talked to a number of the staff who are sitting right behind me, and I think a lot of staff come in on weekends to avoid.... You must have time to catch up.
So wouldn't it possibly make it easier, for the staff who are coming in on the weekends, if there were a day when the member was not here? Then they would catch up and wouldn't have to work on the weekend.
12:50 p.m.
Representative, Local 232, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada
In my opinion, the time for us to catch up is when the House is not sitting.
I start my workday very early in the morning and I pick up my children from daycare at 4:30 p.m. Once they go to bed, at 8 p.m., I go back to work on the computer to prepare notes for the next day from home. Telework may be something you could consider. Your committee could think about a way to improve the conditions surrounding this way of working.
Currently, the software that enables us to have access to our data through Outlook Web Access is not the most effective way to operate, if I may say so.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Very briefly, speaking to Mr. Schmale's point about national day care, he may recall that we were on the cusp of a national day care program when his party took power and cancelled it, in exchange for a modest taxable monthly cheque that would have covered around 50 minutes per month of Ms. Hogeterp's school. So yes, it's a national day care problem, but it's one we should have, could have, and would have quite a while ago solved, had it not been for the frankly bizarre policy direction of the previous government.
That said, I was wanting to ask all of my colleagues here, have you seen many of your colleagues simply give up and leave the Hill because of the lifestyle we have to live here?
12:50 p.m.
Representative, Local 232, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada
No.
Just in the office I work in, there was almost a running joke that the chair we sat in caused women to get pregnant, because I got pregnant, then my colleague got pregnant, someone covering my maternity leave got pregnant—it was literally an office of pregnancy after pregnancy after pregnancy. All of those people still work on the Hill, except one who is now working in Alberta for a minister.
12:50 p.m.
Representative, Local 232, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada
It's the same type of job, and we've all stayed. I know that most of my colleagues with children are staying because, with the support of our collective agreement, we have been able to maintain working hours and support our MPs with little trouble.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Okay.
And to that point, Mr. Shannon, are there any NDP staffers who are not unionized? I guess there are management layers, and so forth. In all my time on the Hill, I've never worked a week as short as the thirty-seven and a half hours that the government calls full-time. I think that's slightly understated, for the time we work.
How does it work, within the current budget context,¯for unionized political office to get all the work done that needs to be done? I'm curious to have your insight on that.
12:50 p.m.
President, Local 232, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada
It is thirty-seven and a half full-time hours; that's what it is. However, in political jobs, people who are MPs now and people who were staff before know that there is a lot of work to get done. What usually happens is that many people here work longer. When they choose to do that because of whatever is going on, that time is given back to them at a later date. The idea is that there's a one-to-one ratio.
If you're working longer, which does happen....
You can't do that every day; otherwise you're going to destroy your life. The idea is that we're trying to make a work-life balance. You work what you can and you work your hours. If you work longer, then you can take that in times when it's less busy, which is during weeks that the House doesn't sit or in the summer, in general. That's the idea: to hold the balance and get as much done as possible within the time that we have at our workplaces, and on this earth as well.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
No, I'm sorry.
I'll just give the witnesses, if you have any closing remarks you'd like to make that you didn't get a chance to make, a chance before we finish off here
12:55 p.m.
Labour Relations Officer, Union of National Employees, Public Service Alliance of Canada
I want to say that maybe I am more representative of the older type of union representative in both appearance and mannerisms, and how I've worked. I've been in the labour relations business for 35 years, and my career is almost split in half, with 17 years on the management side of the relationship and the other 17 or 18 years on the side of the union. There is still a need for unions for many reasons, but the more modern reason is that many new things are coming up. Mental health issues now are a big thing for us and for our members, and the cost-reduction exercises by employers trying to reduce the number of employees and the cost of an operation, and all of the associated things. The loss of benefits for the SCIs is a huge thing for us. How do you work for two years and get a decent income and full benefits, and then miss your SCI status by 20, 30, or 50 hours, and have to lose all that for a two-year period until you can re-establish yourself as an SCI employee again? It's an extremely difficult business.
I'm not sure if you're aware that the House, in various dispute resolution processes, has said on record that anybody who works prior to becoming an SCI is not even an employee, by definition. They're a person that happens to work here, and their benefits are restricted to the minimum standards of the employment standards relationships. Quite frankly, you don't keep those people around. There's no way you want to build a reliable workforce that's going to stick around for a long time and put them on that roller coaster ride. The House of Commons, in my experience since I've been involved with PSAC, has always operated in its own little bubble, if you excuse the expression. It doesn't operate like a normal employer situation, or a normal employer environment, for people who need that stability. If you're an SCI right now, try going to get a mortgage when you can't guarantee that your hours for next year are going to be the same as this year, or that you won't lose your status all together. I believe there have been situations where hours of work have been manipulated to prevent people from reaching that plateau, so they don't have to pay the benefits. There are different motivations, but I still think there's a really strong need for a union. I'm a believer in the union and what it has done for society, but unfortunately some people now are still continuing on as it was. I think we'd be in a sad state of affairs if there weren't unions around to prevent employees from being exploited.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you all for coming. We really appreciate it. You have given us a good view for our study. If you missed anything, feel free to write to the clerk and add it in writing.
I ask the committee's indulgence, but we're at 1 o'clock. Perhaps we could stay a few minutes to address a couple of things on our next meeting, which is related mostly to the question of privilege and exactly how we're going to spend that next meeting. We have to change when we will hear again from Elections Canada more than likely, which is presently scheduled for next Tuesday—or at least we'd have to change part of the meeting we've scheduled them for.
Mr. Christopherson.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
On a related issue, I want to advise colleagues that we're now starting to get into some of the areas where our lack of definition about being in camera could play out. I want to update everyone that Mr. Chan and I are continuing discussions and are hoping to have back here.... We're down to one clause that we're trying to find language for. If we can come to a meeting of the minds on that, Chair, I would ask that you allow us to put that motion up front. If we do have agreement, assuming everybody else is onside with it, it shouldn't take that long. I only mention it now as a matter of the order of our business. If we can tuck that in near the beginning and get it in place, then as we get into dicier issues, we will understand the rules that we're going to follow, particularly when we're in camera. I will leave that with you, sir.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Yes, I did, albeit we're changing topics now. He said that he had some practical concerns. What he wants to do, I think—and I'm not misrepresenting him, or telling tales out of school—is to make some changes to the way the proposed standing order is written. I don't know if he intends to present it to us, or if he wants to consult with the current Speaker privately. I don't know that, but at least this gives you an update. Just to let you know, I don't think he would take it amiss if, for example, you were to approach him directly and ask him what's up.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
I know that we did switch topics, but I want to go back to Mr. Christopherson's point.
First of all, I thank him for the courtesy of allowing me the opportunity to have that conversation. Again, I will also defer, to some degree, to the Conservative members of this committee. Once we have that appropriate language, if we can come to a consensus and can get unanimity, we could dispose of it fairly quickly.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Before we go back to the question of privilege, I have another thing to mention: the Australian clerk and serjeant-at-arms together are available for around six o'clock in the evening. We'd have to see what days are good for them. In the first week back, do any members know what day might be good for them on that rough time frame at that time of day, I think, around five, six, or seven o'clock?
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
It's on the family-friendly initiative, with the Australian legislature.
1 p.m.
Liberal