SCAL Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY CALENDAR OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

SOUS-COMITÉ DU CALENDRIER PARLEMENTAIRE DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, March 12, 2001

• 1007

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)): I call to order the meeting of the Sub-Committee on Parliamentary Calendar.

We left off talking about the parliamentary March break. Our researcher has done some research for us. We are faced with a typically Canadian problem. Nobody does anything the same anywhere in this country. It's just regional differences, not regional alienation, we're talking about here, I think.

Mr. Robertson, would you like to take us through our little dilemma here.

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): One of the documents is entitled “School Spring Breaks Across Canada”, which is a two-page table showing how different jurisdictions in Canada determine their March break. As can be seen, some of them set it up in their provincial education acts or regulations, and some of them delegate it to the individual school boards. In the fourth column there's an indication of when the school break in the province occurs this year, but that may not be the same for every school board in the province. If the school board does allow some discretion, different school boards may adjust accordingly.

It seems that most of the school breaks fall within the first three weeks of March, about 80% of them. The Province of Saskatchewan makes their school break following Easter, so it changes with Easter each year. Manitoba makes it the last week of March, I believe.

The other briefing note entitled “Parliamentary March Break: Issues and Options” outlines the objective, which is to facilitate members spending time with their families, particularly those with young children. It sets out a number of considerations, including the fact that Easter is a variable holiday falling between March 22 and April 25, that there are supply periods, and that in recent years a budget has been tabled and a budget debate has taken place in the period from January to March.

Then it outlines two options that are available. One would be to set up a formula in the Standing Orders, as is currently done, for the calculation of the March break. The other one would be to give discretionary authority to some individual to set the March break each year. That person could be the clerk. It would probably be preferable to make that person the Speaker and, if possible, to provide some criteria or guidance to the Speaker in making the determination, and ensure that there is consultation with the party leaders.

• 1010

The proposed scenario, which is on page 4 of the English version, is a fairly complicated one that tries to marry all of that together. It basically provides that in year one the March break would be the first two weeks of March and in year two it would be the second two weeks of March. It would then be on a rolling basis. But there would be provision for the Speaker to make adjustments by the preceding September 30 of each year to accommodate things such as Easter falling at the end of March. If you look at the calendar for 2002 in the appendix, you'll see that Easter is on the last weekend of March. If we had a two-week March break at the beginning of the month, the House would return for one week and then it would recess again for a two-week Easter break. Perhaps that's the sort of situation where there could be some discretion shown, either to advance the March break and have three weeks at Easter or to have some other adjustment of the calendar for next year.

If we were to have a two-week March break in addition to a two-week Easter adjournment, the House would probably have to come back one week earlier or two weeks earlier in January, depending on whether you need a break in February. The problem in February is that if the House comes back a week or two early and March break is later in March, there would be a lengthy period with no break from January to March.

It has been suggested, both prior to this meeting and privately to me, that the House could omit its January recess and take most of the month of March off. That has certain advantages and disadvantages, I would expect.

The Chair: Are there any comments? Is this workable?

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): If you look at the schedule, you'll see that in British Columbia it varies. But my son attends a private school there, which is different from the public schools. They have two weeks off starting next week, instead of one week off. So it doesn't really matter. Whatever you do is probably going to fit for some and not for others.

I read in the papers that a committee is going to be set up to look at rule changes. We could just send this to them and let them make up their minds as to whether or not they want to do that.

The Chair: The procedure and House affairs committee is going to have to deal with the Standing Orders. But I don't know how that's going to work with the committee of House leaders, because that committee is going to be dealing more generally with parliamentary reform, to tell you the truth, John. We could certainly make some recommendations to them with regard to this, if you wanted.

The only common pattern I see is that B.C., Nova Scotia, P.E.I., and Ontario all fall in that middle two weeks. The others may, but we just don't know because it's not firmly established.

