Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 5th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good morning.

This is meeting number 19 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the 1st session of the 42nd Parliament. This meeting is held in public. Today we continue our hearings for our study of initiatives toward a family-friendly House of Commons.

For the first hour we welcome Clare Beckton, the executive director of the Centre for Women in Politics and Public Leadership at Carleton University, and David Prest, a long-time staff member with the Conservative Party on Parliament Hill, to make sure that we're inclusive of everyone involved with our decisions. In the second hour, we'll have Mr. François Arsenault, director of parliamentary proceedings at the National Assembly of Quebec.

We welcome Joël Lightbound to the committee. I'd also like to welcome a former city councillor from the city of Whitehorse, Ranj Pillai. He is right at the back, experiencing another order of government.

Just so that people know, from a discussion that we had recently, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's term ends this June. As we're making decisions on that file, there may be a new person.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate your raising this.

To the best of my knowledge, she's an officer of Parliament, an agent of Parliament. When we went through the process of hiring the new Auditor General—there were so many fires going on at the time that we could only spend so much time on it—I was not very pleased with the process.

It is Parliament that decides who is hired for these positions, and it's only Parliament that can remove those people from their positions. Yet the government of the day completely owned the process; the opposition was not engaged. There was maybe a little bit of perfunctory consultation about what sorts of things we were looking for, but it didn't amount to a real consultation. By comparison, when we hired the Sergeant-at-Arms when I was at Queen's Park, because that person was hired by the provincial parliament, there was an all-party committee struck, and it was totally non-partisan all the way through.

What we do here federally, at least with the last big appointment.... The government did all of it. They did the consultation, they did the interviews, they did the selection, and then they offered up to Parliament a name, and it was vote yes, vote no. The process just didn't seem to me to be consistent with the notion that the person is an agent of Parliament. It's deliberately structured that way so that the government of the day can't order these particular people around, people such as our Privacy Commissioner, our Auditor General.... We have a number of them; I think there are 10 or 11, actually.

The process should support the notion that Parliament is doing the hiring, and yet the other process was not that way at all. It was rather like: “Oh, by the way, do you mind giving your thumbs up, yes or no?” If this process is going to kick in again, I would very much like us to engage, in some fashion. I don't even know where we'd begin, Mr. Chair. I just lay this in front of you. The new government seems to be interested in doing things differently. This is one opportunity by which we could right-side Parliament by giving Parliament back control of the whole process of hiring these agents and officers, which is then consistent with the notion that it's Parliament doing the hiring and that Parliament is the only one that can fire someone. The reason is that if the prime minister of the day, no matter who, is upset with an Auditor General's report, he can't fire them. It takes Parliament to do that.

I would ask that we engage early in this and look at doing things differently, consistent with the government's indication that they want to do it differently.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Now that we have some members here, I want to get on with the witnesses.

David, could you take that back to the House leader and talk with David about it?

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

Absolutely. We'll take it under advisement.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We will welcome our witnesses.

You have about five minutes, roughly, for your opening statements. Who would like to start?

Clare, why don't you go ahead?

[Clare Beckton, Executive Director, Centre for Women in Politics and Public Leadership, Carleton University]

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you.

I'll just make a couple of short remarks, because I know you like to ask a lot of questions.

I'm pleased that the committee is looking at the issue of a friendlier Parliament that recognizes the need of members of Parliament to meet family responsibilities as well as their home responsibilities. Needless to say, that is not an easy challenge, as we know from many sectors.

Creating a more family-friendly environment requires mechanisms to support and ensure practices and actions that reflect gender equality. Currently about 26% of members of Parliament are women, which contributes to an environment that does not fully recognize gender equality. There is a need for leadership from political parties to continue to augment the number of women running for office, including being fair and not putting them in unwinnable ridings, which happens. Having more women, I must caution, does not automatically create equality, but it contributes to changing the culture.

I know the term has been “work-life balance” here. I always use the term “work-life integration”, as I believe that this striving is for a mythical balance that doesn't exist. I've never found it in my life, and it has never bothered me that I didn't. Instead, we need to look for ways that permit members of Parliament to serve their country as they wish while still having time for their families, which can include child care support that recognizes the needs of members of Parliament while in Ottawa.

Male members of Parliament need to be encouraged and supported as well as female members in meeting their family responsibilities.

Orientations for members and chairs of committees should include how to create a respectful environment and, for committee chairs, how to schedule to accommodate members' needs as well.

Also important is having an environment of respect that allows members and their staff to get work done without fear of harassment and disrespectful behaviour. House rules, education, and processes can assist in making this happen, along with modelling of the desired behaviour by party leaders.

For political participation to be equal, the environment and the House processes need to an ensure an equal voice for men and women and have peer processes for resolution of any complaints.

