Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 17th, 2016

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Any part of the BOIE opening would require a legislative change?

[Philippe Dufresne]

Our view is that the confidentiality provision is quite broad, and there may be some aspects, but there are significant limits to disclosure in the act. That would be—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Fair enough. I didn't realize that. That's fine.

Can I ask, Speaker, if there are deliberations currently? I won't ask the nature of them, because it is confidential, but is there discussion in the BOIE on the kind of legislative changes we're talking about?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I think Philippe has just answered your question by indicating the fact that we can't—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, he didn't, sir, because I was just asking whether there were discussions in BOIE.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

What I mean, Mr. Christopherson, is that he made it very clear that under the Parliament of Canada Act and the oath that is taken by members, the members aren't able to discuss the topics raised at those meetings.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Understood.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I can't really respond to your question is what I'm saying.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I see. Okay. Well, it's interesting; it's a catch-22. We want to get it open, but we can't ask questions about whether it's being discussed or not.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I think the important point that's taken from this is that it requires legislation, which of course the BOIE doesn't initiate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, no, but I would assume, having sat on BOIE at Queen's Park, that the similarities are such that if you're going to make changes to BOIE, some of those changes would start with a discussion at BOIE.

I understand that you can't say much, and that's part of the problem, isn't it? It's just too closed. Here we are at a meeting, and I can't even find out whether opening the doors at BOIE is being discussed, because the doors are slammed shut so tight.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I would suggest that you talk to the member for your party on the Board of Internal Economy with your views on the subject, but of course you may also want to talk to the government House leader, who we would expect to be the person who'd bring legislation before the House.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Right, and that tone I'll take with him. I certainly wasn't with you, Speaker.

Next I want to follow up on Mr. Graham's comment about access, because we've been here before. It's almost always after the fact, when there has been a crisis, and then we do a whole review. Monsieur Godin was one example. There have been at least two others since I've been here.

Every time we ask ahead of time we're told, “Yes, don't worry”, and then inevitably there's a problem. There was a problem the last time. I didn't raise it because it wasn't big enough and it was early in the term, but the green bus that I was on was stopped from getting to Centre Block, and we were told we couldn't go any further. Quite frankly, everybody was unceremoniously dumped. That was fine. We walked across the lawn. However, one of my colleagues—I won't mention her name—had a temporary disability and was using a cane. She still had to walk across the front lawn in order to get to Centre Block.

Speaker, I am asking, I am all but pleading, to please make sure that these things are thought through ahead of time. Identify a route that works. The last thing we want to do is risk the security of an honoured visitor to our country, but we have been emphasizing over and over, since Canada was formed, the absolute, unfettered right of parliamentarians to access Centre Block, and yet it keeps happening.

I'm asking you and I'm asking everyone there to try to get ahead of this thing. Think ahead of time, when there's a crunch, about how you get the members to the House. It is a constitutional requirement. Hearing “sorry” afterwards is getting a little frustrating. I am urging you and Monsieur Duheme to please keep in mind, as a priority, when you are putting those barriers in, how the members get to the House, given that they have a constitutional right.

I'll leave that with you.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Look, I can assure you that this is a preoccupation of mine. Privilege, when it comes to this kind of issue, is about the right of members of Parliament to be able to do their jobs on behalf of their constituents. That's what privilege means, of course, in this context. I can tell you that when I hear about proposals for events on Parliament Hill, this is something I raise on a regular basis to try to ensure that we avoid those kinds of things.

Mr. Duheme may want to add a comment.

[C/Supt Michael Duheme]

I'm not quite familiar with the incident you're referring to, Mr. Christopherson. When there's a major event on the Hill, in the planning we have looked at an alternative to get the buses up toward the—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Sir, I'm sorry. I hear you say that, sir, but the fact of the matter is that we have been stopped. I'm not questioning you, but at some point your desire to have these commands carried out doesn't always work on the ground. It just seemed to me that the last time.... Again, it wasn't an incident, so you wouldn't be aware of it, but it did happen. There were other colleagues there. If need be, I could get them to say it happened, but trust me, it happened.

It was just thoroughly a lack of identifying how that green bus would get through the security maze to find its way up. That's all that was required. It didn't happen.

I hit this hard because my goal is that we never have to deal with this in this Parliament. That would be perfect, but my experience is that there's a good chance that it will happen. Maybe under the new regime we can actually make this the priority.

I hear you, Speaker. You're a man of your word, and I'm sure you are doing everything you can. Let's just hope that it doesn't happen this time.

That's my time.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, guests.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We will adjourn for the first 60 seconds. When we come back, we'll have the votes on these two estimates and then, in deference to our U.K. witnesses, we will have them on video conference and start as soon as we can after the vote. I'll be suspending.

Thank you very much to all the witnesses. I know you're all very busy, and we really appreciate it. We'll talk to you individually if we have other concerns.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We're in session.

While people are getting organized, I'll go over the formalities.

