Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 5th, 2016

[François Arsenault]

It is difficult for me to give you a clear answer mainly because I am not a parliamentarian. Common sense tells us that people should be more efficient and less impatient when they are less tired. It's human nature. People sometimes tend to forget that parliamentarians are human beings more than anything else. Break weeks can be beneficial.

As we can see in our current parliamentary calendar, in February, we resume work for a very short time before our first constituency week. All goes well. However, toward the end of the parliamentary session, in the final sprint of the somewhat extended sitting periods, there is more tension at times, probably because people are tired and the stress has accumulated. That said, parliamentarians would be in a better position to talk about it.

In your study, you need to determine how many weeks the government needs for its legislation. I always say the government, but there is clearly the opposition, which must also play its part. The issue of parliamentary control is also very important. You must determine how much time is needed and how Parliament can operate effectively. That is a very difficult thing to do, and it depends on the measures and bills that are challenged. Bills on which everyone agrees usually move forward quite well and quickly. However, when the opposition decides to fight tooth and nail against a bill, whether for ideological or other reasons, the government is happy to have those time slots to move the work forward.

In addition, even though the exceptional legislative procedure, like a gag order, is still an option, governments, at least Quebec's, are desperate to avoid using it. Having more time may help some bills to finally be passed, sometimes with opposition amendments, because the government wants to end the debate and reach some sort of consensus.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

A quick glance at this suggests that your House still sits less than ours now, and yet your government doesn't use closure on a regular basis in order to meet its time frames. Usually the argument a government will put up is that it has to do that because it has a deadline to meet. Yet, your culture is that is doesn't use that as much, yet it sits for less time. You may not be able to answer this one, but what do you think of that disparity? Is there a more co-operative culture at the leadership level in your House that allows things that are not controversial to remain not controversial and to go through more smoothly? Why do you think that is? I'm not expecting a detailed answer, but just your thoughts on why we sit longer and why the government, regardless of political stripe, it seems, feels the need to shut down debate on a rather regular basis?

[François Arsenault]

It is very difficult for me to answer that question. I sort of follow what is happening in the House of Commons, but I am not there. Perhaps you would need to compare how many measures and bills are put forward at the federal level and in Quebec. Unfortunately, I cannot say much more about that.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I sat in the Ontario legislature for 13 years, and a study might show it to be different, but I don't recall the number of bills going through the House being that much greater.

Thank you for your comments on that.

I want to move again, and I may need some assistance from our analysts here, so I'd ask that they be on standby. You mention on page 6 of your opening remarks that your code of ethics empowers the ethics commissioner to determine whether a member's absence violates the code under section 35, and I quote: “A member must maintain a good attendance record in carrying out the duties of office. He or she may not be absent from sittings of the National Assembly for an unreasonable length of time without a valid reason.”

Through you, Chair, to our analyst, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that we have an actual number of days, and you are either okay within that number of days or if you cross that threshold, you're into another scenario. Can you help me out, please?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

You have about five seconds left. I'll let the analyst respond to your question and then your time will be up.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Fair enough, Chair. Thank you.

[Andre Barnes, Committee Researcher]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's set out in the Parliament of Canada Act that it's 21 days. There are specific reasons why you can be absent, including illness and a couple of others that I don't recall offhand.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It is interesting, though, that one allows a judgment by a third party, and the other one is very prescriptive.

Thank you, Chair, and Mr. Arsenault.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Now we have Ms. Sahota, who is going to share her time with Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you for all your valuable insight into how the Quebec Assembly works. You mentioned that members wanted to be more present in their constituencies to serve their constituents and to do constituency work. Have the amendments that you've made in the assembly allowed the members to serve more time? Have you had feedback from the members? Have these amendments satisfied their constituents as a whole?

[François Arsenault]

I would say yes and no. Let me explain why.

The answer is yes because we think parliamentarians are happy to be able to finish the work earlier in the year. That gives them a little more time before Christmas and before the summer.

However, in reality, there is a lot of discontent, particularly with respect to the parliamentary committees. The committees may sit when the National Assembly is sitting, but they also meet a lot when the National Assembly is not sitting. When the National Assembly is not sitting, the parliamentary committees have more time to sit.

In Quebec, many parliamentary committees begin their work quite early in the year. As a result, that forces the members of the committees to be in the Assembly for very long periods of time. So that adds up to much more than 26 weeks. That may be a somewhat negative effect of the 2009 reform.

It is difficult to assess the situation. Does this have to do with the change in the calendar or the fact that committees sit more? It must be said that there has been an increase in public hearings held by parliamentary committees.

If we were to survey parliamentarians on how satisfied they are with the current calendar, we would not get a very high score. As I explained earlier, there are probably 125 different viewpoints among the parliamentarians. Which calendar should be used?

In some ways, things have improved, but not in others, especially in terms of the parliamentary committees. A lot of parliamentarians tell us that they spend too much time in Quebec City and that they don't have enough time to do their work in their ridings. However, other parliamentarians would probably tell you something different. It depends.

We are seeing that we need a lot of time for the committees that are sitting. That does not affect all 125 members, but it affects many of them. Take August for example, and that's my final comment. From mid-August to the end of August, parliamentary committees are starting to sit. Clearly, that's never very popular with parliamentarians for obvious reasons. If the parliamentary committees have long mandates and they sit from mid-August to the beginning of the National Assembly sittings in September, those members will not have a lot of time to work in their ridings. Clearly, that applies more to the members from outside the region.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Has there been feedback from the constituents, from the citizens of Quebec, on the changes that you've made?

[François Arsenault]

We have received no feedback from the public. I suppose the members must have have received feedback from their own constituents, that's pretty much a given, but we have received no opinion, favourable or unfavourable, from the public at large.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I find it difficult to explain to my constituents sometimes. Although I enjoy a lot of the work that I'm doing here in Ottawa, they like to see me there and they like to be able to share their concerns and problems. It is important to get back to your constituency.