Efficiency of processes in the House is certainly one way of helping to reducing Parliament.... For example, reducing Parliament to sitting four days a week could be one option that might better reflect the need of out-of-Ottawa MPs to return to their ridings and families. Electronic voting, in the age of technology, can certainly assist, as it may allow someone to vote while still caring for a member of the family, if that is necessary. While eliminating evening sessions may not be possible, they can be reserved for urgent or emergency debates and votes, for example.

Being mindful of sittings on major school holidays is another thing that can be looked at.

These are just a few possibilities, and I welcome your questions this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I would just comment that the holidays, unfortunately, are provincial, so they are not always the same.

Mr. Prest.

[David Prest, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks for the invitation, committee.

Just by way background, I'm currently with the opposition House leader's office. I've worked for House leaders and whips for some 35 years, in government and in opposition. I have been a parent for 25 of those 35 years. I have six children and I still have young children at home, the youngest being eight years old, so I may qualify for this family-friendly discussion. Just don't ask me for advice about family planning.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Prest]

I would first like to comment on the calendar and the number of days a year and days a week that the House sits. I will be advocating for the status quo. I lived through the open-calendar days when there was no end-time and no indication of how many days the House would sit and when it would sit. Our current fixed calendar is much more family-friendly than the open-ended calendar.

In examining the particulars, the House calendar needs to accommodate things such as the number of sitting days required to get done what business needs to be done, the number of days the government is available to be held to account by members of the House, and the number of days members can spend in their constituencies and be with family. It has been my observation that the current calendar strikes the right balance. Increasing one item while taking away from another may not get us where we want to go.

I have some suggestions, though minor ones.

Last year, before we adjourned for the summer, we settled the sitting days for January, February, March, and April 2016, instead of waiting for the fall, which is the usual practice. The committee might want to recommend an earlier decision on the calendar as the normal practice, as I'm already booking things for February and I'm not sure whether I'll be able to go now; I have to wait until the fall.

Also, when providing input to the Speaker in drafting the next calendar, I would avoid scheduling long periods of House time together, particularly the five-week blocks. When my in-laws were organizing a family reunion in Vermont for this July, on the question of how many days it should last I gave the same advice. People are enthusiastic at first, but after a few days somebody is going to cry. It's the same sort of thing here.

I have a comment with respect to the hours of the House. Most extra-curricular activities for children begin before the House adjourns on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. I miss a lot of these activities when the House is sitting, and my kids are late a lot for soccer and baseball. When they get into competitive sports, they are penalized for that, so when the House is sitting, my kids are on the bench a lot. I think the committee could look at altering the hours of the House, perhaps starting earlier and ending earlier.

I like the fact that the whips are now scheduling votes following question period instead of in the evening, and the continued use of the application of the votes by the whips frees up more time for members and their staff. Consolidating votes on one particular day of the week would reduce the number of days the House sits late as a consequence of those votes' taking place after question period.

Finally, I asked my oldest daughter Wrenna what her thoughts would be about this study, and she addressed something I didn't think of, maybe because it had nothing to do with the rules of procedure. She suggested that we have more organized family-friendly events and cited the time I took her to a Christmas party organized for children of staff and MPs. It had quite an impression on her, and she obviously has fond memories of that experience. When I had my office on the second floor here in the Centre Block and I would head home on a Tuesday or a Wednesday, I would walk through a gauntlet of organized events and receptions on the way to the car. Every room and every corner of the Centre Block had a reception going on or some sort of event. Obviously we have people who are very good at organizing events, so perhaps it would not be too much of a bother to organize more family-friendly events, perhaps one per season.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's a very interesting idea.

We'll go to questioning now and start with Ms. Vandenbeld.

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

Thank you very much to both of the witnesses.

My question is for Ms. Beckton. I heard you say “work-life integration”, and I'm interested to know a bit more about that. One of the things that has come up in our study is that it isn't so much work-life balance; it really is just trying to find ways to work more efficiently, to modernize the House procedures in such ways that we are able to do more in less time and therefore that we have a resulting work-life balance. But it really is more about that efficiency and integration.

Can you elaborate on that?

[Clare Beckton]

The reason I prefer “work-life integration” is that if people are always striving for a mythical balance, they often feel stressed because they're not achieving that balance. You're absolutely right that you need to look at how efficient the process of Parliament is and how it helps members meet their responsibilities.

If people are passionate about what they're doing and they really care, they're not always concerned that they spend an extra hour here one day and less here the next. I think that's part of what we mean by work-life integration. It's not always possible—in fact it's rarely possible—in the kind of roles that MPs play or the kind of roles that I've played over the years to have that perfect balance. It's more whether we feel satisfied with what's going on or feel supported in being able to take on responsibilities.

That integration could work differently.

You've talked about family events. Sometimes you go to family events and you don't spend the time at the workplace, and that should be just fine, because that's the kind of thing we need when we're talking about “integration” and not necessarily “balance”. I agree with you.

