Hybrid House isn’t friendly to all

For years and consecutive Parliaments, MPs have been tossing around the aspirational goal of having a more “family-friendly” House of Commons, all with an aim to bring in a less homogenous group of people. A November 2017 Procedure and House Affairs Committee (PROC) report on support for MPs with young kids called for changes to the Parliament of Canada Act to add that pregnancy and parental leave not count as an absence from the House. It also recommended changes to the travel points system and Hill daycare service. “Changes made at different times to the mode of operation, work practices, and culture of Parliament have allowed the institution to adapt to changing societal norms and expectations. As the democratic centre of the country, it is incumbent upon Parliament to strive, in its membership and as a workplace, to reflect the Canadian population it represents,” said an interim PROC report from that same study. A proposal to trim the House’s work week to four days by cutting Friday sittings got caught up in a 60-hour PROC filibuster earlier that year over a discussion paper the Liberals put forward with changes to the Standing Orders, which also included proposals to introduce electronic voting and changing how opposition days and private members’ bills are handled. It is in this vein that the government is pushing for a year-long extension to the hybrid system that was introduced to deal with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Having a hybrid Parliament has “meant that we’ve had the flexibility to successfully allow Members to continue to participate even when ill, and making sure that they didn’t infect others,” Government House Leader Mark Holland said on June 20. Among the arguments in support of this plan is that many workplaces Canada-wide have adapted to a hybrid form of doing business, and that if working from home sometimes is good enough for Ronnie Regular, then it’s good enough for MPs. To assuage the opposition's charges of using the format to duck accountability, Holland said he’s promised the other House leaders “that with the exception of a health circumstance ... we will ensure that all questions are answered in person in Question Period." That’s all well and good, but the government has not yet properly addressed the toll the hybrid system is taking on the support staff who make it possible for Parliamentarians to work remotely, especially the interpreters—a limited workforce without whom parliamentary work cannot function. Both poor sound quality and spiking sound quantity have been pointed to as causes of injuries from fatigue to headaches to tinnitus. As injuries mount and resources (read: people) are stretched thin, the government needs to find solutions and accommodations before letting the hybrid House carry on. The Hill Times

Hybrid House isn’t friendly to all

To keep reading, subscribe and become a political insider.

Only $7.67 / week for one year.

Already a Subscriber?

Get The Weekend Point of View Newsletter

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8