I'm going to share my time with my colleague here.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Arsenault, thank you very much for your presentation. It will really help us develop good recommendations, particularly for work-life balance.

Could you tell us what prompted the changes in 2009?

[François Arsenault]

It was a series of circumstances. There have been small adjustments, but the last major reform of the calendar was in 1984. However, Parliament had changed quite a bit in the meantime. Parliamentarians had asked that a number of aspects in the standing orders be amended. Two government leaders at the time introduced reform proposals. The speaker of the Assembly himself introduced a plan to reform a host of issues.

A committee was formed in 2008, I think, to study those proposals. The reform took place in 2009. The calendar was one of the key issues discussed. That is still the case today. A technical committee made up of parliamentary leaders meets to discuss future reforms or adjustments to the standing orders. The parliamentary calendar is clearly still one of the items on the agenda.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I suppose that you were in the Assembly in 2009 and you were there before the changes were made. You are still there now.

Could you tell us what you think has had most effect?

[François Arsenault]

I was indeed in the Assembly before the 2009 reform. That said, it is always difficult to answer questions on effectiveness. How can we measure effectiveness? Is effectiveness when a bill is passed quickly? Some will say yes. Does effectiveness mean allowing the entire opposition to express its point of view, to bring about change through debate and the time spent debating, to introduce amendments that will make the government think more or put some water in its wine to amend the legislation? We have seen situations where the opposition proposed major amendments to bills. Initially, the government did not agree, but after hours or even days of deliberations, it decided to put some water in its wine to reach a consensus with the opposition. It is really hard to say what is effective and to define effectiveness. Some will say that spending many hours in committees or in the chamber is effective, while others say that it is completely ineffective.

It is important to keep in mind that the wisdom of parliamentarians and speakers lies in developing standing orders that strike a balance, allowing first the government to govern and pass the measures it introduces, and, second, the opposition to express the view that it thinks does justice to the people. We hear a lot about the fact that citizens may express their views to parliamentarians. The National Assembly has 125 members. This means that many people may want to express their views. Clearly, you have even more people. The idea is to find a balance, which is not easy.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Schmale for five minutes.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I appreciate the discussion going on now. It seems that a lot of our questions and concerns clearly relate to the schedule and how we can make this work. I like some of your suggestions.

I would like to ask a quick question. On page 6, you mention parental leave for parliamentarians. You say, “so far this type of leave has never been used.” Is that to say that nobody has ever had a child while they were serving? I just want to see if there is a distinction there.

[François Arsenault]

That's an excellent question.

Some parliamentarians have had children, just like the general public. Actually, a member has become a father in the past few weeks.

Officially, no parental leave has been requested by parliamentarians. Would the whips allow it? Some members may be absent from the National Assembly for all sorts of reasons. It is rare for 100% of the members to be present in the National Assembly. Some have permission to be absent, whether to participate in parliamentary missions, to work in their ridings or to make ministerial or other announcements.

Do whips allow some members to be absent, for a relatively short time, from the National Assembly? They probably do. Clearly, that is not done at our level, but surely an exception may be made for some. However, to date we have not seen parliamentarians absent from the National Assembly for months because they became parents. That has happened before, but they were not officially on parental leave. It may be the case informally, but not officially.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I am surprised that wasn't brought up in your review of 2009. I would find that a very discouraging factor for some people getting into politics, if there is nothing.... I know we have that extended leave of 21 days, and I know we are talking about that in this forum.

Has there been any discussion or comments from male or female parliamentarians who are new parents? You just said you had a new father here, so I am wondering if any comments have come forward about ways to accommodate that.

[François Arsenault]

I know there are constant discussions among parliamentarians on this important issue of work-family balance. How can we attract more people to the National Assembly? People may actually be discouraged when they see the schedule or the impact on their families. Those discussions come up constantly. There is no solution for the time being, apart from what I have explained at the outset. Nothing can be done about it.

That said, it is an ongoing discussion. People are thinking about it and the solution is not simple. Parliamentary work is unique, for the reasons I mentioned. Earlier, some of your colleagues expressed it well, at least in terms of the constituency work. Would constituents agree to their representatives being absent for months? I don’t know.

There is also an impact on the operations of the National Assembly and the role of members.

It’s not simple, but it is the stage that the discussions have reached.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I definitely agree there is something to be said for standing in your place and voting on a particular issue, so I do get that point.

As for technology to improve the family work-life balance, I know we have been talking about this a lot. Something that continues to come up is the use of our parliamentary calendar. A lot of us, including me, use something that isn't in-house, the Google Calendar, so that all of our staff and our families can access where we will be and have an opportunity to input items that we should be at, a family birthday party, and those kinds of things.

We often talk about ways of fixing this or finding a solution, and sometimes we overthink things and kind of reinvent the wheel. I am just curious if there is a system that you use that allows, through your management platform, the opportunity for your MNAs to have their families or staff members access it without the secure ID cards that we have here.

[François Arsenault]

Access to the Greffier site is reserved for parliamentarians and their researchers and assistants, who have access to the site. In principle, family does not have access to the site for security reasons.

If I understood your question correctly, I would have to say that the Greffier site will not necessarily be the answer. In terms of the calendar, the Greffier site will simply show it. In fact, this isn't true. It can be part of a solution, in the sense that the schedules for hearings and the calendar of upcoming events can be easily found. I'm sticking my neck out a bit, but I know that the whips' offices have their own parallel calendar system to ensure that members are present both at the National Assembly and in parliamentary committee at various times. I think they probably make more use of this calendar from the office of the whip for each political party.