Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 9 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 7, 1996
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: This meeting is now a public meeting, and the first item is Senator Wood's, which we have been promising to address for some time, on the status of the Official Languages Program in the Senate. This ite(null)m has been put off now for some time, and I believe it is important that it be dealt with.
Senator Wood, you have the floor.
Senator Wood: I have been concerned for some time about different aspects of the Official Languages Act here in the Senate. As far as implementation, we are doing wonderfully in two out of the three aspects. As you know, there are three facets. The first is to serve the public in both official languages. The second is to ensure that employees can work in the language of their choice.
I am concerned about the third aspect, which is that English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians here in the Senate have equal opportunity to jobs and to advancement. The figures which I have before me show that that is not so. We started in 1982 with negative reports from the Official Languages Commissioner, and we have made no progress. In fact, we have gone the opposite way. I will read you the figures very quickly, because I know we are short of time.
In 1982, our staff consisted of 42 per cent anglophones and 58 per cent francophones. Today, the staff consists of 34 per cent anglophones and 65 per cent francophones. We are slipping the wrong way. We need a plan to deal with this situation.
I have two suggestions. One is that the staff come up with a two-year plan. I know that we are not hiring as much as we did in the past, so it may take more than one year to start correcting this. The other suggestion is that we have a subcommittee of Internal Economy, as we had before I was ill three or four years ago.
The situation was starting to change at that time, but it is not any longer. In the last year, I believe there were 23 hirings If I remember correctly, of the 23, there was one anglophone hired. I do not think that is right. We are not trying to correct the imbalance.
The Chairman: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there are three tests put forward by the Official Language Commissioner. The Senate is meeting two of the three tests, but not the third.
I will ask Madam Beaudoin to give the committee a report on this, and then we can discuss it.
Ms Suzanne Beaudoin, Director of Human Resources, Human Resources Directorate: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will start with the hirings. Last year, we hired 45 new persons. Of those, 21 were francophones and 24 were anglophones.
Senator Wood: That is a misconception. You are including secretaries of senators, over which we have no jurisdiction. Please leave them out of the figures, because that is how we get mixed up.
The Chairman: Give the figures both in terms of staff of the Senate and employees of senators. Senator Wood's point is that employees of senators are not chosen by competition, as are staff of the Senate.
Ms Beaudoin: I understand your point, and I am not challenging it. However, I bring to the attention of the committee that when we report to Treasury Board on our representation, we include the people in your offices who are considered employees.
To answer your question, I think it was more than one, senator. Twenty-one persons were hired in senators' offices. Unfortunately, I do not have the breakdown as you wish to have it.
The Chairman: We have known that this issue was coming up for some time. Senator Wood has been clear that she wants this broken down in two ways. She has certainly made it clear to me for the past two months that she wants to see it in both ways.
Mr. Clerk, can you tell me why we do not have it available the way the senator has asked for it?
Mr. Paul Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate: There is a breakdown. We have statistics. Perhaps I should just give you an overview in terms of the language of service and language of work. That is not an issue. On the contrary, I think the Senate has been applauded by the Commissioner of Official Languages. It is the category of equitable participation which seems to be at issue here. It is a very slow process.
The Chairman: Does everyone understand what the three issues are?
Senator De Bané: No, I do not.
The Chairman: I wish to ensure that all senators understand the criteria that are being measured. Could you clarify that first, and then get into the explanation?
Mr. Bélisle: The administration of the Senate is responsible for the application of the three principles of the Official Languages Act, the first one being that we must make every effort to offer services to the public in both official languages. In that regard, we meet the standards 82 per cent, meaning that 72 per cent of our positions in the Senate are considered bilingual, and 82 per cent of the employees meet those requirements. Therefore, we are giving a service in both official languages. There are no concerns there.
As far as the right to work in English or French, again, the Commissioner of Official Languages stated in his report a year or two ago that the Senate was recognized by the Commissioner of Official Languages for its high level of bilingualism and for the steps it has taken to ensure that English and French were equitably used in the work environment.
