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

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I have one quick follow-up for the witnesses from The Honest Talk. We also heard quite a bit about accountability and about how, if we stay in this hybrid format, there will be less accountability. As well, coming off what Ms. Delhon said about mental health, we've heard the opposite argument, that there should be a complete separation of family and the roles and responsibilities in the constituency versus here in Parliament as a legislature.

What would you have to say about that?

[Catherine Clark]

Perhaps I'll start with that last question first.

As a person who spent the first 16 years of her life as the child of a federal politician, I can say that it is impossible to separate your personal life and your professional life all the time. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that in 2022 we would ask anyone to try to do so. Everyone is a professional when they come to Ottawa, but life intervenes.

The point of a hybrid Parliament is to allow the kind of flexibility that ensures that the House of Commons becomes a modern workplace and that it is the kind of workplace that people want to join. The reason they want to join is so that we can strengthen democracy.

This kind of change is hard. Any challenging changes are hard to do, but they are also the right thing to do.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Madame Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses, who are all women. I love to see that.

Many questions have already been asked by my colleagues. I would now like to address accountability in greater depth.

As you know, ladies, parliamentarians play their role 26 weeks a year, not year-round. We already have a set calendar and we can organize our use of the time accordingly.

I would like to ask Ms. Delhon a question about accountability and democracy.

When an event occurs in front of the media camera, journalists are able to speak with MPs and draw information out of them. Obviously, virtual meetings do not allow for the same proximity or the same dialogue.

How can we maintain a healthy democracy in this context, when someone is able to slip away behind a monitor or disconnect?

[Sabreena Delhon]

In terms of accountability to the electorate, to the public, it lies in the evolution. If Parliament isn't able to adapt and align with the future of work in Canada and with the way the rest of the world is looking to conduct work, there lies a lack of accountability within that reluctance.

It's important for us to remember that Parliament Hill is not a static institution. It has adapted before to the changing needs of the country and to technology. We saw this during the Second World War and with the advent of more affordable air travel. It's that evolution that has the accountability baked into it.

To be certain, in-person interactions are valuable and critical, and we're talking about combining the two. The alternative here is that if we remove virtual completely, it's in person or nothing. This option is about in person and something.

With the increasing normalization and socialization of how we use technologies like Zoom today, it has become more immediate and human in the way we're able to speak and communicate with each other. We've seen this in our exit interviews with MPs. This is the first time we've done.... Over the last few months, we've been working on our third iteration of this study, and all of our interviews have been on Zoom. We take care to establish a rapport and an atmosphere that enables our respondents to feel comfortable being forthcoming and sharing their lived experiences with us. There are ways to draw from that in professional contexts.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

You have hit precisely on a point that I would like to hear you say more about.

As they say, since everyone can use Zoom, we can create outreach events, and we can adopt procedures to have a good atmosphere and for it to be constructive. I heard Ms. Clark, for example, say that it was important to ensure diversity. Personally, when I am sick, I am sick. I look after my health and I do not want to have to work because a hybrid model offers me another option for working.

With that said, how can remote participation ensure inclusion when informal conversations happen at after-five get-togethers like the one I was at yesterday with representatives of Quebec universities, for example, or after testifying at a committee? If I decide to work from home more, for example, I am going to miss out on these informal conversations. I am hearing about various benefits, but how do we counteract the disadvantages of working remotely, when we know that it will not be possible to adhere to the principle of inclusion?

[Catherine Clark]

It is essential to retain these various kinds of conversations, no doubt about that. What we are proposing is not that people participate in proceedings only in person or only virtually. We are very definitely proposing a hybrid formula.

I know that in your role as a legislator, you are going to miss out on some conversations that will take place in person. The thing that is key is flexibility. We have to create a modern environment where people are able to work.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

You agree that there is a real difference between what can be done in committee, what can be done in the House of Commons, and what can be done in our ridings. I assure you, personally, I hold virtual meetings with people in my riding.

With that said, I really do put the emphasis on the role of legislator. For the 26 weeks when the House sits, all parties and their whips have to juggle members' presence, particularly for votes.

I am not opposed to technology; quite the opposite. In fact, amazing success has been achieved using the app.

However, we have to adopt very specific parameters to avoid situations where a person ultimately decides to stay home, for example, just because they don't want to travel.

Can you tell me more about that?

[Eleanor Fast]

Thank you for the question.

You talked about the successes we've seen with hybrid Parliament in the last two years. Obviously, COVID was really terrible, but Equal Voice had been advocating for some kind of remote participation for several years before COVID. We were always told that it was absolutely not possible. It was tradition that you had to be in the House.

But COVID made it happen. I think we have this wonderful opportunity to build on the technological advances during COVID to see that the success is carried forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for being here today. I find this incredibly interesting.

It really brings to mind a day that I spent in the riding with a woman named Karen, who invited me to spend the day with her. She lives her life in a wheelchair. She put me in one too, and we rolled around a small part of one of the communities I represent.

First of all, I have muscles in my arms and my shoulders that I didn't even know existed until that day. But what was really powerful about that was just looking at all the small things that really excluded her. One of the things she sent me home with that I always carry with me is that when you make things accessible, it's better for everyone, regardless of whether you're able-bodied or not. That really hit home for me. Everything that we can do as human beings to make life more accessible opens doors that we may not know are closed.

We have heard here today about the importance of relationship building and the challenges that can be provided if you're not together. I really appreciate what people are saying, that this is not all or nothing. This is about creating a way to include people who might be excluded because of things beyond their control.

To all three of you, beginning with Ms. Delhon, how is this going to open doors? What are the codes of conduct or practices we can do that will create opportunities for relationships? I keep hearing about this blockage to relationships. How can we explore how to build relationships even if people participate sometimes virtually?