Stéphane.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): First of all, Madam Chair, I'm not certain I agree with the idea of referring this matter to the committee that will be examining the whole issue of procedural reform. Like you, I have to wonder how this committee will be able to coordinate its activities with those of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Normally, it is this committee that is duly authorized to make these kinds of changes to the Standing Orders. That's the first problem I have.

Secondly, Madam Chair, in light of the documents drawn up for us by Mr. Robertson, it's clear that the situation changes every year. Even if we were to refer this matter to a committee in charge of examining procedural reform, it would be rather difficult for this committee, whether it be the Procedure and House Affairs Committee or the procedural reform committee, to devise a formula that could be used every year.

• 1015

This brings me to the suggestion put forward by Mr. Robertson. If I've misunderstood him, I'd like him to tell me so. I think this committee should recommend that the Speaker of the House be authorized to establish every year a calendar that in so far as possible, accurately reflects the situation and give as many members as possible the opportunity to take advantage of the spring break, since Parliament would be enjoying a break as well

Let me give you an example. Mr. Robertson points out in his paper that in Quebec, school boards decide when to schedule spring break. While that may be true, it's also a fact that 90 per cent of all school boards designate the first two weeks of March for this purpose.

Several other provinces, aside from Quebec and perhaps Alberta, have designated the first two weeks of March for spring break. If we take a closer look at Alberta, we will see that the decision rests with the school boards, as is the case in Quebec. And 80 per cent of these school boards may designate the first two weeks of March for this purpose. This may even be true of Newfoundland and the different territories.

This document takes a comprehensive look at what goes on in each province, but in some respects, it doesn't really give us a firsthand account of the situation. Maybe that's something we should have before we make a decision. I'm simply citing an with which I am familiar, namely my home province of Quebec where most school boards set aside the first two weeks of March for spring break.

Given that neither the procedural review committee nor this committee will be able to come up with a formula that can be applied every year, perhaps we should, as Mr. Robertson suggested, assign either to the Clerk or to the Speaker the task of deciding, with the help of a yearly study of the situation in each province, when the most appropriate time would be for the March parliamentary break.

[English]

The Chair: And to vary it so that one year certain MPs would have that and another year other provinces would have it.

Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Chairman, we're trying to accommodate spring break and that's very admirable. I do appreciate that, and I know that most MPs would love to have that opportunity.

Maybe we could look at some other options, as opposed to just simply accommodating March, which I think we can do. You talked about reconvening the House earlier in January. I personally have no difficulty with that. I'd like to hear the opinions of the other members around this table. The calendar for 2002 in the appendix shows that we would be coming back the last week of January. Would it be acceptable not only to the whips but also to the members of their caucuses to come back perhaps a week earlier in January, from January 21 to the end of the month? We do have a fairly reasonable break in December and the first part of January. If we could bump up the House a couple of weeks in January, that would obviously free up more time in March, and that would give us a good break.

Now, there are two problems that I see. First of all, a lot of people try to take some time off in January as well. This may impact them.

The Chair: The only time.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I appreciate that, but it still gives you that three weeks in January to do that.

The other real difficulty is there are two blocks where you have five weeks at a time. In fact, if you bumped January in the year 2002, there would be six weeks at a time. We get testy even with three-week stretches, without having a six-week stretch.

I wonder if that would be acceptable to the rest of the members. My preference would be to get it over with, do the six weeks, get grumpy if you wish, and then take a larger break in March to try to accommodate most of the people for the spring break. What are your thoughts? Is January open for negotiation or is it closed?

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Godin and then back to you, John.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I for one think that sitting four or five weeks straight creates a problem. Members grow tired and discouraged, and it's difficult to keep them here. They want to return to their ridings and meet their constituents.

• 1020

This would give us a calendar where the House would sit for five consecutive weeks on two separate occasions. Instead, we should be dividing this up so that in a given year, there would be a break of a few weeks for certain regions. For instance, for certain regions, the first and second weeks would be the break period, whereas the next year, it would be another region's turn. We could try a rotation. I don't know how others feel about this, but as far as sitting for five consecutive weeks, there are other people to consider, besides ourselves. When the House sits for five consecutive weeks, people become extremely tired. It's as if they don't really want to be here any longer.

