Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 5th, 2016

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you so much. Our time has expired, but maybe that's an avenue. The last thing we need to do is to get more work. It's the first time I recall the whole idea of the media being mentioned. Maybe we should ask to see a delegation from the media to see if they have any thoughts on it. I'll leave that there.

Thank you both so much. We appreciate your attendance. You've been very helpful in terms of our studies. We will conclude, colleagues, this part of our meeting. I will suspend the meeting briefly while we reset for our videoconferencing guests.

Again to our guests, thank you so much for being here. We now stand suspended for a few moments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Just before we start with our witness, we have a handout, but unfortunately it came in too late for us to translate the attached charts. Most of the handout has been translated, but the charts are still in French. Is there any objection to our distributing them? I'm sure that we all know what lundi, jeudi, and vendredi mean anyway.

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

It's better to have half a thing than nothing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

There is no objection? Okay.

Just so the committee knows, so we don't have to take time later, we've asked the Clerk to come to our next meeting on Tuesday. Then in the second hour on Tuesday, we'll have the clerk from the Ontario assembly. Then at six o'clock Tuesday evening, we're having the Australian delegation.

You have to change the schedule in front of you. It's pretty important. Don't show up on Tuesday night, because it's been changed to a week later. You'll get a message anyway. Australia is on the 17th, not on the 10th. The schedule has Australia on the 10th, and it's actually on the 17th. On the 11th it is New Zealand, as you see, at six o'clock in the evening.

Then next Thursday, Elections Canada has invited us to an informal briefing.

Okay, I'd like to welcome François Arsenault.

He is director of parliamentary proceedings at the National Assembly of Quebec.

Thank you for your participation today.

You may begin. You have five minutes.

[François Arsenault, Director of Parliamentary Proceedings, National Assembly of Quebec]

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. My name is François Arsenault. I am director of parliamentary proceedings at the National Assembly of Quebec. I wish to thank the committee for inviting me to speak with you. I hope that what I have to say will be useful to you in your work.

First of all, I should mention that, in 2009, the National Assembly adopted major parliamentary reforms involving several issues being studied by this committee. The objectives of the 2009 reform were to: spread out legislative work over time, balance constituency and Assembly work, limit extended sitting periods, avoid long winter and summer breaks, incorporate private members' business in the calendar, and make enough time available for the government's legislative agenda.

I will begin by talking about the sitting schedule and the parliamentary calendars.

The calendar in place since 2009 lengthened each parliamentary work period during the year while cutting the number of sitting hours per week and adding designated constituency weeks. In practical terms, Assembly sittings start and end earlier in the year. The number of hours for routine proceedings was significantly reduced. However, the government still has a lot of leeway for moving its legislative agenda forward, while a lot of time still goes unused.

As well, each sitting of the Assembly now begins with routine proceedings, since that is when the largest number of members are in the chamber, the Salon bleu. The Tuesday sitting, usually the first sitting of the week, starts in the afternoon so that members working in the regions can return to the Assembly.

Lastly, the number of sittings with extended hours was cut in half, from four to two weeks per work period, a total of four per year and, during this period, the Assembly and committees do not sit as late in the evening.

On page 3 of the document you have received, you will find a summary of the calendar that is in effect until June. One period of 16 weeks begins on the second Tuesday in February. The other period, 10 weeks long, begins on the third Tuesday in September. There are then extended sitting hours for a total of four weeks, two weeks following each regular session. The calendar also provides for work in electoral districts: three weeks during the session starting in February, one week during the session starting in September and one week following the end of period.

On page 4, you will find the calendar of Assembly work. By that, I mean the hours during which the Assembly sits. I will spare you a reading of all the hours listed there. I do apologize, however, for a small typo. This is an older version, with 9:30 a.m. indicated as the starting time, which is now 9:40 a.m. after an adjustment to the standing orders a few months ago. This is the calendar of both ordinary hours and extended hours.

Parliamentary committees are also included because, except for constituency weeks, committees may meet at any time during the schedule on page 5. You can also see that committees can meet on Monday afternoons and Friday mornings. Up to four committees can meet simultaneously. This number increases to five when the Assembly is not sitting.

I would now like to deal with voting procedure in the chamber or in committee.

