Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 20th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting No. 34 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The committee is meeting today to continue our review on the House of Commons’ virtual hybrid proceedings provisions, pursuant to the House Order of June 23, 2022.

Our first panel consists of a mix of democratic engagement and media witnesses. Our second panel consists of experts knowledgeable on issues of auditory health and injuries. I would like to let the committee know that all of our virtual witnesses have undergone their pre-meeting connectivity and audio tests.

We're welcoming today, from Equal Voice, Eleanor Fast, executive director, and Maggie Patterson, director of programs. From The Honest Talk, we have co-founders Catherine Clark and Jennifer Stewart. From Samara Centre for Democracy, we have Sabreena Delhon, executive director, who is joining us by video conference today.

There are different people speaking, combinations and individuals, so we will time you. I will try not to cut you off—but I will, because time is very limited—so if you can help me help you, that would be great.

I would also request that all comments be made through the chair. I know that sometimes we like to speak directly to each other. I get that. As long as we're maintaining decorum, I'm good with it. Otherwise I will be the chair.

The last thing is on interpretation. If you can, just speak in such a way that the interpreters can do their work, because both of the official languages are very active in this committee.

With that, I'll pass it over to Equal Voice.

Welcome.

[Maggie Patterson, Director of Programs, Equal Voice]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting Equal Voice here today.

Equal Voice is a non-profit, multipartisan organization dedicated to electing more women to all levels of government in Canada. For over 20 years, Equal Voice has been advocating for gender parity by working with political parties to equip women for success in politics and to retain women as elected officials.

The year 2021 was the 100th anniversary of the election of the first woman MP. Still, only 30% of MPs are women, and Canada has yet to elect an openly non-binary MP.

Part of increasing the diversity of MPs is making Parliament a more inclusive and accessible workplace.

We recommend that Parliament continue to offer hybrid participation. I will briefly describe two areas of evidence to support our recommendation. More information on these studies is in our brief to the committee.

First, our research shows that hybrid proceedings support gender-inclusive legislatures. In February 2020, after three years of research, Equal Voice launched a report with 10 recommendations that federal, provincial and territorial legislatures can take in order to make them better places for women and gender-diverse people to work.

A major finding was that legislatures need to modernize. Modernization includes having remote participation for MPs who cannot or should not travel to Ottawa due to illness, pregnancy, caregiving or other circumstances.

Second, our research shows that hybrid proceedings have the potential to attract more women to politics. Equal Voice commissioned a public opinion survey, published in January 2022, to better understand views on politics. It was found that 86% of the public, of all genders, said that we need more women as elected representatives in Canada, and 85% of respondents said that having more women in politics would have a positive impact on government policy, actions and decisions. Canadians want more women in politics.

We also surveyed 1,500 young women from the general public about their views on politics. Sixty-seven per cent of women think that being an elected representative is one of the most impactful ways to serve their communities, yet only 39% say politics offers a work-life balance and 81% of women feel that running for office would be difficult to manage with other responsibilities in their life.

In addition, Equal Voice regularly meets with women and gender-diverse people from all political backgrounds across Canada. We consistently see women choosing to run at the municipal level, often in order to be able to stay physically close to their families and communities. This situation is in contrast to the exceedingly long travel times for some MPs. From our discussions, we have strong reason to believe that more women will seek federal office if hybrid participation is available.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to give these opening remarks.

We look forward to the committee's questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much for those opening remarks and using your time so well. That was really well done.

I will now pass it over to The Honest Talk.

Welcome.

[Catherine Clark, Co-Founder, The Honest Talk]

Good morning, Madam Chair, Vice-Chairs and members of the committee.

My colleague Jennifer Stewart and I are pleased to be here with you to express our thoughts on a hybrid Parliament with you today. Thank you for the invitation.

Jennifer and I are going to be sharing our time, but we are also the co-founders of The Honest Talk, which is a podcast aimed at telling the stories of female leaders across Canada from a variety of spheres of influence. We are also mothers and communications entrepreneurs.

We're delighted to be here with all of you today.

We'd like to begin by underlining our belief that continuing to embrace a hybrid approach for the House of Commons is not a partisan issue. Rather, it is an opportunity. It is an opportunity to attract to public service more women, more people from diverse backgrounds and more individuals from various regions of the country, and that can only strengthen democracy.

We all know that our governance structures are enhanced by diversity. We know that more voices in a room, voices representing different lived experiences, lead to overall stronger outcomes, whether that room is a boardroom, a classroom, a committee room or the seat of our Canadian democracy, the House of Commons.

