Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 21st, 2016

[Marc Mayrand]

You're correct, and it's both during an election and in preparation for an election, even before the writ is issued.

The $29.2 million is strictly for salaries of indeterminate staff at Elections Canada. All other expenses of Elections Canada are statutory or are authorized by legislation.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The last thing I'll say, Mr. Chair, is that I am really looking forward to finally getting a chance to unravel the damage done by the “Unfair Elections Act”, and we're going to have some great discussions around voter identification cards going forward—trust me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll go to the vote now.

CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$29,212,735

(Vote 1 agreed to)

Shall I report the vote on the main estimates, less the amount granted in interim supply, to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Mr. Mayrand, for the great job you do during elections. It's unbiased and very professional. We certainly appreciate it, and I think Canadians appreciate it. We have confidence that it's done very professionally and that their vote counts that way.

Thank you very much.

We'll let you know when we may have rescheduled your next meeting to. We're discussing that later today, actually.

We'll break for a couple of minutes.

If the new witnesses could come to the table, that would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We're ready to start.

Mr. Reid.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering whether this meeting is being televised or not? It doesn't say it on the agenda, so I wanted to clarify that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

No, it's not.

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

Let me just ask that at the end of this meeting we discuss the idea of televising these meetings any time we have the ability to do so. We're frequently in the room where broadcasting takes place, and it makes sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'd like to welcome our witnesses for our study to make Parliament more efficient, more inclusive of everyone representing Canada, and more family-friendly and friendly to the employees and the MPs, so that it's best for everyone's family and people who have inclusivity challenges. Hopefully you'll be helping us with that.

Our witnesses today, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), for our study of initiatives toward a family-friendly House are Thomas Shannon, president of Local 232 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union of Canada, and Mélisa Ferreira and Tara Hogeterp, representatives of Local 232. Then, from the Public Service Alliance of Canada we have Roger Thompson, president of Local 70390 and, for moral support, Jim McDonald, labour relations officer from the Union of National Employees.

We'll start with opening statements and after that we'll have rounds of seven minutes of questioning, which includes both the questions and the answers. We'll get as much in as we can.

Let us start with Mr. Shannon.

[Thomas Shannon, President, Local 232, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for this invitation. I am happy to be appearing before you today on behalf of the union that represents all the workers of the New Democratic Party here, on Parliament Hill, and in ridings.

We have a collective agreement with the NDP caucus that provides fair pay and flexible working hours.

I have with me today two mothers who have worked on the Hill and in the constituency for parliamentarians, and so from their experience they should be able to inform the committee's study of initiatives towards a family-friendly House of Commons.

I will now yield the floor to Tara Hogeterp.

[Tara Hogeterp, Representative, Local 232, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada]

Hi. My name is Tara Hogeterp. I've worked on the Hill since 2003, and in that time I've had two children. I was very grateful to have the ability to take a full year of maternity leave and be able to return to the Hill and continue my career.

Finding child care in Ottawa can be very challenging, and I appreciated having the ability to request additional leave without pay to coincide with the availability of a child care space. Both of my children attended day cares off the Hill and the Children on the Hill Day Care. The Hill day care does not accommodate children under 18 months, and therefore alternative child care is needed, if and when a spot becomes available, for your child.

Most day cares and after school programs in the Ottawa area have set pickup and drop-off times. Having working hours that allow me to drop off and pick up my child at the end of the day is crucial.

My colleague, Mélisa, will now share her experience.

[Mélisa Ferreira, Representative, Local 232, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have been working on the Hill since 2011. From 2011 to 2015, I worked in a constituency office and, in this new Parliament, I have been working in Ottawa. My husband also works at the House of Commons. In 2013, we had twins. I went on maternity leave for a year, and then I returned to work at an MP's constituency office.

A flexible schedule is a must in my case, since the daycare my children attend closes very early, at 4:30 p.m. On the other hand, committee activities often wrap up very late. For example, the member I work for sat on the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. The committee's schedule was very condensed, and meetings were held in the evening.

Parents who are both working on the Hill face major challenges. As young children are often sick, we have to miss work. The fact that we are protected by a collective agreement greatly contributes to our peace of mind. We know that we are not at risk of losing our job because we have to miss work regularly.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

President Thompson.

[Roger Thompson, President, Local 70390, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Good afternoon. We thank you for having us here.

I'm the local president of the UNE-PSAC, representative of all UNE-PSAC members employed by the House of Commons and at parliamentary protective services, the PPS group, which includes approximately 450 employees in total.