Electronic voting or remote voting is not permitted in the National Assembly. Members must be present to exercise their right to vote. However, there is a way to avoid holding votes at less desirable times in the chamber, such as late at night. These are known as deferred divisions and they allow the government to defer any division until the routine proceedings on the next sitting day. Divisions may be deferred only upon request of the government house leader.

As for child care, there have already been discussions to consider opening a child care service within or near the Parliament building for parliamentarians and their staff. This was not pursued, in part because Parliament Hill is well served by several child care facilities and members did not want to open such an exclusive service while not all Quebeckers have access to subsidized child care.

As well, the vast majority of members do not have their primary residence in the Quebec City area, so parliamentary child care would not help make the assembly more family-friendly. Remember that the Assembly meets 26 weeks per year for an average of just under 80 sittings.

Like the rest of the province, parliamentarians technically have access to parental leave, although so far this type of leave has never been used. Members hold a publicly elective office and are deemed to be exercising the duties of this office as long as they remain in office. A member's seat becomes vacant only under the circumstances outlined in sections 16 and 17 of an Act respecting the National Assembly, for example, in the case of resignation, electoral defeat or imprisonment.

Since the voters in the riding elect members for a maximum five-year term, the member's duties cannot be delegated to someone else. If a member took extended absence for parental leave, who would represent the constituents? Could a member's absence from a vote end up changing the outcome? Should members on parental leave be counted for a quorum? Who would sign official documents on their behalf? Who would have authority over their staff?

Section 35 of the Code of ethics and conduct of the members of the National Assembly states that members must “maintain a good attendance record in carrying out the duties of office”. They may not be “absent from sittings of the National Assembly for an unreasonable length of time without a valid reason”. How would the Ethics Commissioner view an extended absence for parental leave?

I want to comment briefly on technologies to improve work-family balance.

Of course, the National Assembly uses technology to allow parliamentarians to do their work efficiently, especially by providing them with various tools such as laptops, iPads and smartphones.

Another tool is the Greffier website. I see that my time is flying. I will just say that Greffier is an intranet site accessible to all parliamentarians, wherever they may be in the world. They can access various parliamentary documents, such as schedules, briefs submitted by groups for upcoming hearings, texts of bills and amendments. This all may be found on Greffier, in the Assembly or from home.

You will find attached a few statistics on the parliamentary work at the National Assembly that may be of interest to members of the committee.

Thank you.

Of course, I am available to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

I would just point out with regard to your comment about replacing someone that in Sweden, ministers get a whole replacement person for their constituency work. I think it might be for parental leave too.

We'll start out with Mr. Graham, sharing with Mr. Lightbound, I think.

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

That's correct, Mr. Chair. I'll be sharing with Mr. Lightbound.

Thnak you, Mr. Arsenault. I very much appreciate the time you have devoted to us.

My question is a quick one; it deals with procedure in the National Assembly.

At federal level, four days are allocated for a bill to be debated, studied in committee and sent back to the House. How long do you allocate for a bill to be studied? Here, we can study it in a week, but you only sit for three days. I am curious to understand the difference.

[François Arsenault]

Thank you for your question.

There is a major difference. The time allocated for each of the legislative stages is not calculated in days, but in individual speaking times for each of the members.

When the work schedule is established in the National Assembly, I would say that, in theory—it may be a little different in practice and I will explain to you why—it become difficult to predict, because there is no fixed length of time for the a bill to be passed in principle. For example, the standing orders do not say that it will take five hours, 10 hours or two days to go through the process of passing a bill in principle. Instead, it is done on the basis of the hours or minutes anticipated for each member.

In practice, of course, for most uncontested bills, the parliamentary leaders talk to each other and try to set an informal schedule that is not made public. For example, in setting the time need to pass a bill in principle, the official opposition may say that it will have three speakers and that they will speak for about an hour in total. Then the second opposition group says how long they will take, and so on. The standing orders themselves do not stipulate a specific duration, except when exceptional procedural motions are being discussed.

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

Is each speech limited in time? Is each member limited to one speech per subject? Are there limits like that?

[François Arsenault]

Yes. Each member can actually speak only once at each legislative stage. So, for example, at the passage in principle stage, each member may speak only once.

