Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 17th, 2016

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

What are the longest consecutive weeks you'll generally sit? Right now we're about to have a run of four weeks, for example.

[David Elder]

Really we would tend to only sit in two-week blocks. It would be very unusual; maybe at the end of a year we might have an additional week of sittings, or an initial few days of sittings, but I can't recall when we last sat for four weeks in a row. It would be a very long time ago.

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

I'm going to break a whole series of precedents here and share my time with the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'm just going to ask a question David Christopherson would ask. You said you have provisions for families to travel. Here and in the U.K. some members with families don't travel because they don't want to appear in the public that it looks like they're spending a lot of money. Are you confident on how yours works?

[David Elder]

Very similarly. It has at various times attracted controversy, and there have been comments at times about some aspects of what they call family reunion travel, and we had a whole range of travel issues that came out last year, and this was amongst those, this family reunion travel. It doesn't seem to create a lot of controversy if it's in fact used to bring family members to Canberra. It is able to be used to take family members to other locations, and I think that's what's caused the controversy. But no, I think members are very sensitive to the use of taxpayers' funds for those purposes, so I think they're very conscious of the need to make sure that this passes the test of public perception as to how that is used.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Mr. Richards.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to just take a step back. You had indicated that you sat 18 to 20 weeks of the year, and generally two weeks at a time, and Monday to Thursday. You mentioned the Friday debacle. I don't think we ever did hear the actual sitting times on the Mondays through Thursdays. Could you give me an indication of the sitting hours on the Mondays through Thursdays?

[David Elder]

Sure. Monday is 10 a.m. to 9:30 p.m; Tuesday is 12 noon to 9:30 p.m., Wednesday is 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.; and Thursday is 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Those sittings are continuous. There are no formal meal breaks, but I should say that on the Mondays and Tuesdays, between the hours of 6:30 and 8, there are no divisions or quorums able to be called in the House which means that members can actually leave the building to have a break and have a meal between 6:30 and 8 on those two days.

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

It looks like you're sitting in the neighbourhood of about 40 sitting hours in a week, typically. What about question period? What time of day is your question period, and what length of time does your question period run for?

[David Elder]

Question time happens each day at 2:00 p.m. and lasts for an hour and ten minutes, so it goes on until 3:10 p.m.

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

When you previously looked at sitting hours, did you look at your question period with a view to changing anything?

[David Elder]

Question period has happened at various times over history. It used to happen first up whenever the House would meet. It used to be at 3:00 p.m. It has been at 2:00 p.m. now for some considerable time.

Certainly, there's discussion at various times about whether it should be at a different time of the day, but we all become creatures of habit, so I think 2:00 p.m. is probably a fairly settled time now. I don't know that there's any great desire or intention to move it.

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

It's the same here. We have ours at the same time. I think it has generally worked pretty well for us here.

It looks like your question period is a little longer than ours. That probably compensates for having one less day of question period. You said it has been 2:00 p.m. for some time so I suspect you probably can't comment on why 2:00 p.m. was chosen. If it has been there for some time, I suspect you weren't part of those discussions, but maybe you would be aware of why it was chosen.

[David Elder]

It's probably one of those things that gets lost in the mists of time. I suspect it was considered to be the most convenient time. I'm not sure whether there were any discussions about the time. It has been 2:00 p.m. for quite a long time now.

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

Fair enough.

On the Federation Chamber, I want to make sure I was correct about this. It sounded like you were saying that the second reading debates and committee stage occurred in that chamber for all legislation. Was that accurate, or are there certain pieces of legislation that are chosen, and if so, why?

[David Elder]

It is only some of the legislation. What we're getting is a sharing of the burden of the House between the Main Chamber and the Federation Chamber. Only certain pieces of legislation are referred to the Federation Chamber. It needs to be done by co-operation, so they tend to be the less controversial matters that might be debated. There is a variety of mechanisms in the operation of the Federation Chamber. This means if there's not co-operation about what's being debated, it's quite easy for an opposition member, or any member, to bring the proceedings to a halt. There have been deliberate efforts to make sure it is a co-operative chamber.

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

Who determines what are the less controversial matters? Is it the Speaker making this decision, or is there a committee of Parliament that makes it? Who decides when something is uncontroversial enough to be in the Federation Chamber?

[David Elder]

It's not the Speaker, and we don't have a business committee that operates in the House, so it would be discussions and negotiations between the Leader of the House and usually the Manager of Opposition Business. The Leader of the House would say to the opposition that there are certain items he would like to see debated in the Federation Chamber. The opposition would say they're happy with this, that, and the other, and those would be the matters that would be debated.

If there's not agreement, there is a range of mechanisms to bring the Federation Chamber to a halt—withdrawing the quorum and a range of other things. It really needs to be done by co-operation. Something like 20% to 30% of the House's legislation would be debated in the Federation Chamber.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

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

Good morning to the two of you, and thank you for joining us so early in the morning.

As you're both aware, this committee is looking at creating some policies to ensure that our Parliament is more family-friendly and more inclusive. We truly appreciate your feedback and your candour in answering our questions.

First and foremost, I'd like to know what brought about the changes in your parliament? What was the motivation to bring about the changes that you brought forward?

[David Elder]

In terms of the procedural changes, I think there was a clear recognition there was an increasing number of women of child-bearing age, and there were genuine issues for them in addressing the balancing of the needs of looking after their children, with the fulfilling of their obligations as parliamentarians. I think the initiative for the proxy voting, which was introduced in 2009, was very much a recognition that it was important they be able to be seen to participate as fully in proceedings as was possible, whilst being able to continue to breastfeed and look after their young infants.

It is a powerful mechanism, because it means a member doesn't attend in the House for a vote, but has their vote recorded as though they had been attending in the House. That proxy voting is a powerful mechanism, and that's deliberately why it was introduced.

The more recent measure we've introduced, which is to allow them to take their infants into the chamber and for them to be not identified as a stranger—as was the old term—is a further development to say members might need this bit of additional flexibility to deal with whatever particular circumstances they might have. If they have a young family member with them, and suddenly there is a division called, they do have that option to take the infant in with them.

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

How many infants would be brought into the House at any given time?

[David Elder]

That provision was introduced earlier this year, and it hasn't yet been used. I wonder how much it will end up being used. I don't know what the House of Commons is like, but the House of Representatives chamber, particularly during divisions, is not exactly a child-friendly environment. It's noisy, and lots of things are happening, so I suspect members would probably prefer not to be taking their young children in there. They do have that option, and I think that's the value of the measure the House has introduced.

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

Do you have any policy or provisions with respect to parental leave for your parliamentarians?

[David Elder]

There isn't any provision for parental leave. Members are entitled to receive their salaries and allowances as long as they continue to be members. For example, if they go on holidays, or they become ill and take time off, they continue to be paid their salaries and entitlements. They don't need to apply formally for any recreation leave or sick leave. Similarly, they don't apply formally for maternity leave. There is no formal system for that, and they continue to receive their salaries and entitlements.

Members do seek leave from the House for the period that they might be absent from the House, and that's a formal resolution of the House to give a member leave for, say, maternity purposes or paternity purposes, or because the person is ill, or whatever the particular issue is that a member might have. That means a member is not then obliged to be attending the House at the times the House is sitting.