[English]

Mr. John Reynolds: I have no problem with coming back the last week in January.

The Chair: I think earlier than that might start being a problem, such as if we came back two weeks early in January.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: A week in January is reasonable. We did it this year and it didn't kill anyone. Of course, Yvon mentioned the flip side of this decision, namely the fact that colleagues were required to sit for five weeks, instead of four. No one really has a problem with four weeks, but five, well that complicates matters somewhat.

During the last session of Parliament, the House sat for six consecutive weeks at one stretch and, as teenagers would say, the House was “rocking and rolling”. It was difficult to maintain discipline. It was hard for Members, and even more so for the Whips.

If we reconvened two weeks earlier in January, this would create two problems: first of all, it would cut into our January vacation and secondly, it would mean that the House would then sit for six consecutive weeks. Coming back a week earlier wouldn't be a problem, but two weeks earlier, well I agree with you that it would complicate matters a little.

[English]

The Chair: John, I don't know how you and I ever managed without two, three, or four weeks and then a break. We used to go for months at a time. I think one of the things that's happening is that with only three, four, or five weeks before a break, everything gets more compressed and more pressured. I sometimes wonder if it's worth it for those weeks off.

I think we have to have some kind of guidelines. What about the idea of occasionally looking at possibly having a three-week break over Easter. For example, that would work better next year when Easter is early. Rather than a break in March and then the Easter break, you could go from the 23rd through the week after Easter. That would give you a three-week break there without losing any House business weeks.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't understand. Are you talking about 2002?

The Chair: Yes. Suppose you took a week in the middle of February, the week of the 17th, then went for the next three weeks, and then took a three-week break. You'd be combining the Easter break with one week of March break.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Sure, but then you're not trying to accommodate the spring breaks in March. You'd lose some of that at the beginning.

The Chair: You'd be off from March 17, so it would accommodate the late March breaks that year, and then you'd want to accommodate the early March breaks the following year.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And take a week off in February.

The Chair: Yes. So it would be sitting three weeks, a week off, sitting three weeks, three weeks off, and then you'd be back for five weeks.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There are two fives in a row there.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, you'd break that up. You wouldn't have the two fives then. You'd have the one five.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That's right.

The Chair: Just as an example, perhaps we could be flexible enough to say that some years the Easter break and the March break might be combined. That would probably accommodate a lot more people when there's a three-week stretch without sitting.

Where do we want to go? Do we want to actually make some recommendations for a change to the standing order and perhaps get some draft wording for it?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Madam Chair, I can't speak for everybody here, but I think Mr. Reynolds has already indicated that we should make those recommendations on behalf of this committee, as opposed to sending it to the procedure and House affairs committee. Let's do that. Let's take some of the work off their table and make sure our recommendations are put forward. I think it's easier to develop that amongst ourselves than it is perhaps for the full committee.

The Chair: They'll be dealing with the whole package of stuff.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Let's put the calendar together.

• 1025

The Chair: At least for next year we might have a decent chance that half of our colleagues might be able to spend a week's vacation with their children, which I think would be a positive accomplishment.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do we agree that we take that week in February, then? Is it agreed that we should try to work it out so that that week in February, from the 18th to the 22nd, will be a break week?

The Chair: Sure. So you're not sitting six weeks in a row.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes. Then you break that one up, and you break up March really well. Then the only other one you have some difficulty with is that five weeks in April-May.

The Chair: And then five weeks in June.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That will work.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The only problem I have, Madam Chair, is that we're deluding ourselves if we think that this formula will benefit half of our colleagues. If we look at the dates selected for the spring breaks, we note that Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick all designate one of the first two weeks of March. That's affect far more than half of the membership.

The Chair: And next year, our calendar would coincide with the first two weeks in March.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but what I'm saying, Madam Chair, is that the following year, if it comes to that, three quarters of the members of the House of Commons will find themselves at a disadvantage, that is all members representing New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec.

