Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater.

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

I almost feel as though I can't argue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Did you want to challenge the chair?

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

I would like to challenge you, but I almost feel that I can't, because I want to be able to speak again at some point.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

We'll then have to agree that it's a tie, maybe.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Indeed, Yukon is one of the few places in Canada I haven't had the honour of visiting yet, and along with visiting the Northwest Territories, I do hope to see Canada's beautiful north before too long.

But backing up a little bit, we did talk about the Magna Carta. I'm not going to read it, but I would point out that an interesting fact happens throughout history, beginning with the Magna Carta, going through the Glorious Revolution, and the Reform Acts, and through a number of different activities throughout the development of the United Kingdom's Westminster system. Throughout history, when the monarch, the crown, meaning the queen or the king, gives up power, that power goes somewhere. At times that power goes to Parliament, and at times it goes to the executive. More often than not, in our shared history of the Westminster system, that power has tended to go to the executive, though at times it has gone to Parliament as well. That balance has developed over many years, and unfortunate or fortunately, depending on how we look at it, there are trade-offs. Often it goes to the executive branch, and often it goes to the parliamentary branch.

In observing this, in making this observation going forward, my point is that we are products of our history. We are products of our forebears and those who have gone before us. Certainly, being a Commonwealth country, being a product of the “Mother of Parliaments”, as it's often called, we do pick up many of the traditions, including the role of government and the role of Parliament, as Franks already points out.

Carrying on with his second point, the government certainly has the opportunity to present its legislative agenda. It has significant tools and authority to do so, within the Standing Orders, in the usual practices of the House, and within the apparatus of the public service that goes with it. The government, rightly so as government, does have significant resources at its disposal.

When we go to the second two functions of our Parliament, that is, to hold the government to account and to provide an alternative government, there are fewer resources available to that side. As the opposition, we have to acknowledge this and look at the tools that we do have available, the tools in our tool box, if you will. They are significantly limited when compared to the government's. A government holds the ability to call bills at its discretion. A government has the authority to decide how many hours, how many days, of debate there will be on a government bill. The length of some debates are set out in the Standing Orders, but most are not. The budget motion has a four-day sitting schedule. It's debated for four days, but most bills do not have that length of time. A bill could be debated for five minutes, or it could be debated for five days or five weeks. That flexibility, that option, is entirely in the executive's hands, and it has the ability to do so. An opposition that wants to extend debate has very little options for doing so. In fact, other than the provision that a bill must be debated a minimum of one sitting day before a time allocation motion is introduced, a government that is willing and wishing to proceed with a shorter time frame to debate can do so, and can do so in a maximum of two days, if that is its preference.

I know that in the discussion paper that has been presented, there is a discussion of programming, a discussion of what could be considered permanent time allocation. That is a discussion that has been brought forward. Personally, I think that it would be unfortunate if we were to go that route. The constraints that such a move would place on both the government and the opposition would be unfortunate. You can imagine situations going forward in which a government might indeed wish to have further debate on a matter than what might be allowed within a programming set-up.

I bring these points up to show, first and foremost, that the tools are significantly swayed toward the government within the House, and the opposition is therefore forced to use what tools it has to extend debate, to encourage a more lengthy debate, and to bring attention to certain matters, as the case might be. We're seeing that happen now in the House. We're seeing that playing out now, whether through points of order or through votes in the House. It's making a statement. The opposition is using the limited means it's been provided with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Sorry, this is just a point of interest on this topic. We had representatives of the Austrian Parliament here today, and they made the fascinating point that I don't think any of us expected, that their equivalent of the House of Commons meets only three days a month. They have other weeks for committees, but it only meets three days a month. I asked them how long each bill takes, and they said it's up to the group, but it takes a few hours. I thought that was fascinating.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

That is fascinating. I didn't realize there was such a constrained legislative calender, if you will. That is interesting. Perhaps it gives me a quick opportunity to talk about our parliamentary calendar very briefly, Mr. Chair, that is, how we could better coordinate our legislative calendar.

We look at this calender year, for example. In February, we sat the entire month without a constituency week. Like most parliamentarians, that meant that my weekends were spent trying to catch up on meetings with constituents, which wasn't always possible. Had we been able to readjust that so there was a constituency week, perhaps the Family Day week, it would have allowed us to catch up while keeping the same number of sitting days in the year.

