Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Jan. 28th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Building on that, we could still have clerks from the House here who could comment on at least the viability of some of the options they're hearing, to give us a little more focused attention.

In other words, they could say, “That one idea sounds really good, but it would be difficult for us here because of this and this.” Or they could say, “It's up to the will of the parliamentarians; however, it is doable. It's not that big a deal.” Or they could tell it is a big deal. That's helpful too, because it gives us an idea of what the implications are of the changes we might recommend.

I think we're beginning to see a path, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes. I think we would ask the clerks, whichever clerks we're asking, to tell us the consequences of some of these changes, because there would be consequences.

Were you suggesting that the panel would have three clerks on it—B.C., Ontario, and a local clerk here?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I wonder if it would be useful to also have somebody who would bring the international context and look at what some other countries have done. I know that there are organizations in Ottawa, such as Parliamentary Centre, that do international work with parliaments. It might be worthwhile to bring in somebody who can bring that context as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Why don't we start by asking our analyst about this? We don't even know, in this group, which of our provinces have four-day as opposed to five-day sittings. That would be a start, just getting that list. I wouldn't recommend looking at the States, because everything about congressional life is just different. Possibly we could look at Australia and New Zealand. I don't know about New Zealand, but the Australian states are geographically large enough that they'd have similar problems, and it's our system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead.

[Andre Barnes, Committee Researcher]

Mr. Chair, I had looked into the matter for the all-party women's caucus a couple of years back. It's not necessarily fresh to me, but Ontario has made some changes. They now sit earlier. British Columbia has made some changes.

I think you might be correct about Quebec, but I don't necessarily recall. I know that Scotland has made some changes as well. I don't recall seeing that Australia has, frankly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Could you do some research as opposed to discussing it now?

[Andre Barnes]

I'll put it in a briefing note.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You can bring something for the next meeting, a little bit of the international stuff.

I think with three clerks to start with, that would probably be a big enough panel.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Just as a thought, Chair, I really liked Scott's idea earlier. The minister indicated that he was open to the idea of putting something in place, trying it out, and having a sunset clause or review clause. That makes a whole lot of sense.

In that context, I just want to suggest that, based on my experience—and I've been doing this for an awfully long time—I think we oughtn't be afraid to be bold, and, dare I say, even revolutionary.

I say that in this context. I was first elected in, believe it or not, 1985. I was elected to Hamilton City Council and regional council. We were called “aldermen”. There was absolutely no washroom for female council members. It was all geared to males. There was a washroom attached to the lounge, and it was private, but it was male only.

I've been around long enough now to see the first deaf person in the House of Commons. I've now seen those in wheelchairs twice—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Three times.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—yes, three times—and other changes too.

If you look ahead, let's say 50 years from now, they'll look back at where we are today and it will almost be like the story I'm telling you now, where we had to convert a closet into a washroom for that female councillor. We were still fighting about whether it was “aldermen” or not. I mean, that's how far back it goes. It shows you the kind of change that needs to happen.

Again, it's based on what's happened, especially in the last two Parliaments, the last one and this one. There are so many younger people.

Jamie, it wasn't always that a male politician would be as quick to jump in and say to Ruby, a female politician, “I have the same issue. I have a four-year-old son.” I mean, those roles were so defined. There was no blurriness in the lines, but you're in a time when you can say that you too have a four-year-old.

What I'm saying is that we have to make this place more real, and this is key to it. If we're going to attract more women.... Yes, good, we probably have more women here than ever, but we're still not there. We have a long way to go. I've worked with young women and have encouraged them to get involved. My wife is very active in electing more women across partisan lines.

A lot of the questions you raised, Ruby, and what you went through in terms of what to do about your child, all that reluctance—we have to remove all that so that the pressure of whether you go into public life is predicated solely on your personal circumstance, not your gender, or whether you're a mom or a dad. It should be built in.

We're starting to get there, and history is telling me that we will get there. I'm just saying let's not be afraid to be bold, to really, really shake it up. If something looks so obvious to us, and using Scott's technique of building in a fail-safe for ourselves a year or 18 months from now, let's go for it. We're going to get there anyway. Let's try to get there as quickly as we can to make this kind of change. We still have a long way to go, but with the kind of serious young politicians who are here now, I really feel like now's the time. Let's grab it.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson. I agree. Hopefully, we won't get tied up on technicalities that would stop us from doing that.

For a way forward, let me propose what I think we've agreed to, which is that for our next meeting—and this might take the full two hours, actually—we should try to get the three clerks, from B.C., Ontario, and the House of Commons. Sometime between now and next Thursday, which we can discuss in a minute while the subcommittee meets, we'll bring back the priorities of our parties, out of those five or so items that the House leader mentioned, and then the subcommittee will decide how to direct the Thursday agenda or witnesses.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

In the interest of clarity, Chair, I suggest that you and/or the clerk send out an email advising what it is that the caucuses have agreed to do, because right now, it's just words. You get to these meetings and someone says, “Oh, I didn't realize I was supposed to do that”, and then we lose that time.

Maybe we could get a short memo advising exactly what it is we're being asked to bring back, or it could be clearly stated now in a sentence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Let's say it now so it will go into the minutes, and we can take the minutes back.

It was your idea. Do you want to put it in English?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks. I would seek the assistance of the clerk to help me explain what I said—there's an impossible task.

Do we want caucuses to go back on everything, or are we focusing just on family friendly right now? Do you want to focus on family friendly and see how that works for us?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Could we call it inclusive Parliament? That way, it can include—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I might suggest that we just limit ourselves to putting down no more than three items, and we'll agree to a deadline.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do you mean items out of the mandate letter?

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I mean sub-items within the mandate letter.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have to tell you, I kind of like the idea of us doing them one at a time. What was the term that you just used?