Now we get to the issue of equitable participation; that is, ensuring that English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians have equal opportunities to obtain employment and advancement and also ensuring that the composition of the Senate administration workforce reflects the presence of both official language communities of Canada while respecting the merit principle.
In the last two years, there has been very little mobility within the Senate. There have been 14 competitions. I have taken it upon myself who look within the Senate when these competitions arise. We are working always with the same people and the same component of the two linguistic groups.
Last year, we had 14 competitions. Only two of the successful applicants were from outside the Senate. They were for constable positions. In the other 12 competitions, we were unable to work too much with the linguistic groups because we are still working with the same people in the Senate.
The Chairman: What is the situation with promotions?
The Clerk: Two weeks ago, we completed a competition for deputy principal clerks, a middle management position in the Legislative and Committees Branch. Most of the committee officers applied. The three successful candidates were anglophones. That has increased the level of anglophones at the managerial level.
Senator, there is not an established strategy, but we understand the statistics. There are also requirements in the Employment Equity Act. We are always trying to comply with that, but I must emphasize that we operate on the merit principle.
Senator Wood: Between 1995 and 1996, 23 people were hired. These are statistics that I received from you or from your office. There were 23 jobs and only one anglophone was hired. There is no dispute there; that is it. I have the figures here.
Ms Beaudoin: Of the 24 persons that were hired outside of senators' offices, 13 were francophones and 11 were anglophones.
Senator Wood: This is the document you gave me, and it does not confirm what you are now saying. I would like to have your document in order that I do not speak out of turn.
I am sorry. This document does not agree with yours at all.
Ms Beaudoin: Are you talking about April 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996, during which period the total was 45?
Senator Wood: That is right. Twenty-three were not senators' secretaries.
The Chairman: This is an important issue. I suggest that we take a week to ensure that Senator Wood has the figures from the staff and that we give Senator Wood an opportunity to raise this issue after she has had a chance to review the figures further.
Senator Forrestall: We will not be here next week.
The Chairman: Then we will meet when the Senate next meets. This is an issue of a great deal of sensitivity. It needs to be dealt with thoroughly and carefully.
First we have to agree on the numbers and facts; then we can talk about whether there is a problem and, if so, a solution.
Senator Prud'homme: I wish that some day someone would give me a good definition of a francophone. I hate to be referred to as a francophone. I am not a francophone. Moi, je suis Canadien-français.
I have seen things here which are quite unusual, as in the House of Commons. If your name is Bosa, Di Nino or Rizzuto, for example, you are classified as anglophone. That is a mistake.
This is a very profound debate. What is the difference between an anglophone and an English person whose first language is either English or French? When you can tell me that, I will better understand the debate.
The Chairman: I understand. This is precisely the sensitivity to which I was referring. That is why I asked that we not rush through this.
Senator Carstairs: I do not understand why we exclude secretaries and why, in the future, if the 9th report becomes the 10th report, we would want to exclude other employees of senators.
The Chairman: The issue would not be to exclude them. The issue is to examine how the different components are functioning within the institution.
Senator Di Nino: While we are doing this, I believe we should deal with another issue just as important as this one. It is something that I have brought to this table for the last two or three years. I do not believe that Senate employees appropriately reflect the make-up of Canada today. It is an important issue to deal with as well. I do not want to discuss it today, but let me once again put it on the table. It is another issue we should be dealing with so that we can also respond to our communities and our constituencies when they ask us those questions.
The Chairman: That is a good point. I have asked staff to take note of that.
With your indulgence colleagues, could we move to the budgets portion of this meeting?
Senator Prud'homme: I hope that no one picks and chooses the proportions. Senate staff must be bilingual, but for senators it is all right if they are unilingual. If you say that we will choose a certain proportion of our employees based on which language are they competent in, I think that is unfair.
The Chairman: You will be first on the list, senator, at the next meeting.
Senator Bosa, I apologize for keeping you here so long. Please proceed.