The other example I like to use is November 11. Certainly as federal MPs, we have one of our busiest times then, especially in rural ridings. I have 13 Legions. I believe I have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 16 or 17 Remembrance Day services, most of which take place the week prior to Remembrance Day. Remembrance Day this year falls on a weekend, but our constituency week falls the week after Remembrance Day, when all the Remembrance Day services have been completed.

I think that's an unfortunate effect of the scheduling of the weeks that we sit, and I think it would be worthwhile perhaps in the future to ensure that the constituency week is the week before Remembrance Day, to allow members, especially those who do have large ridings with many jurisdictions, to attend as many service as possible within—

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

I will point out that the practice isn't the same in all provinces. I know that in my riding in Alberta, all of the Legions hold their ceremonies on Remembrance Day itself, so that change would accommodate some and not accommodate others.

I think that's probably one of the key points that we've kind of heard throughout this exercise that we've been put through. We know that, whether it be the family friendly study that we had or whether it be some of the conversations here, when these things are contemplated and changed, the discussion and having different perspectives of the different parties and different viewpoints is so important. What happens is, of course, that changes can have consequences that are different for some than for others, and they can be unintended consequences as well. That's why it's so important to include the different perspectives, and that really comes back to the very reason for this amendment, why it is so important.

So I'm glad that came up, but it was another opportunity to sort of raise that point because, in Alberta, it is different from in Ontario apparently, so that change would maybe help some and hurt others. That's why we have to consider these things.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Sorry, Ms. May, I just want to get clarification.

Blake, are you saying that you don't have any services or events before Remembrance Day in November, and it's okay to have the break the week afterward? Is that what you're saying?

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

I'm saying that the practice as it stands now is that our constituency week always seems to fall within the week that Remembrance Day falls. That seems to be the case, the way it falls, and it works well for me personally, because in our riding generally the schools all hold ceremonies the day before, on November 10, or whatever the last school day before November 11 is, because the schools generally do have a holiday in Alberta on Remembrance Day, which I know is not the case in all provinces. Then on November 11 itself, that's when all the other ceremonies are held.

I know that in my case, for example, with the exception of one Legion, they all have their services in the morning. Some start at 10 and end at 11, and others begin at 11. I try to rotate around, obviously, but in one case there are two communities where one starts a little earlier and closes at 11 and the other starts at 11. Because they're close enough, I can actually attend both. In every other year, I can pick one place and go to one ceremony. Then there is one Legion that does it in the afternoon. It happens to be my home Legion, so I'm always able to attend that one. But that's how it works in Alberta on Remembrance Day itself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

With John's permission, this is a really important point, and I thought that you said we have to look at different perspectives.

I know members have seen the paper that I presented to the government House leader and shared. There are other considerations, too, in terms of our schedule.

We have the ability, through technology, to fly home every weekend to do constituency work. We are working in our constituencies. The Liberal proposal for four days in Parliament is not to suggest that parliamentarians only work four days a week, but it does look like that to the public, perhaps.

The impact of working four or four and a half days in Parliament and having the technological ability to reach even the most far-flung riding, which in this case is that of our Chair.... I think the Yukon is the longest travel distance for any MP from Ottawa, but there are others that are also difficult. Certainly Nathan Cullen in Skeena—Bulkley Valley has quite a hike, and the riding is huge.

My point is that because of technology we've fallen into a habit of a parliamentary schedule that involves a lot of expense for the public purse, and I would love to see a calculation of what the Government of Canada writes in cheques to Air Canada and WestJet every year. Because we can fly, we do. We have to, because our constituents expect us to.

Also, wrapped up in that is a lens that we should apply. I'm sure the Minister of Environment and Climate Change would like to see us apply the lens to our parliamentary calendar of what the carbon footprint is of flying home every weekend. Many of us of course have small children at home, and it's our only chance to see them.

There's not going to be a perfect answer for everyone, but in the discussion that I hope we will eventually have about how we come to a consensus around the best schedule for parliamentarians, we should take into account what it costs in terms of public spending for all those flights and what it costs in greenhouse gases for all those flights.

I will also say—and I hope you'll forgive me for this, Mr. Chair—I agree with the point that was made earlier by Todd Doherty; we're not looking at changing the rules for our own convenience. However, there certainly is a physical toll, with an eight-hour transit in one direction, an eight-hour transit back, and a three-hour time-zone difference, on the way we work from a Sunday to a Monday and then from a Friday to a Saturday.