However, up until the past two years, our governance structures have functioned on a one-size-fits-all approach—in person or nothing—and that approach, in our opinion, is the enemy of diversity. That is why we are firmly in support of a hybrid House of Commons.

It is 2022. We live in an age that puts a paramount and justified focus on fostering and ensuring diversity, equity and inclusion. Given that, why would we not strive to make our seat of democracy the most accessible, equitable place that it can be?

Over the past 31 months, we’ve seen businesses, organizations and governments propelled into a new way of doing things that would have been unimaginable before COVID‑19. Most went entirely virtual, and successfully made that transition. And then they went hybrid, because that’s what their modern workforce required.

This begs the question, why should members of Parliament always be required to fly, take the train or drive to Ottawa to partake in parliamentary business? If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that doing things one way because that's how we've always done them is neither efficient nor reflective of our new reality.

[Jennifer Stewart, Co-Founder, The Honest Talk]

The House of Commons did extraordinary work to adapt to health regulations put in place due to the pandemic. It took a lot of study, consultation and effort to shift policies that had not seen much procedural change since Confederation.

It also took major investments in technology to ensure that members were able to safely participate in conversations and effectively represent their constituencies. With all of this learning and technology now in place and with the money spent, why would our federal elected officials take a step back?

Instead, our parliamentarians have an opportunity to continue to demonstrate leadership from the top and to create a truly 21st century House of Commons. We have an opportunity not to just talk about diversity, equity and inclusion at the highest levels, but to make it a reality.

Of course, there will be roadblocks and learning experiences. Equal access to broadband Internet is not assured in many communities, especially those that are rural or remote; cybersecurity is an ongoing concern that requires serious thought and attention; and a member of Parliament participating remotely must be assured of the same access and opportunity as someone in person.

We are at a critical moment in time. We can learn from the past turbulent 31 months and continue to adopt new technologies and maintain positive change, or we can stagnate. The private and public sectors are embracing the flexibility of a hybrid structure, because, to put it bluntly, it is the new path forward. It's time for our elected officials to get on board and to do the same.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to The Samara Centre for Democracy.

Welcome.

[Sabreena Delhon, Executive Director, Samara Centre for Democracy]

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to speak with the committee today.

My name is Sabreena Delhon, and I'm the executive director of the Samara Centre for Democracy, which is a non-partisan registered charity dedicated to making Canada's democratic culture more accessible, responsive and inclusive.

We have also been studying the lived experience of elected officials for 15 years. Our recommendation is that the House of Commons maintain hybrid proceedings for both the House and its committees. This recommendation is informed by our MP exit interview project, which entails conducting rigorous, in-depth interviews with former members of Parliament. Our view is also informed by recent research on hybrid workspaces within the future of work discourse.

We advise maintaining hybridity for three reasons. It offers Parliament an opportunity to be more inclusive and representative, as my colleagues have indicated; to function as a flexible and contemporary workplace that can attract and retain top talent; and to increase efficiency by saving money and travel time.

Our conclusion is shaped by the under-representation of various groups in the House, including women and those in the LGBTQ+, indigenous and visible minority communities. Our interviews with former MPs over the years have underscored how the grinding schedule of weekly travel to and from Ottawa, particularly from regions situated far from Ontario, can create a barrier for women with families, particularly for women who lack abundant resources to put toward child care.

This aligns with findings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which currently ranks Canada 61st in gender representation among national Parliaments. They recommend that gender-sensitive Parliaments allow teleworking as a strategy to increase equity. While there was initial concern that gender representation would be compromised with limited in-person convening, innovations in the function of hybrid Parliament have made it possible for virtual work to increase democratic representation across genders.

Our research also indicates that MPs from under-represented groups often feel alienated in Ottawa. We believe that if representatives have more opportunity to work from and within their communities, it will reduce that sense of alienation that they may experience in the House. There's also the longer-term effect of encouraging MPs from under-represented groups not only to enter into politics, but also to stay.

The retention of MPs from under-represented groups is worth noting. If the House wants to attract and retain high-quality individuals with varied training and innovative problem-solving abilities, it will need to be responsive to larger changes happening in Canada's new world of work.