I also want to recognize two things. First, most of our members are sitting in the House. I mean, people look at the camera every day and see people. The majority of our members are already here from every party. The other thing is that when we were totally in virtual Parliament, I found that the decorum went up in some ways. If you were yelling at someone, you had to turn on your mike, and your picture was in front. There isn't the same mentality as when you're in a group yelling. I just want to acknowledge those two things.

Specifically, then, do you have recommendations about how we can make relationships if we're virtual, how we include people and how this will make it accessible?

Perhaps I could start with you, Ms. Delhon.

[Sabreena Delhon]

Thank you.

It's an important observation that the performative aspect is diminished when people are joining from home or from a different location. When you're joining through a remote context, you're more focused on the task and you're bringing a form of yourself that is not tied to looking or sounding a certain way, or participating by default in, perhaps, an adversarial manner. That performative approach is harder when you're on your own in an office, for instance.

I think there's a real opportunity to increase relevance and responsiveness, demonstrate evolution and showcase Parliament as a modern and contemporary democracy by drawing on technologies and testing and seeing what works, as I mentioned. Do a pulse check of what is and isn't working for MPs.

There is a range of different tools available for communication. It's not just virtual meetings. There are instant messaging platforms that you can use for this. We have seen an increasing number of companies, non-profit organizations, universities and other entities draw on technologies like Zoom, Google Meet, Slack and other project management types of software. These are not expensive tools. They are worthy of testing. Again, bringing that intentionality to the in-person opportunities is key.

It's also important from a democratic perspective to offer the choice. That is the dominant theme in the future of work discourse right now. If we're looking to bring the best and the brightest to lead us in our democracy, it is a non-starter not to have a hybrid option to the conditions of work. It's important for us to consider that in terms of relevance, evolution, modernization and efficiency, as well.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

I'll go to The Honest Talk. Go ahead.

[Jennifer Stewart]

Thank you for the question.

I come back to the notion that hybrid Parliament is covered by a number of grey areas, in the sense that it's not black and white. I very much doubt that parliamentarians will elect to stay home when they have a duty to serve their country and strengthen their democracy. This is about flexibility. It's about options and being able to work remotely, if that's what needs to occur to accommodate personal or family obligations.

We can look to corporations all across Canada that have modernized their workplaces and have done so very successfully and in a fiscally positive way. Adopt those models and utilize those best practices.

[Eleanor Fast]

We've had women in the House of Commons for 100 years and still only 30% of MPs are women. I think we should all be concerned with how to increase representation. That comes into inclusion and accessibility. Of course, when we talk about the number of women with intersectional identities, like Black women, indigenous women, women of colour, LGBTQ and so on, they are even less represented. It is about accessibility, to some extent.

Statistics Canada tells us that women are twice as likely to take on caregiving responsibilities, even if those women are working full time outside of the home. I think this an issue that can help increase representation in the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We're now going to the second round, starting with Mr. Cooper, followed by Mrs. Romanado.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for their thoughtful presentations.

I'm going to pose my first question to Equal Voice.

You cited some data around work-life balance. I will challenge that a bit. I agree that it's very important that we try to strive for work-life balance, to the degree that it is possible in a demanding job like that of a member of Parliament. The reality is that it is tough on families. It is tough on couples. There's no question about that. At the same time, we sit for 26 weeks a year. For nearly half of the year, we're not sitting in Ottawa. We can be back at home in our ridings. There are constituency weeks.

When we are here, the days are often incredibly long. I got into the office at 8 a.m. this morning. The House is sitting until 10 p.m., due to a take-note debate. I'm going to be participating in that debate. I don't expect that I'll be out of here before probably 10 p.m.

My constituents appreciate that when I'm here, I'm debating legislation and studying legislation at committee. When I'm back in the riding, I'm attending events and meeting with constituents. Of course, my staffers are meeting with and helping constituents every single day.

From a work-life balance standpoint, how does it enhance the work-life balance, given the demands of what happens on a day-to-day basis when the House is sitting, and coupled with what will inevitably be the expectation that you're at community events at the same time?

[Eleanor Fast]

Thank you.

MPs work incredibly hard. All of us are incredibly grateful for the service you all give to the community and the country.

Certainly, we think the recommendations that Equal Voice is making benefit everybody, men and women. From the surveys we've done, 81% of women feel that running for office would be difficult to manage with other responsibilities in their lives. We did not survey men as well, so I don't have the comparable number for men, but work-life balance is really important for everyone, certainly.

When we think about the benefits of hybrid participation, what we're talking about is that when people cannot or should not come to Ottawa, they're able to do that and yet are still able to fulfill their responsibilities as MPs with things like voting. If, for example, someone has a very ill family member whom they absolutely need to be with, and yet they are still able to vote and make that decision, they can do that. They're not required to be away from that person.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you for that.

As you said earlier, it would be in limited circumstances that you would contemplate members taking advantage of using the virtual option as opposed to being here in Ottawa. Am I correct in that, or do you have any specific ideas around that? If we were to maintain the hybrid model, are there some limitations that you would recommend? I think most members of Parliament try to do their best to be here to represent their constituents, but what do you do if some members simply don't show up in Ottawa?

[Eleanor Fast]

With regard to the full parameters of when hybrid would be used, I think that's really a question for this committee, I guess, to make recommendations on, as well as your colleagues and the parties and everything. We certainly think that those situations should include times like pregnancy, illness, caregiving and so on.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Okay.

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have 20 seconds.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

My time has expired, then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I really enjoy your generosity. Thank you.

Mrs. Romanado, go ahead, please.