The standing orders set a maximum time per member, according to the debate. The speaking times are not always the same. The time can vary depending on whether we are at the passage in principle, the report stage or the final passage. Speaking times are longest when we are at the passage in principle stage.

In addition, speaking times vary with the function of the members. For example, the minister introducing the bill and the critics from the official opposition may speak longer than the other members.

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

I will let Mr. Lightbound continue.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Good afternoon, Mr. Arsenault. Thank you for being part of our session today.

All of us around this table share the same concern. We all want to have a parliament that better represents Canadians. Among other things, then, we want to attract more women.

As a result of the changes you introduced in 2009, have you observed a quantitative increase in the number of women elected to the National Assembly?

Qualitatively, have there been any comments about their experience with the work-life balance, and I would include men in that as well? How has it been received by the members?

[François Arsenault]

As for the participation of women, there are presently 36 women out of the 125 members, a little less than 29%. In 2012, 27% of the members were women. I do not have the 2009 figures with me, but essentially, we have seen no significant difference since the 2009 reform. There has not been a greater representation of women in the Quebec National Assembly. That’s point number one.

As for point number two, the impact of these rules on the work-life balance. As you can see in the media, that is currently making headlines in Quebec. Even before the events of this week, the subject kept coming back with parliamentarians. It did not solve all the previous problems. If you asked parliamentarians for their opinion about the current calendar that I showed you and what proposals they might have about it, you would probably get 125 different proposals from the 125 members. There really is no consensus on this issue.

Parliamentarians who live in and around Quebec City may see significant advantages in finishing work earlier and not sitting so late in the evening, because they can go home to their families. However, it is different for those from the regions and from outside the Quebec City area. If the National Assembly finishes its work at 6 p.m., it is impossible for a number of them to go home to their families. Some would therefore feel that, by contrast, the National Assembly should concentrate its calendar even more and sit for longer, over a much shorter period of time, so that they could go back to their constituencies.

Really, I would add that there are always discussions about Mondays and Fridays. When you looked at the national assembly’s calendar, you saw that it does not sit on Mondays unless there is a government motion. That is quite rare. In addition, it does not sit on Fridays except during the extended hours.

However, there is an impact on parliamentary committees. Some parliamentarians would prefer the National Assembly or the committees never to sit on Mondays and Fridays in order to make sure they could go back to their ridings and take care of their family obligations and their constituency work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have 30 seconds.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Oh, 30 seconds.

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

With your permission, I would like to continue for a few more seconds.

Briefly, do you wonder why no parental leave has been taken?

[François Arsenault]

You would have to ask the parliamentarians.

One of the difficulties may be technical in nature. I am not an expert in this area, but the Québec parental insurance plan applies to everyone. If members wanted to take advantage of it, they would have to give up all the other benefits that they might be able to receive. That is not necessarily to their advantage.

Do not forget the reasons I listed in my presentation. Members taking a six-month absence to take care of their babies have no replacement system to fall back on. There are no substitute members to do their jobs. So what can they do?

Suppose we had a government with a slim majority, and we have had them in some years. If several government members took parental leave, the government might well lose votes in the National Assembly. That situation has not risen yet, however. We are not at that level, but there have certainly been discussions between the members of some parties and their whips to grant shorter leave. However, we have not yet seen a member officially use parental leave in Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Mr. Richards has the floor now.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you very much for being here with us today. I have a few questions for you as well.

First of all, I want to say that I appreciated your remarks with regard to parental leave for parliamentarians. You raised a series of questions, and I think one of the things we always have to be conscious of when we're talking about these kinds of reforms is the impact they will have on constituents. Constituents vote for someone to be their representative, and they believe that that's the person who would best represent the constituency. For someone to take parental leave would leave those constituents without a representative.

I've appreciated some of those questions you asked. Who would represent the constituents? Would that absence end up changing the outcome of a vote? There's a whole series of other questions, and I think those are important. It is important we remember that we're here to serve our constituents. It's a crucial thing.

I want to follow up in a couple of areas. In the exchange you just had with members from the government, I think I was understanding where you were going, but when you made your reforms, you made the decision—I think, if I'm understanding correctly—to go with more sitting weeks, but shorter weeks in those sittings. It sounded like that was currently being looked at, or reviewed, or there had been some discussion about it at least.

