There might be quite a few of them.
We could consider what the most common ones were and then those could be the sources of changes to the Standing Orders. If we're having to consent unanimously to changing the standard procedure of the House many times on the same one, perhaps we should simply amend the Standing Orders.
To the amendment, though, we should only agree to that unanimously, as we've done for those. I think it would be a good idea, but you can't do that in 60 days, which I think is just about the length of this study. It might be 45 days. I think it's important to remember that this type of study and review cannot be rushed. Whatever comes out of this, we should still seek unanimous consent of our colleagues, at this committee stage, so that all of us can agree that it should be a permanent change. Perhaps there is an issue around it. We need full consideration of the impact it would have to amend the Standing Orders to make them longer and with more exceptions. The more exceptions that are created in writing and formalized within the rules, the more opportunity there is for confusion later about how the rules apply. There's a reason that the book has gotten so thick and that there's so much history and detail provided in it.
Mr. Dubé went on to say the following:
I did say at the outset that while we talk about juggling family lives and our own personal situations, we also have to talk about accountability on the part of the government. It is unfortunate that despite wanting to be non-partisan, we have to accept the adversarial nature of this place.
You've heard me mention before that I don't believe this place is adversarial. The term “adversarial” is found in the government document. I completely disagree with it. This body is deliberative. The debates that happen and at times the sharpness of them are just part of Parliament. It's how we deliberate. It's how we come to decisions. It's how we decide and adjudicate on the value or non-value of government legislation, private members' bills, motions, and other ideas being put forward.
I don't think that adversarial nature really has much impact on the juggling of the family lives in this particular situation. I have a family. I have three very young kids. My youngest was born right at the beginning of the last election. I juggled things as best I could. I've been here for three or four days now, and I've missed my Skype and FaceTime sessions with my kids. Even though they're so young, they understand that I am in Ottawa working on their behalf. When I can, I call them during the day after they have come back from school. That should be very soon, based on Calgary time.
In terms of the changes to the Standing Orders, people are going to say that language is found in the discussion paper about improving the work-life balance. Work-life balance is something which every single working Canadian struggles with. Shift workers who go up to Fort McMurray for three, four, or six weeks at a time struggle with that work-life balance as well. They don't return at the end of the day. They don't even return on the weekends. They stay in camps, separated from their spouse and their kids, typically. They also use Skype and FaceTime.
A hundred years ago, members of Parliament didn't fly to Ottawa. They used the train, their number one means of travel. That had a huge impact on the parliamentary calendar, when Parliament sat, and what type of business could be done. There were members of Parliament who were elected and never got to sit in this House. They never made it in time to be sworn in because they had passed away. That has happened. With modern travel, however, some of us are able to return to our ridings every single weekend.
I know that for you, Mr. Chair, it is a long trip back to Yukon, especially when you miss a connecting flight, as we've done together before.
Let's look at the work-life balance in terms of the Standing Orders. Let's say we do away with Friday or Monday sittings—or any day, really—and we potentially reapportion the hours to another day, which is what the government House leader said today. Mr. Simms has said that it's not necessarily cancelling Fridays; it's maybe making them a full day. That would have a significant impact on the work-life balance of parliamentarians and whether or not they choose to be here or in their ridings.
There are members who will miss a day during the week because they have a speaking engagement, or they have a constituency event or a conference to attend. I went on parliamentary business to Toronto to attend a clinical trials conference. I missed a day in the House in order to do parliamentary business to learn about the way in which clinical trials function. It's an area of interest. I have no background whatsoever in medicine or law, but I was interested in it because it has a substantive relationship to the private member's bill I would like to table, and without understanding it, I can't do it. I chose to forgo that one day, and then I returned to continue the work I do here in Ottawa on behalf of my constituents.
If you take away one day and reapportion it to other days, the problem would be that some parliamentarians, senators, members of the House of Commons, with an extra hour or two added per day, may not make it on time to have dinner with their families. That's for those who have chosen to move their families to Ottawa. Likewise, there may be some who might miss that FaceTime or Skype call with their kids back home.
It has an impact for all sides. I don't think you can simply change the rules “just because”, and impose that on members and on their families, without getting it unanimously agreed to, as our amendment to the motion is trying to do.
Still on the issue of Fridays, here in Canada eight out of 13 provincial and territorial legislatures have opted for the four-day week, and two others sit on Fridays only in exceptional cases. I can think back to my experience when I worked at the Alberta legislature. We had a four-day legislative week. What would happen is that near the end of the session, we would have to add late sittings every single year. Let me remind you that this was with a majority Progressive Conservative government at the time, which had been there for 44 years, with experienced members who knew how to operate within the confines of the standing orders in their house. What happened is that at every single end of session, they added late sittings to add in the required hours to pass the required pieces of legislation.
I would not want to see that happen here. We would have to return to late sittings once again, something that was a common practice in the 1950s and I believe in the 1960s. I could be wrong on that and I stand to be corrected, but I would not want to see late sittings again. Ms. Mendès is indicating that there were late sittings in the 1990s as well. That would not be an improvement to this place. I don't think members who are sleep deprived debating into the wee hours of the morning can have the deliberative debate, the quality debate, that we can have at 10 o'clock in the morning.
The other thing about the Alberta legislature is that it starts much later than even our Parliament does. Some of these things could have changed with the New Democratic government, which is there provincially. I'm just speaking to my experience from about five or six years ago.
Those types of changes should not be considered in a rush. Again, the sessional calendar that we have, that we come to an agreement on between the House leaders and I believe the whips as well, comes from trying to reach consensus among them. We can get consensus here at this committee if we agree to pass the very reasoned amendment that we've proposed to the motion—a consensus to move forward and then study.
I think the study period is still too short. You could have much debate, with interesting witnesses from every single legislature. They could come here and tell us how it has impacted the work they do. That could include former members of the legislative assemblies which exist provincially, because obviously they'll have a different viewpoint, not being in it anymore. I don't believe you'll have enough time to review all of that information with this model right now.
Mr. Graham talked about a film, Guibord s'en va-t-en guerre.
It's a very good Québécois film directed by Philippe Falardeau. It was released on October 2, 2015. I had the chance to watch it on an airplane. I think it gives a very good overview of the type of parliamentary work done by federal members for their ridings and constituents. I understand the film is a comedy and satire. Regardless, I think it provides a representative view of our profession. I really liked the film. I even showed it to my wife. I think I even bought it on iTunes. I believe the film reflects how the ordinary Canadian voter perceives the role of members. They are men or women who fight for their ridings and constituents. That's what people think we're doing here.
In the film, Mr. Guibord tries to understand how to represent his constituents and the people in his riding. At the same time, he faces many conflicts, including family conflicts and conflicts with interest groups in his riding. His biggest conflict is to determine whether he'll vote for or against the idea of Canada going to war.
I think that mention by Mr. Graham during the debate was interesting, and I see that it goes on. I understand that this was filmed in his riding, so I'm guessing that he's doing a bit of free press for the movie. It's a great movie. He says that it is “a pretty accurate description” of his riding. We were talking about it before committee. It is a pretty accurate description—