Evidence of meeting #19 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 calendar.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
The chair suggests possibly an Easter egg hunt.
These things have tended to be for MPs and their kids, but I gather you're thinking of something that could be for the kids of MPs and also the kids of staffers, where possible.
11:20 a.m.
As an Individual
Yes, I think for staff too—or you can have it separate. Sometimes caucuses organize things for staff and MPs together.
I don't know how many members have families here in Ottawa. The Christmas one that I was thinking about was closer to the caucus Christmas parties, for which a lot of spouses are here and their families are here; they had a lot of MPs' families present. I guess that at other times of year it would be more difficult to bring them in here.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
The other thing I want to say, not to our witnesses but to the committee members as a whole, is that I think there might be merit in our sending a letter to the House leaders of the various parties asking them to start discussing sometime this spring the sitting schedule for next year, rather than waiting. They can do what they want with it then, but that would put it on their agenda.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Is there anyone opposed to that?
We'll do it. You have to be listening.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Thank you, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses once again for your contributions. This is very informative indeed.
I want to pick up on one thing you mentioned about guilt: it's regardless of gender. When I'm at home I feel as though I need to be at work and when I'm at work that I need to be at home. I think it's everyone. Maybe women feel it more, but I know I get that feeling. I think it just goes with the job, but if we can find a way to lessen it, that would be great.
I want to mention, before I get on to my next point, the family-friendly events and bringing families here. This is something we talked about in a previous meeting: the use of travel points for some of our spouses who live out of province or out of driving distance, that type of thing.
I think we all supported disclosure, but I think we all came to an agreement that maybe we should or could look at ways to reduce the impulse of the public to then say, you're flying your spouse everywhere on the taxpayer's dime. I think that may help; I don't know. Nonetheless, in order to get them included, I think everyone has agreed, on every side of the aisle, that getting your spouse here and seeing how the place works and showing what you do is actually of benefit, because they can understand.
I don't know whether you want to comment on that before I get to the next part.
11:20 a.m.
As an Individual
I didn't want to suggest that because it would mean spending more money; but yes, they could. They could be organized in advance. I guess it would be cheaper if you could have advance bookings of these flights to get the family here. I think it would be worthwhile.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Ms. Beckton, do you find that getting families involved is a better thing? I would assume so.
11:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Women in Politics and Public Leadership, Carleton University
Yes, I think that giving families a better understanding of what their spouse or parent is doing on the Hill would certainly make it easier to understand when that spouse or parent is not always available. I think there have been a lot of marriage breakups, and part of that is from a lack of understanding of the pressures that are imposed on an MP when they come to Ottawa.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Sure.
You were talking about compressed work weeks. We had talked about this in previous meetings as well, and the unintended consequences for those MPs who had actually brought their families to Ottawa. I think it causes an issue for them if they are now leaving on a Thursday instead of a Friday, or what have you, however their situation works. I think that might cause another unintended consequence. I think that's something we have to keep an eye on as well.
11:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Women in Politics and Public Leadership, Carleton University
Yes. It's a matter of looking for that best solution that suits the majority of people but doesn't penalize others, which is very challenging at times.
Those are simply things that one looks at whether they work or not. It really depends. I think David has much more understanding of the parliamentary rules and procedures than I do, but certainly that is something that has been done in other areas.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Women in Politics and Public Leadership, Carleton University
For the next round.
11:25 a.m.
Voices
Oh, Oh!
11:25 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair. After you've been here for a while, you can do anything with 20 seconds, trust me.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That's all right.
Thank you both very much for your attendance today.
The first thing I want to do is pick up on what Mr. Schmale said regarding guilt. I've been doing this for over 30 years. I remember a staff rep with the Auto Workers. We were at a retirement, and he was giving his good-bye speech, and said, “You know, everybody over the years has said to me”—meaning him—“'Oh, thank you for the sacrifice that you made for the union members, for the cause, to make the world a better place.'” He said: “You know, the truth of the matter is that it wasn't me who made the sacrifice. It was my family who made the sacrifice, because I was off doing what I enjoy doing; I was able to pursue my passions of speaking out on matters of injustice and fairness, so I was getting a return on what I was doing. But the wedding anniversary, the children's birthdays...”.