[English]

The Chair: I think Nova Scotia's also falls in the middle two weeks.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but if you begin your calculations on the 17th next year, that won't solve the problem.

[English]

The Chair: The bottom line here is that in each year you can't accommodate all of your colleagues, and that's why you would want to leave it to the discretion of the Speaker. So you pick one year where it benefits those who have a mid to late break, and the next year it would flip around, and those who have an early March break would receive the benefit. Is that what we're trying to accomplish? Whether that's next year or the following year.... We've just come up with one suggestion for next year. That would mean that in the year after, the break would have to be in early March.

Mr. John Reynolds: I have a meeting I have to go to.

The Chair: If the Speaker could come up with a schedule for the next four years, that would be great.

Are we agreed to let our staff go off and do some work on this?

John, just before you leave—I know you have a busy morning—the other issue we discussed was rearranging the Friday, making it a different kind of day. I have the feeling that for you that's one that should be included with the broader issue of parliamentary reform and turned over to the committee of House leaders. Do you agree with that?

Mr. John Reynolds: I agree.

The Chair: So we can discuss that in your absence.

Stéphane.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What do you mean by the big brother committee?

Mr. Yvon Godin: The big brothers and big sisters.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: By big brother committee, do you mean the committee on...

[English]

The Chair: I didn't speak of the big brother committee. John did.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Do you mean the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, or the committee...

The Chair: Of House leaders.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: And who would these leaders be?

[English]

The Chair: I think Mr. Reynolds' suggestion at our last meeting was that this issue of Friday is so much a part of a number of other issues around parliamentary reform that it should be referred to the committee of House leaders.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Perhaps someone would care to enlighten me, Madam Chair. Has the task of reviewing the Standing Orders of the House been entrusted to the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, or to some obscure committee made up of House leaders who will be working behind closed doors? I would appreciate an answer to this question right away. Who will be overseeing this task? Will we, as a House committee, be reviewing the Standing Orders, or will some obscure committee be meeting in secret to decide what's best for parliamentarians, without bothering to hear their comments and suggestions in person?

The Chair: The House leaders have had some discussions. Perhaps it would be a good idea to invite Mr. Boudria here to discuss this matter with the Procedure and House Affairs Committee. It's extremely important that we clarify the roles of the House committee and of the committee of House leaders.

• 1030

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have another question for you, Madam Chair. Why, as the Sub-committee on Parliamentary Calendar, would we agree to consider the issue of the parliamentary March break, but not the Friday issue?

The Chair: It's merely something that Mr. Reynolds suggested...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If we're supposed to be a sub-committee on parliamentary calendar...

The Chair: ... at our last meeting.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but if you recall, early on in his speech, Mr. Reynolds suggested that the matter of the parliamentary March break be referred to the committee—I'm not sure which one—in charge of reviewing the Standing Orders of the House. If everyone agrees that we shouldn't take on the Friday issue, then I would tend to go along with Mr. Reynolds' suggestion that the matter of the calendar, including the parliamentary March break, be referred to this obscure committee - no one yet knows which one—that we will be charged with revising the House Standing Orders.

We cannot do half a job, that is to say we cannot only look at certain issues that relate to us and refer others to another, as yet unnamed committee. If we decide not to shoulder these responsibilities and to refer the matter to some other body, then let's turn all of these issues over for consideration, including the matter of the parliamentary March break and the Friday issue. Every single one.

[English]

The Chair: I am happy to do whatever the subcommittee wants to do, frankly.

Mr. Reynolds made the suggestion last time that given that the issue of changing Friday relates to a whole lot of other issues—for instance, supply days, the number of days in the week, the procedure of government business, and so on—it might be better if it were dealt with in the context of all those other issues. On the other hand, I would suspect that the committee of House leaders would be very happy to have the advice of the whips and the procedure and House affairs committee on this.

So I'm in your hands. If you wish us as whips to discuss it and come up with some recommendations, then we can proceed to do that.