Could you elaborate a bit on why? One of the challenges for us in Ottawa to look at something like that would be the significant cost, particularly for people coming in from the west. If you have more weeks, but shorter weeks, that would increase the travel costs to taxpayers. I'm wondering if that is part of the reason you're looking at it. I know that the context is a bit different at the provincial level, but I'm wondering if that's one of the reasons why this is currently being reviewed, or if there are other reasons, and if you could elaborate on them.

[François Arsenault]

There are many reasons why these issues are being studied again. In terms of travel costs, Quebec’s territory is smaller than that of Canada as a whole, and, therefore, the issue is perhaps a little less important.

Furthermore, before the 2009 reform, the Quebec National Assembly began its work in mid-March and ended a little before Saint-Jean-Baptiste, towards the end of June. In the fall, it began its work in mid-October and adjourned around Christmas Eve, which parliamentarians complained about. They actually argued that, between the end of the Assembly’s proceedings and the Christmas holidays, they had very little time to do their work in their ridings. This is why the schedule was changed. We now begin our work in September and end in early December. The same principle applies to the spring period.

Another decision was made to introduce what the standing orders call constituency weeks during those periods of parliamentary work. Those are weeks of parliamentary recess during which the Assembly and the committees cannot sit. That is especially the case during the spring period, which is the longest. The parliamentary recess periods coincide with school breaks, often in March, and with Easter. There is already a statutory holiday on Monday of that week. In addition, there is another week, which is flexible and can be moved. This year, it is this week. Right now, we are in parliamentary recess. Last year, it was combined with the school break I mentioned. We finish the work earlier, but we start earlier too.

Another important fact is that the sitting hours are shorter, especially during the extended sitting periods. Previously, during those periods, the Assembly and the committees sat until midnight four days a week, but now the meetings are adjourned no later than 10:30 p.m. This is indicated in one of the appendices. In fact, they end at 10:30 p.m. only on some nights. Otherwise, they end earlier. It was agreed that 10:30 p.m. is late, but at least parliamentarians do not finish their day at midnight. Because of the long working hours and lack of rest, they found it difficult to do their job as parliamentarians and to balance work and family.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

You mentioned in your presentation that e-voting or remote voting is not permitted in the National Assembly. I personally believe there's something significant about—again, this goes back to making sure we're serving our constituents in the best possible way—members standing in their place and having their constituents seeing them standing and being counted, but I don't know if that's why that's the case in the National Assembly.

Is this something that was discussed when you were doing your reforms or just something that wasn't considered? If it was considered, for what reasons was it decided not to go with the idea of e-voting or remote voting?

[François Arsenault]

The issue of electronic voting was addressed during the discussions that led to the 2009 reform, but not in depth or very seriously.

There are two aspects to that.

First, we asked ourselves how we could ensure the validity of votes, from a legal standpoint, if parliamentarians voted from their various ridings rather than in Parliament itself. How can this be organized? How can we ensure the integrity of the process? That's an issue. I am not saying that it's impossible. I'm just telling you that it is an issue.

Then, it must be said that many parliamentarians feel a certain pride to be present in the House during the recorded votes, to rise before all their colleagues to vote in favour or against a motion.

However, the issue of electronic voting has not been studied in depth. The discussions about reforming it were not very extensive.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Okay. It sounds as though many members there felt, much as I do, that it's important to stand and be counted your place so their constituents could see and witness how you're voting on their behalf.

It appears that you're maybe indicating I'm out of time here, Mr. Chair? Okay.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have a good sense.

The floor is yours, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Arsenault.

I appreciate your being with us.

My first question is based on testimony we heard from an earlier witness prior to your joining us. It was from a seasoned staff veteran who's been on both sides of the House, government and opposition. When asked what he thought the ideal length of time for the House to meet was, bearing in mind the needs of government and all the things that factor in, he said three weeks was about right. With anything less, we're maybe not as efficient; with anything longer, we're keeping people from their homes and families, and there is the mood and the tension as you get into fourth weeks and fifth weeks. Those of us who have served five weeks know exactly what that's about. It gets crazy.

Would you agree that three weeks is the right length of time, or is there another number that you think more reflects that balance?