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

Your work has been on women in public leadership and women in politics. There is a gendered component to talking about the hours of sitting, when we talk about caregiving responsibilities. While they affect, obviously, men and women both and there could be an age thing as well, when we heard from the IPU they told us that when listing barriers to politics, women were much more likely to talk about the hours of sitting and the caregiving responsibilities.

Can you talk a little about the differential impact and maybe the deterrent effect on women, particularly women with young families, of the hours and the work week?

[Clare Beckton]

There is definitely a deterrent, because there is still an assumption in society that it is women's responsibility to do the caregiving. We know that this is changing with the younger generation, that more and more men are becoming engaged and really want to be spending time with their families and their children, but if you look at the percentage of time, it's still higher for women.

I think women tend to worry more about being in two places at the same time. I talk to women all the time who say, I feel guilty when I'm at work and I feel guilty when I'm at home, because I feel I'm not giving effectively to either one. There's also the notion—and still, even in recent times—that women will be asked about their family responsibilities, members of Parliament or otherwise, and men will not be. There is that media perception still of what women should be doing and what their role should be, and I think this inhibits women.

The other thing that I think inhibits women, and I've heard it many times, is “I don't want my private life put out there”, and so they will step back, and that's unfortunate, because I think it should not be the case.

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

Do you think, then, that addressing the efficiencies of the time we spend here and perhaps even compressing the work week would help in redressing the imbalance in our Parliament? We're number 48 in the world for the number of women in Parliament. Would this help to address that?

[Clare Beckton]

It's one of the elements that would help address it. I think there's no substitute for leadership from the political parties whereby they put a real focus on how you encourage more women to run. We know that women usually don't put themselves forward: they need to be asked. Parties need to be out there recruiting, engaging, and asking women to run, because we need that diversity, and the House is better served.

What you say is one piece, but there is that broader piece of how you get them to run in the first place. It certainly would open the door for younger women, because you find that many women wait until their children are a little older before deciding to run, because they feel that they'll have a better opportunity to put their energies where they'd like them to be.

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

Picking up on what you said about the culture and about respect and modelling the desired behaviours, I've had young students coming to question period, young women, saying “I'll never run for Parliament” because they just don't like the very aggressive behaviour.

What do you think could be done about that?

[Clare Beckton]

Well, I think that is the whole piece about respect: how you work to change question period so that it really becomes an opportunity to really genuinely ask questions. That is desirable; it's a good thing. You want to be able to challenge the leaders and the government, but you want to be able to do it in a way that is not for showmanship but is really aimed at getting the kinds of answers that people in the country want to hear. I think many people out there would look at Parliament in a different way, if this were the case.

Certainly, I have heard a number of women ask: why would I want to engage in that kind of fray? I don't feel comfortable doing it, it's not my style, and it's not how I want to do things. We run into that everywhere, because when women are perceived to be more aggressive, that is perceived to be bad, while if men are more aggressive, that's okay, that's what they do.

Rightly or wrongly, this is still there as a perception, and we hear it all the time, that there's that double standard. It's more often an unconscious bias than it is a conscious decision.

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

If we were to compress the work week and deal with the number of hours and make it more efficient, or if we did something about maybe having the Speaker enforcing decorum in the House, would those changes encourage more women to run? Do you think we would see more women on the ballot as a result?

[Clare Beckton]

I think those are certainly very positive steps that would help. When you're trying to sell to women the desirability of running for office, those things might help make the tipping point when you ask women to run or have women being encouraged. We're certainly out there always saying, put your hand up, step forward, do it, because we need women in these roles.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Just as a reminder to committee members, if you want to make sure that everyone gets a chance to ask questions, you're welcome to split your time.

Mr. Reid.

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

By happy coincidence, that is exactly what I was going to do with my colleague Mr. Schmale.

First of all, I want to thank David Prest for attending as a witness. David has unparalleled experience in our caucus, working up here through all kinds of different circumstances over three decades and, of course, in various stages of life: as a young parent and then as a parent of a growing family, and so on.

My first question, David, is for you. Regarding the family-friendly events, I agree with you. I have a sense that the reason these things tend to fall apart is that we get periodic tsunamis through here. Good ideas come along and become part of the culture, and then you get 200 new MPs out of the total number and many of the good ideas are just swept away and have to be rediscovered.

Thinking of what you suggested, I just jotted down possibilities for four possible events. One is doing it from when our year begins, which is September—that is, something in the autumn. I was thinking of maybe a Halloween party. We used to do one with the help of the Speaker—that's after the confectioners shut down theirs. Anybody who has kids who have been loaded up with candy knows that too much candy is not family-friendly, but there could be a Halloween party.

There could be a Christmas party that's child-oriented.

We tried one year doing something in February with the co-operation of the Speaker. February is the period when the blahs set in.

Finally, there could be something either on the lawn or maybe in the East Block courtyard—outdoors, anyway—in June.

Does that strike you as a reasonable number of things, or would you suggest different ones?

[David Prest]

I was thinking of the four seasons, and these suggestions would suit that notion.