If we report back to the procedure and House affairs committee and they have Mr. Boudria appear before them to talk about the work of the committee versus the work of the House leaders' committee, that might be a time to clarify that and to get some instructions from the procedure and House affairs committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Perhaps we could wait to meet with Mr. Boudria to discuss another matter of interest to our sub-committee. On this score, I would agree with Mr. Reynolds's suggestion. Either this sub-committee assumes its full responsibilities, or it abdicates all of them. Either we put everything on hold temporarily, including the parliamentary March break, until we get Mr. Boudria to clarify his intentions to us, or we continue to focus on this issue, as you said earlier, with a view to providing the committee that will ultimately be asked to review the Standing Orders with some direction on these two questions.

If you want my opinion, this committee does serve a useful purpose. Perhaps it's pointless to have two committees working on similar issues simultaneously. However, the bigger committee that will be looking into reform of the Standing Orders may not have time to thoroughly consider the Friday issue. Perhaps this sub- committee can provide the bigger committee with some valuable insights into the issue.

Among other things, I'm thinking about the suggestion that was made last time, and which all whips supported, namely that we go to Quebec City to see what's done there when there is a work stoppage. If we put everything on hold, that would mean our visit to Quebec City would be on hold as well. How can we provide the committee with some food for thought if we stop working? I for one think the committee should continue with its work.

The Chair: I'd never dream of putting a visit to Quebec City on hold.

[English]

As I said, I'm in the committee's hands.

• 1035

Stéphane, it's also something we could discuss at the House leaders' meeting. I know that's not normally the kind of business...but that is one place where the whips and the House leaders are all together.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Chair, I would suggest that we continue with our reflections so that we can advise the bigger committee which may not have time to gather all of the information it needs about the Friday issue. Even if ultimately the decision does not rest with us, at least we will have contributed to the debate and given those responsible for this matter some food for thought.

[English]

The Chair: So your preference is that we continue having a look at the Friday, the broader schedule. Are we still agreed to move ahead with the March break? Frankly, I think that is something that would humanize the lives of our colleagues in the next four years in a very constructive way.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I agree.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: We've already begun the process and I think we need to continue.

[English]

The Chair: As discussions between the House leaders have just commenced, I suspect that there will be a little more clarity before the end of the week as to how they are proceeding. Shall we agree we'll go ahead with laying out how we could handle the March break? Then we'll come back to the discussion about the parliamentary week at our next meeting.

Mr. James Robertson: At the next committee I will have a draft report for the subcommittee to table with the procedure and House affairs committee outlining the discussion today, which is that the Speaker, preferably at the beginning of a parliament, for the next three or four years lay out a schedule involving an additional time for March break, taking into account the different school breaks.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: If my understanding is correct, and as Stéphane was saying, perhaps we should go and take a look at how other regions are coping and at the decisions that are made each year at the local level. Perhaps spring break always falls around the same time.

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Just another comment when you're looking at the schedule. I think everybody here has agreed that we're prepared to use January as a buffer rather than look at that five- and six-week period.

For example, when you look at the 2006 item that has been laid out, in February-March you have a six-week period. If we could use an additional week in January, you could give that break in February and therefore make it. So I think that's where most of the people are coming from. Use your flexibility so that we don't have those six-week breaks.

The Chair: Do we want to be so rigid as to say the maximum sitting period should be five weeks?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I think anything more than that you're asking for trouble. I wasn't here when you were here for the full session. I can just tell you my experience.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Maybe that was true once, but now that parliamentary breaks are an established tradition, some colleague have acquired some bad habits and...

The Chair: Certainly we need to take this into account.

[English]

Is this a good time to meet, 10 o'clock on Monday morning? We're all here generally, I think, anyway.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's just because you live in the area.

The Chair: Actually, no. I like to take Monday mornings in my constituency. That's the only time I get. But if it's convenient for the rest of you from all over the country—10 o'clock Monday morning, then, for our next meeting? Okay. Perfect.

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

The meeting is adjourned.