Hybrid work options are an indicator of a modern employer, and workplaces across sectors are institutionalizing the option. Research shows that people who have worked in a hybrid environment over the past two years strongly wish to retain the option going forward. This is particularly true for those with disabilities, women of colour and LGBTQ+ individuals. Institutionalizing hybrid proceedings for the House and its committees is a key way to demonstrate that Parliament is a responsive and contemporary work environment that is committed to attracting, retaining and supporting top talent.

The Samara Centre has long held the position that the House should foster a workplace culture that facilitates collegiality and informal relationship building. We believe that this can be accomplished through a combination of virtual and in-person interactions. Our survey of MPs in 2020 found strong support for a hybrid model of Parliament. This is readily within reach to set as a standard practice, now that our use of virtual technologies has evolved and become commonplace, adaptable, effective and user-friendly.

Beyond equity, hybrid proceedings offer incredible efficiencies. The transit time recovered each week for MPs who live in ridings located far from Ottawa is significant. Our research has consistently revealed the mental and physical toll that constant travel can take on MPs. Making hybrid proceedings permanent opens up considerably more time for constituency work, while protecting the health and well-being of MPs—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you so much for those opening comments. We look forward to learning more during the question and answer sessions.

[Sabreena Delhon]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

With that, we will start our six-minute round. We will be commencing with Mr. Nater, followed by Ms. Sahota, Madame Gaudreau and Ms. Blaney.

Mr. Nater, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our panel of witnesses this morning. It was quite an interesting commentary. I'm going to try to jump around to all three sets of witnesses. I'm sure the chair will give me lots of flexibility with my time.

I'll start online with Samara. In my past life, I had the great privilege of reading through the transcripts from a large number of MP exit interviews, which I found absolutely fascinating, for some research I was doing at the time. One of the things that struck me about the MP exit interviews was the focus that a lot of the MPs placed on the informal aspects of Parliament, such as the unofficial encounters, the hallway conversations and coffee in the cafeteria.

Yesterday in the House, we heard some wonderful tributes to the late Bill Blaikie. The leader of the NDP talked about the Robbie Burns nights on the Hill, when MPs could get together outside of the daily debate.

My question is, what challenges do you see with a shift to virtual? These kinds of informal interactions, informal encounters, events and activities that typically take place throughout the precinct.... People aren't able to have those interactions.

[Sabreena Delhon]

This challenge is not unique to Parliament. It's something that a lot of different workplaces are struggling with right now.

Our recommendation is the creation of an inclusive hybrid workplace that's agile and responsive. That entails getting feedback from parliamentarians about what is and isn't working, and we also advise on being particularly intentional about those in-person interactions so that you have those collision spaces, so that you have those informal opportunities to just be human beings together over a coffee.

Making these opportunities meaningful and productive will ensure that the hybrid culture is not only functional but also thriving. Hybrid is not just “all virtual all the time”. It's really important for us to understand that. It's about making better use of the in-person time when it is available.

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

Thank you for that. I may come back to that second point.

One of the challenges I've seen over the past couple of years since we've gone virtual is with civility within the House of Commons itself. I've actually seen a marked decrease in civility and an increase in incivility, partially, I believe, because some MPs don't see each other face to face.

Do you agree with that? Have you observed that as well, this incivility that has increased since virtual Parliament began?

[Sabreena Delhon]

Yes. We track toxicity in the online conversation through a project called SAMbot, where we use AI to monitor this.

I don't think an increase in the number of hours spent in the same room together can mitigate the increase in toxicity in the political conversation. It's about having a set of standards, an established code of conduct and culture. That will make the difference. Again, it's about using that in-person time with clear intentions and expectations of how contact will unfold and creating opportunities for civility to become the norm in a way that is aligned with the future of work in Canada.

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

Thank you for that.

I'm going to turn to our guests in the room. I have only about three minutes left, so for an efficient use of my time, Madam Chair, what I'll do is give a couple of questions and invite both sets of panellists to respond.

First of all, Ms. Patterson's opening comments mentioned some of the considerations for when virtual Parliament would be an option. What struck me was that you made the comment about family responsibilities, caregiving and illness, which I think are very much common-sense ones. What you didn't mention were partisan considerations, partisan events. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I will ask the question as to whether or not you see this as an option for partisan-related events as well. That's a question for both sets of guests, on political events in ridings or in other people's ridings across the country where one could take advantage of that.

That's the first question. I'll allow both groups to respond.

