Advertisement

Q&A with Audrey O’Brien, first-ever female Clerk of the House

The Clerk of the House of Commons Audrey O'Brien with then Speaker Andrew Scheer. PHOTO COURTESY: Clerk of the House

Voters sent a record 88 women to the next Parliament, but one important woman will be missing when the House of Commons reconvenes on Dec. 3.

Audrey O’Brien, the first-ever female Clerk of the House, announced her retirement earlier this year, after a decade in the position and 40 years on Parliament Hill.

The Clerk of the House is the senior permanent official of the House of Commons, presiding over the clerks-at-the-table. Together, they are the black-robed officials who provide non-partisan advice to the Speaker of the House and the Members of Parliament.

“The Clerk advises the Speaker and all Members on the interpretation of parliamentary rules, precedents and practices,” according to the official description. “The Clerk is at the service of all Members, regardless of party affiliation, and must act with impartiality and discretion.”

O’Brien served eight Speakers of the House and 11 Parliaments. She spoke to Yahoo Canada News Wednesday about her remarkable career.

Q: Your first job on the Hill was committee clerk of the House of Commons. Who hired you, and how did you end up in the role?

My very first job was working for a government program called Opportunities for Youth, as administrative assistant. Then I saw the advertisement for the job of committee clerk and decided I would apply because I liked the idea of the smaller environment of Parliament, versus the larger public service. I was interviewed by a number of people, including the director of HR here at the House, and was one of seven people hired at the time. Because at the time Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had announced he was going to create a robust committee system and the committees would have additional responsibilities.

Fact of the matter is these things always take way more time than you think they will take… I was there for 18 months and no work materialized. I was sitting there reading my procedural books. I was basically the lowest ranking procedural clerk.

I left and went to work for the Canadian Council of Children and Youth. I returned in 1980. I was on the task force on employment opportunities for the ’80s.

Q: For a decade you had the crucial job of interpreting parliamentary rules, precedents and practices. How did you become so knowledgeable, to such an extent, about those matters?

One of the things I find about procedure is it is very much a living thing, an evolving thing, as much art as science. The whole idea of question period … there are very few rules per se … but the way it unfolds depends on convention, depends on the collaboration of the parties that are in the House at any given time.

What really taught me the most was working in various capacities with different committees and seeing how they accomplished what they needed to accomplish. Really it depends on the mood at the time, the personalities at the time. I learned a great deal from John Fraser — he was Speaker when I was first named a table officer. He understood that members bring the passion of their convictions into the chamber and the Speaker has to understand where they’re coming from. If you clamp down hard on people, really, it backfires. There has to be a way for people to vent their anger or frustration — without letting that get out of hand, of course.

He had a real genius for managing what we call the “mood of the House.”

Q: What type of knowledge, wisdom or education you received has been most important to this job?

You learn on the job. You can have book learning, but learning on the job is really the most valuable.

In some ways it’s like that for members, as well. It always surprises me, many people who run for office don’t have that much of an idea of what the day-to-day life is going to be. If you’re coming in from the private sector or from another profession, it’s a whole different dynamic that you don’t know much about. Once a member is elected there’s just a tsunami of information that washes over them.

One of the things we are very proud of is that over the years we have developed, and continue to evolve, an orientation program for new members. Now there’s an app on your iPhone or iPad that gives you all kinds of information. I’m beyond thrilled on the work they’ve done on this orientation app. There’s still a program where all the members attend, but now they can carry around this information. You’re getting members who are much more techno savvy.

Q: You were responsible for interpreting the rules of decorum, but the MPs have at times behaved very badly. Any instances that stick out in your mind?

We at the table … you’re the advisor to the Speaker on matters of decorum. Again there it’s really more art than science. Time was, there was a list of words you could not use in the House. We’ve gotten away from that.

One time, (NDP MP) Jim Fulton brought a salmon over to put on Brian Mulroney’s desk, protesting something to do with the fisheries in B.C. One has to realize — the frustration of individual members, you have to sort of allow for that.

In a minority Parliament you’re more or less in constant election mode, you have tremendous partisanship. It tends to exacerbate tensions that are already there. It’s a tricky situation. I was tremendously proud of the team that worked in the last Parliament because of the hyper partisan nature of the (House).

Q: The Hill was thin on female members in your early days. What was the prevailing mood and how did you deal with the boys’ club?

There were fewer women members but there were women there with very big personalities: Flora MacDonald and Monique Bégin. The kind of impact those women had on Parliament and on the participation of women and the way women operate can’t be overstated. They were pioneers in a very serious sense of the word. They opened doors for an awful lot of people. It was a joy to watch them sparring with each other, never mind the male members, as well. Their fearlessness in the face of great challenges was wonderful to see and inspiring.

Q: How do you feel about not being there on Dec. 3, when the next Parliament convenes?

I’m gonna miss the place terribly, but I’m going to be very excited for the team that’s in place, for the prospect of this new Parliament. I’m at peace with thee idea that it really was time to go.

Q: Where were you during the October 2014 terror attack? And what was your reaction (both in your official capacity and as a human being)?

I was convalescing at Maplewood Retirement Community, having had surgery in August, so I was on medical leave. I was there and watching this horror on television…

One of the things I take some comfort in is that the House didn’t overreact by locking things down forever and always. Yes, there are new security measures … but there’s still an accessibility to Parliament, and you don’t ever want to lose that.

Q: I’m sure there are many, but can you share one or two highlights of your time in the House?

I think of three in particular.

One was when Nelson Mandela came to the House. That was tremendously moving. You sensed that you were in the presence of greatness.

The other was when (Bloc Québécois founder) Lucien Bouchard returned from his illness that caused him to lose a limb, and there was a spontaneous standing ovation. Even though he stood for an ideology that many people in the House did not share, that was a really human moment.

One of an extraordinary event was the [2008] apology for the residential schools. The participation of indigenous peoples in the ceremony. The words spoken by the various party leaders were authentic, very sincere. I hope they have at least helped heal some of the wounds of that time. It was a great honour to be in the House at the time.