For the first time in the history of this place, I would like us to look at how technology has...without any real forethought or analysis of the costs, and to look at the financial and ecological costs of flying home every weekend, to see if we can find a family-friendly approach, what I'm calling the Fort McMurray work schedule.

I'm from Cape Breton. I have a lot of family friends who have gone through the experience, which is tough on families, of flying into Fort McMurray, doing a three-week stint, and then—usually the dad—flying home to Newfoundland or Cape Breton for three weeks at home.

For us as parliamentarians, if we extended our work week to five-and-a-half days per week—so we would work Monday to Friday, and a half-day on Saturday—we would actually have a more usable Monday because we would be in Ottawa on the Sunday.

One of the reasons Monday is a hard day and nothing much happens before noon is that people from the Maritimes are still flying back on Monday morning and those of us from B.C. are often landing in Ottawa at 1:30 in the morning. This Sunday we experienced a flight delay, so we landed in Ottawa just before 3:00 a.m. It makes it harder to work effectively on Monday morning. I just want to throw that out there so that people are thinking about it.

Can we consider putting a climate lens to our parliamentary work schedule? Can we consider reducing costs to the public purse and still making it livable and bearable for those who have small kids? There's no perfect solution to our calendar.

Above us is a picture of the Fathers of Confederation, and by the way, the mothers of Confederation were out of the room making tea. However, in this painting of the gathering in Charlottetown, we can spot Sir John A. Macdonald, and we can spot the founders of this great country. They were not able to fly home on weekends—it's obvious—but the parliamentary schedule of that era was very different than it is now, without any deliberation about what worked best for Parliament.

We have a unique opportunity now in 2017, at our 150th, to figure out what parliamentary schedule works in light of the climate crisis, and in light of a technology that we don't have to be enslaved by. We should be able to say this is what is livable, and what's workable for all of us. I appreciate the latitude.

Just to remind you, it's in the Standing Orders proposal the Green Party has made. It would actually let us live longer as individual human beings whether we're parliamentarians or not. Our longevity matters to some of us, I think, our nearest and dearest more than anyone one watching on CPAC right now.

Certainly, the carbon footprint of this place is horrific. We could deal with it at this juncture.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you. In a minute, I'm going to go to Kevin Waugh. Just before I do though, I want to make three quick points.

First, I want to welcome the NDP House leader, Murray Rankin, to filibuster light.

Second, Ms. May mentioned the cheques that the House of Commons wrote to WestJet and Air Canada. I would like the minutes to also include: Air North, First Air, and Canadian North.

When John and I talked about this earlier, I also committed that I would emphasize the point about the holiday of Remembrance Day, on or before, to the Board of Internal Economy, who I think makes that decision. If they could take this part out of our minutes, and really look at that the next time they make that decision, that would be helpful.

Mr. Waugh.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That's what I was going to talk about. I know Mr. Nater was going to talk about Remembrance Day.

It's our job as parliamentarians to go to schools in our ridings the week before. Saskatoon has the largest indoor service for Remembrance Day in this country. Over 9,000 each year come to SaskTel Centre. What isn't told is that every day starting Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday in schools, we have Remembrance Day services. We bring in the veterans. We've missed a major opportunity here.

I've used the Library of Parliament to bring gorgeous books on the history of this place. You're talking in the classrooms, and you're dealing with 1,500 students at a Remembrance Day service at Walter Murray Collegiate. You have all the library resources there, and you're there. These are our future voters. To make that contact is fabulous the week before when we have a constituency week off.

Then I look at 2017, Mr. Chair, and you're right. I am so disappointed that I can't reach out to students in my riding previous to that week because we're here. I only have the Saturday, and then we're going to have the big celebration in Saskatoon. Then we'll deal with the Legions after. That was an oversight.

The other oversight I would like to mention, and maybe the NDP want to comment on it, is the March schedule that we just finished. We finished a heavy schedule in February. Then we had one week off late February early March. Then we were here for a week. Then we were gone. Then we were here again on the 20th. Then we were gone again. Well, that was ridiculous. We were all dead tired. We all talked in the lobbies that the March schedule was killing each one of us.

When you're here, you're here, at least a minimum of two weeks. Please, when we're here, give us a minimum of two weeks in Ottawa to do our work here. Look at you. I saw you, Mr. Chair, last Friday. I saw you and Mr. Simms at the Toronto airport. I tried to do a little play-by-play because one was going east and one was going west. I don't know when you got home, three in the morning? You were talking about that.