Do you want to talk about guilt? It's awful. But that's the truth of the matter: it's the family who pay the sacrifice, because quite frankly, many times you have a choice. It sounds awful, but this is the dilemma; this is what we're talking about, the real life of being an MP. We're still people, and that guilt, when you have to go to a major event—for whatever reason, you have to be there—but your partner is saying, “It's our daughter's birthday. How could you possibly make anything else a bigger priority?” There is such guilt.
I guess talking about it may be one way of dealing with it. I always thought that was a profound observation that Frank Marose made, that the sacrifice really wasn't his, although everyone was saying “Thank you for your sacrifice”, but that it was his family that made those sacrifices.
Second, Peter Stoffer, one of the most amazing parliamentarians to ever darken the doorways around here.... One of the things he was known for was the "All-party party”, which blew me away, because I have to tell you, if my whole reputation from this Hill back in Hamilton were that I was the organizer of a major party, I'd be in for one term. But Peter pulled it off. He was a one-off guy, and people loved Peter.
Maybe it's time to find somebody. There's a unique opportunity. We have a lot of rookies. There's a vacuum there to step into. He literally was all about pulling us all together.
Mr. Prest, everything you were talking about.... That was Peter. That's what Peter was about. The examples you were giving, I think, were mostly Peter: the Christmas one, the "All-party party”; then there used to be the “Hilloween”, which Mr. Reid has pointed to. I'm glad you raised that, and this is something we'll look at.
I want to comment again that I can't believe the difference it has made to have the votes after QP. How many evenings are not destroyed by that? And by saying this, I don't mean that we get to go back to our apartments; I mean that then we can finally go to the meetings we're supposed to be at and the receptions we want to get to, and yes, sometimes spend some social time with colleagues we don't really get to know all that well.
That was a simple thing, and I think it has made a huge difference.
While I have the floor, I want to mention the House and the tone with women. I've defended heckling as an important part of the culture of Parliament, but of course by that I mean one-offs that are like political cartoons, which are meant to be funny and biting and to make a point.
I experienced something yesterday, and I didn't rise to make a point of order, but I did make a point of going over and talking to the Speaker afterwards.... I sit right across from the Minister of International Trade. Now, the Minister of International Trade happens to be a woman, and she happens to be a small woman; she's petite. She sits right across from me, as David is here, and I have to tell you, the drowning noise coming from, I'll just say, “opposition benches”, was so loud that I could hardly hear her. That's not heckling. That's not an intelligent contribution. That's not an emotional response reflecting something that's of value to you that you had to speak out on. No, that's just plain rude and ignorant and unacceptable. Hopefully, when we talk about heckling, we can separate the difference between what is meant to be a pointed contribution to a debate, remembering that our debates replace fighting on the battlefield, so that there has to be some letting go, and just plain drowning someone out because you can, particularly—and I'm going to say it—just because you're a man and you have a bigger....
I have a big, loud voice. To use it for the sole purpose of shutting down a colleague is the antithesis of an intelligent, civilized, democratic debate, and I think we're going to see the Speaker continue to do what he can to stop that.
I do have a question here.
Mr. Prest, you have the unique advantage of having been on both sides as a staff person. With all your experience, just give us your thoughts on the differing impacts on staff—and I've been on both sides, in different houses—from your perspective as this place affects staff, depending whether you're in government or in opposition.
11:30 a.m.
As an Individual
When you're in government, you have to be here more often. I think there are later hours, but you also have more resources and more people to do things, and being in more than one place at the same time is less of a problem. When the House sits, you have to be here.
When you're in opposition it's not as crucial. I like it when the House goes on these autopilots; it frees up both sides. You can go home and not worry that something is going to happen and that you're going to have to rush back. Generally, when the House is sitting it's tough on both sides; it doesn't matter whether you're in opposition or government.