In a minute, we're going to have a vote on the estimates. Before we do that, I will introduce our witnesses.

We're going to resume our study of initiatives toward an inclusive, efficient House of Commons.

Our witnesses are here by video conference from the United Kingdom's House of Commons. I would like to welcome David Natzler, Clerk of the House of Commons; Anne Foster, head of diversity and inclusion; and Joanne Mills, diversity and inclusion programme manager and nursery liaison officer.

Before we begin, I would like to thank the clerk for drawing our attention to the work of Professor Sarah Childs, who's completing her report on reforms that would make the U.K. House of Commons a more inclusive institution.

You all got a note on that from the clerk. There are some advanced points she's looking at, and we look forward to seeing her report in the interim. It's very timely. She's doing a report. Someone has full-time work looking at modernizing the House of Commons.

I'm going to call the votes on the estimates.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$307,196,559

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

PARLIAMENTARY PROTECTIVE SERVICE

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$56,313,707

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

Shall I report the votes on the main estimates for 2016, less the amount voted in interim supply, to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Once again, we're sorry for our procedures holding you up. I know you're busy, and we would love to hear your opening statements. I think this will be enlightening for us.

[David Natzler, Clerk of the House, United Kingdom House of Commons]

Shall I start now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes, please.

[David Natzler]

Thank you.

We well understand from Westminster. Things here sometimes get interrupted by votes as well. Whether that's family friendly or not, I don't know.

We're honoured to be asked to give evidence and very happy to answer your questions, so I will try to keep this opening statement pretty short.

I have with me Anne Foster and Jo Mills, who can answer questions as well. As well as talking to Sarah Childs, I hope you might have the opportunity to talk to or invite evidence from some of your colleagues over here, because they know better than staff about family-friendly policies as they relate to members and their staff.

In general we are, of course, keen to be a family-friendly employer of our staff, to the extent that we can control the necessary demands made on them. That means, for example, flexible working arrangements; an openness to consider requests for compressed or special hours; part-time working; job-sharing—and we have had job-sharing in quite senior jobs—leave, despite the House sitting; and bearing down on what can be a prevalent late-work culture. On that and those subjects, I'm sure that Anne can help you further.

We don't really have much influence on the work-life balance or the family-friendliness of the staff of members. We neither employ them nor pay them. As for members, we have, I guess, even less influence on their work-life balance. They manage themselves. We are, of course, conscious of some of the strains on their lives, but again, as fellow members, you would know that better than anybody.

You asked about sittings and sitting hours. They are decided by the House, and from 40 years' experience, I can confirm that whatever is decided is alway controversial and not popular with everybody.

It used to be assumed that an earlier start and therefore an earlier end to the day was in some way better and more family friendly. Of course, it may mean that you can neither take your children to school nor collect them at the end of the day. If there are votes at seven o'clock, it's questionable if that is automatically better than votes at ten o'clock. It is a short, but very intensive, 60-to-70-hour, Monday-to-Thursday working week. It's very good for non-London-based members, but possibly not so good for London-based members.

The good thing is that our sitting patterns through the year are now more reflective of people's non-working lives. In particular, we have a break at February for school half term. What is not so good is that we normally return in October, just as the autumn half term from school beckons. We have the problem, which I don't know if you share, that in different parts of the United Kingdom there are different times for school holidays. In Scotland, school holidays start substantially earlier.

You asked about voting. Broadly speaking, voting is similar here to your system. We have no proxy voting. We have no facilities for absent voting, although there is “nodding through”, which is an informal procedure whereby members in the precincts who in some way are unable to pass through the lobbies can vote.

Infants, meaning very small children, are now permitted in the voting lobbies, but not as yet in the chamber itself. Jo is able to explain about our day care and nursery facilities. We don't have a drop-in or crèche, but there is quite a lot of demand for something like that, and we are conscious of what you are planning on that.

There is notionally something described as maternity leave for members, but it isn't, for I think obvious reasons, on the standard statutory lines. Of course, it doesn't stop those members who are on “maternity” leave from attending, speaking, or voting.

You asked about technology. I think the main advantage of technology in this context is enabling staff to work at or from home with remote links. We, of course, have an advantage over you: we're all in the same time zone.

We have had an alternate chamber, which I know you were also asking about, since 1999, based unashamedly on the Australian practice, and it's been a huge success. I'm happy to answer questions on that.

Finally, I think I should say there is an issue here with the extent to which the members' expenses regime—that's the allowances—affects the ability of members from outside London to lead anything like an ordinary family life by having their family members with them in London. Our expenses regime is, as you may know, under the auspices of an independent authority, which is currently consulting on exactly that point and has quoted in their document the fact that MPs often suggest the authority is not supportive enough of MPs' families and of their desire to have some sort of family life, including spouses and dependent children living with them when they are in London rather than the constituency.

I hope that was helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much. Once again, thank you for being here. It's very helpful.

We'll start with Ms. Vandenbeld.