I got home that night, but I thought of you, the rest of Friday night to midnight saying you're still on a plane somewhere going home. I don't know how you can do that, be here one week, back in your constituency another week, then back here. That was asinine.

Anyways, thank you. Mr. Nater is going to talk about Remembrance Day, I know.

I just want to agree with Ms. May, because we have to consider you people going long distances. I thought about you Friday night until midnight. You weren't even halfway home yet. You never got home until three in the morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

When I came back, I left Sunday at 4:30 and I flew all night. I walked into the House of Commons in the morning right off the plane. I didn't even sleep for 40 hours.

You're point about us going into the schools is a great segue.

I don't usually speak as the Chair, but the point I was making earlier was that there was some suggestion to extend longer into June. For me, June's the busiest month, because of all the graduations. If we're going to extend the weeks, to me any month of the year would be better than June.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

January would be good.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

We do have the last week in June off. Most high schools and collegiates have their graduations that last week in June.

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

Jenny would like to address the Simms method.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Jenny, go ahead.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is my first speaking opportunity here at PROC, and I'm enjoying this debate. I know it's not really my turn, so I appreciate my colleague's yielding the floor to me for a minute.

People are talking about schedules. I'm not sure if there is a perfect schedule. I certainly understand and appreciate the difficulties for members who travel back and forth. I am from British Columbia, and it's a bit of a trek. I go home every weekend, for a variety of reasons. I believe that I need to be in my constituency and be with my constituency staff, at least to touch base with them. Although I talk to them regularly on the phone when I'm here, it's nothing like making that face-to-face connection. Most importantly, it is to connect with my constituents. I'm sure it's like that for all MPs. When you're back in the riding, in your constituency office, your day is just jam-packed. I have half-hour and one-hour meetings all day long until the day ends, and then I attend events into the weekend.

Aside from that, of course, we have family. I have two young children, an eight-year-old and a 14-year-old going on 17. That's always lots of fun. As we talk about extending days, whether in June or in January, no matter how you slice it, for some of us it takes time away from our constituency in the riding and time with our family.

For me, personally, if we stay with the Friday sittings, as we do, I know I'm here for the week. I get home every weekend, even if it's for a day and a half. But if I lose some weeks by extending and changing the schedule in January, then I'm jammed in January. Usually, for me, it means that the kids are getting back to school and I'm trying to orient them back into the school system from the holiday period. That is never easy, because they get into a sort of slug mode over the holidays and I have to ease them back. As a part-time mom already, as it were, because I have to travel so much, I feel that I need to be there to bookend these things when they transition back into the school system. Likewise, in June, we are into the last month of school for the kids, which is usually very busy with exam time, among other things to help the kids with.

Then, as was mentioned, for our own ridings, graduation is a very big moment, and if we lose those moments and are not able to attend those graduations, it means something. In my own riding, there are several aspects to our graduations. My riding is one of the poorest in the country. Many of my constituents, family members and students, have a hard time actually making it to graduation. When I talk about graduation, I'm not just talking about high school graduation. Elementary school graduation is a big deal for me and for the kids in my riding. I try to go there to support the kids and encourage them to make it through to the next phase. Those moments are really important, and when we talk about not being able to be there for those times by stretching our days here, we lose somewhere along the way.

For me, keeping the five-day sittings works way better than stretching it out and doing this other thing.

The other thing that I think people need to remember as well is that it's not just us. I know we all think that it's all about us, but I tell my children, “It's not all about you, because the world is much bigger. Things evolve around you, and you need to be mindful of all the things around you as well.” Let's be clear. If we extend our days to make them longer, which is one suggestion that's being proposed, we have to think about the staff and the people around us as well. For the beautiful people who do the translation, it means their hours are extended and stretched, as well as for all the clerks, the pages, and everyone. We all do this together. I don't know how many hours our staff from our own offices can work. We can sort of work like machines, I suppose, in some ways—it's expected of us, because we are the elected and we're supposed to do that—but all the other people around us are doing that too. Look at all the staff sitting around here today. They're going around the clock. You have to consider them as well.

I remember that when we first came to this place, people were talking about being family-friendly. Family-friendly means more than just us. Family-friendly means all of us, the entire family that makes this place work. It is really important to never forget that, which is so easy when we are talking about changing the rules and what works, and we are only really considering what works from the government side. It's much more than that, and bigger than that.

Mr. Chair, I could go on, and I would love to have another opportunity to interject, but I with that, I want to thank my colleague for yielding the floor to me at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Mr. Nater.