We represent House of Commons employees under four separate bargaining units: the operations sector, which includes material handling, maintenance and trades, transportation, messenger services, printing and mailing services, and food services; postal services; reporting and text processing; and the scanners department.

I'm accompanied today by Jim McDonald, a UNE labour relations officer who is assigned to assist and represent all UNE members employed by the House of Commons, as well as the scanners who are employed by parliamentary protective services.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Are there any other opening statements?

Okay, we'll go into questioning, starting with Ms. Vandenbeld.

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

My question is for Ms. Ferreira and Ms. Hogeterp.

I'm a former political staffer myself. I've heard from a number of staff that when they have kids, one of the things that is most important is predictability. For instance, we've been talking here in this committee about a compressed work week and potentially not having members sit on Fridays.

I have heard some of the staff saying that it would allow them a day of the week where they know that the member is not going to be dragging them to meetings, or running in the door urgently because there's a media request or something. They could then plan doctor's appointments for their kids, or the things that they need to do, on those Fridays. This would give more flexibility for parents who are on the Hill.

Has that been your experience? What would you think about that model?

[Tara Hogeterp]

I still have to pay for day care on a Friday, so I'm going to be at work on a Friday. It doesn't make that much difference. I tend to put those types of appointments during break weeks, and I have not found any difficulty with that kind of schedule.

The other option during the week is usually Wednesday mornings when there's a caucus meeting, because all the MPs in all parties are kind of off. So there's that opportunity as well. I wouldn't say having that Friday would make a huge difference to my situation, because quite often my MP isn't here on a Friday anyway, if she doesn't have duty, so it tends to be a quieter day already.

[Mélisa Ferreira]

As Tara was saying, we also have to consider our colleagues in the ridings who work on Fridays, in the evenings and on the weekends. The option of having Fridays off may slightly lighten the workload, but when MPs are in Ottawa, the pace is always fast and the hours are long. I cannot comment on this. However, I try to schedule my appointments during break weeks or after the MP leaves on Friday afternoons.

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

When I look at the political staff on the Hill, I often see that many of them are young and many of them are single. There are not that many who have families.

In my own experience I've seen a number of political staff who, as soon as they started families, actually left the work on the Hill and went to work in other fields where they had more predictable hours.

Do you think there's a form of self-selection amongst people who choose to work in this field, where people who do have young families are choosing not to because of the hours? Are there ways we might be able to alleviate that, to make it easier, so that people with young families would be more inclined to work on the Hill?

[Mélisa Ferreira]

I think this varies from one individual to the next.

Some people realize that it is difficult to balance work and family. I am lucky to have family members in the region, and my parents pick up the slack. My husband, who also works at the House of Commons, has flexibility that I don't have with my MP. Our schedule is actually planned out weeks in advance in terms of who is picking up the children and at what time, who is booking appointments, and so on.

It really depends on the person. I think it is possible to raise a young family while working in Parliament. We can be parliamentary assistants, MPs or legislative assistants on the Hill, but that requires a great deal of organization.

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

As you know, other parties' staff are not unionized. Do you think that has made a difference? Would it be more difficult? The bulk of the staff on the Hill is not be represented by a union.

[Thomas Shannon]

Well, I think what is different about us is—you're right—we are the only ones who are unionized. What that means is we have a collective agreement that we signed with the NDP caucus. It outlines flexible working hours and how much time you can take off.

It is a clear document that allows young mothers and young fathers to be able to look at it and say, “Okay, these are the hours that I must do. This is how I can be accommodated.” They can sit down with the NDP caucus to make sure that young families...because we do have quite a few young families. We have young staff and I know both the other parties have young staff.

I think it makes a difference in that there is clarity, and you can plan for the future knowing that you're not going to lose your job over the fact that your child is sick. Things can be planned out. The big difference is the clear rules that we have outlined in negotiations with management.

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

The experience that you have, both of you, may not be indicative for a lot of the people who are working on the Hill.

I'd actually like to put the same question to Mr. McDonald and Mr. Thompson about the staff who are not political staff, the staff you represent, and whether or not you think that eliminating Friday sittings, for instance, would have an impact on the staff?

[Roger Thompson]

Yes, we do, actually, because we have individuals in our collective agreement who are called SCI, which means seasonal certified indeterminate employees. Now, these employees are persons when they start off, and must work at least 700 hours in a calendar year to achieve employee status and qualify as an SCI, and get all the benefits.

We feel that if the sitting hours are cut down, it could be possible that an SCI employee could not achieve their threshold of 700 hours in two consecutive years. Then they would no longer be an SCI, and they would lose their status and all their benefits.