My second question is on the involvement of the whip. I say this cognizant that there's a former whip sitting two people over from me, but certainly there are always those unintended consequences. I would appreciate any input you may have on the inadvertent challenges we may have by giving the whip increased power, such as increased authority, whether formal or informal, over the activities of parliamentarians related to a virtual Parliament, and therefore giving the whips the authority to say when a member may or may not be there virtually, or when a member may or may not be in their riding or in another person's riding. What are the unintended consequences and how may we be able to mitigate those?

I'll put those questions out there. Maybe we'll start with Equal Voice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have a minute combined to answer.

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

I went as fast as I could, Madam Chair.

[Eleanor Fast, Executive Director, Equal Voice]

Thank you very much for the questions.

To focus on your first question, as to when hybrid should be used, our recommendation at Equal Voice is very much focused on hybrid participation when people either should not or cannot travel to the House for reasons related to illness, pregnancy or caregiving responsibilities, as you noted.

Beyond that, this is why the work of the committee is so important, obviously, for your colleagues and the parties and so on to think about these questions beyond the times when you actually can't come, when perhaps it's appropriate not to come.

[Jennifer Stewart]

Thank you for the question.

I think it's incredibly important that we don't politicize hybrid Parliament. This provides flexibility for women and men to come to Parliament when it works for their professional and personal schedules and, when it absolutely does not, to have the ability to participate in a hybrid environment.

I'm a business owner. I prefer being in a working environment, but certainly, as a mother, there are times when I need to be home with a sick child or to balance an appointment or the priorities that life throws my way.

I think it's truly about flexibility. It's not black and white. There are many shades of grey as to how hybrid should be implemented.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I'll pass it now to Ms. Sahota for up to six minutes.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

What we heard quite a bit at our last committee meeting was pretty much an “all or nothing” type of mentality with some of the questions we were hearing, so I found it very interesting, Ms. Clark, that you mentioned that this is not an “in person or nothing” type of approach. We also heard quite a lot about how we will be giving away some of the benefits that in-person proceedings provide to a healthy democracy and a functioning Parliament.

I'm wondering if I could get some comments from all three groups today about how we can make it work within the grey, and about how we can approach this in a systematic, professional and responsible way without damaging our democracy.

Could I hear from Equal Voice first, please?

[Eleanor Fast]

Thank you so much for the question.

I think one of the important things about hybrid participation is that it actually allows people to continue to work at times when they otherwise might not be able to. Before we had this option, if people were too ill or were unable to come to the House, of course they weren't able to participate in the work of the House and be on the committees and so on. Obviously, hybrid proceedings give people an opportunity to do that.

I don't think it's a question of in-person versus virtual participation. It really is taking advantage of the opportunities that the technology provides us with. As we outlined in our opening remarks, we believe—and we have research to show—that people are more likely to enter politics and to want to be part of the system if they know that hybrid will be there for them at the times when they need it.

Thank you.

[Jennifer Stewart]

If I may, I think we need to adopt a 30,000-foot perspective on this. It is unfortunate to miss an event with colleagues. I appreciate that business can occur at those events or that key relationships can be built, but we're talking about leveraging the past 31 months, leveraging learning opportunities, and modernizing and innovating a process that desperately needs to be innovated to attract and retain the brightest to serve as parliamentarians.

Thank you.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Go ahead, Ms. Delhon.

[Sabreena Delhon]

Thank you.

Perhaps with the exception of select circumstances, we recommend that remote participation be available for all MPs at any time. This is to mitigate the liabilities of “in group” versus “out group” dynamics developing. I think it's important for us to think about the way we live in the context of how we work. We engage in a lot of virtual forums of connection and communication. Through group chats by text, for instance, a lot of us stayed connected, especially during the worst stages of the pandemic. There are parallels from that that we can bring into the world of work, where we can foster meaningful relationships, collegiality and connection. Just because it's virtual, that doesn't mean it's not real.

This is an important parallel to the online harms conversation. When we talk about toxicity online and we qualify it as online, there's a diminishing element to it, as if it isn't real. There's a profound and important way for us to build connection through virtual technologies, through text and through meetings like this, which are extremely valuable and efficient.

Another dimension for us to consider here is the incredible cost savings. It's wonderful for people to be able to get together with their colleagues, conduct business, share information and develop relationships, but with a reduction in travel comes an opportunity to reduce expenses to the public purse and an opportunity to redirect resources back to constituents and back to communities.

There's also the fact that a healthy MP, one whose health, mental health and overall well-being are cared for in a sustainable manner, will be a more functional and effective person. MPs are people, and we need to factor that into this design.