Senator Bosa: Mr. Chairman, I am here to present the budget of the Subcommittee on Post-secondary Education of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. We are asking for $47,900. I am here because Senator DeWare, the chair of the committee, is unavoidably absent.
Would you like a breakdown of the budget?
The Chairman: I think it is fair to is assume that senators have read this proposal.
Are there any questions on this budget?
Senator Di Nino: I have one question. Will all witnesses be travelling to Ottawa to appear?
Senator Bosa: It is a blended figure. Some may travel; some may not. Some may require a per diem; some may not.
Senator Di Nino: Does the committee intend to travel?
Senator Bosa: There is no provision for travelling in this budget.
The Chairman: Are we comfortable with this budget colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Bosa.
The Chairman: Senator Bacon, has been waiting patiently for even longer than Senator Bosa.
Please proceed.
[Translation]
Senator Bacon: The Transport Committee has submitted its projected expenses which total $2,053,348. The subcommittee will be submitting its final report in December 1997. We plan to visit some parts of Canada and then we will decide where to travel outside the country. I think we have to see what is happening elsewhere in the area of transportation safety.
[English]
We will be visiting Yellowknife soon, if our budget is accepted, as well as Edmonton and Vancouver. We plan to visit Toronto and Montreal and Halifax and St. John as well. In discussing transportation safety, we must visit many cities and not have all the people come to Ottawa to see us.
Senator Wood: May I know what part of the $76,000 is for communications?
Senator Bacon: I think everything is indicated there.
Senator Wood: Yes, I see it now. Thank you very much.
Senator Bacon: We would need an initial amount of $144,625 to start the work of the committee. We would need the balance of $108,723 as of February 1. We do not need the full amount today, if you cannot afford it, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I understand that.
I recommend to the committee, inasmuch as we are going above our total allotment for committee expenditures, that we approve the first part for $144,000 and that we revisit the second part of $108,000 after we have a chance to review the status of our overall budget for committees.
Senator Bacon: We must make plans for after February. If we have no amount of money available to us before that, we cannot pursue our work.
The Chairman: I assure you that we will work diligently and conduct the overall assessment as quickly as we can. Historically, Senate committees have always asked for more than they have spent. We must check on the budgets of other committees and check on the overall picture in the Senate.
We obviously cannot spend funds that we do not have unless we supplement special studies, as we have in the past. Part of the strategy for moving ahead this year will involve some supplementary funding, due to some unexpected and unusual expenses. This committee may wish to consider requesting supplementary estimates.
We will work very hard to try to accommodate your request.
Senator Carstairs: I suggest that we approve Part I today and that we put Part II on the agenda of the next meeting of this committee.
Senator Di Nino: Are these both to be expended, in your opinion, Madam Chair, in this fiscal year? Is the second component to be spent in the following fiscal year?
Senator Bacon: No, it is for this year. We need the second budget as of February 1. We would be travelling in December and again in March, to Toronto, Montreal and the eastern provinces.
The Chairman: Is there a consensus that the first half be approved?
We have an objection.
Senator Forrestall: I am in a difficult position. I must declare my involvement and my interest.
I would not want to spend five cents on this study unless I knew we could complete the study. We had a terrible experience with a study almost two years ago. Some colleagues know how painful that was. I do not want to associate myself with a study that cannot be finished. Whether we have any money transferred to us, I want the amount approved in principle in order that we and our professional staff can feel confident to make arrangements.
Some people will need extensive lead time to prepare the type of information we will be seeking. It is not just stuff they can draw out of their heads. Our chair has quite properly put the matter before you, but that is the other dilemma.
The Chairman: It is a fair one.
Senator Poulin: Our colleague Senator Forrestall is chair of one subcommittee which we are discussing today and I am the chair of the other. We have discussed in the full committee that we must be sure that whatever work we do can be reported upon before any other event which could stop all work.
The Chairman: None of us want to proceed with a budget which we cannot handle. We must first ensure that we are in a position to do that. There is a fair degree of confidence about the first portion of this budget.
As to the second portion, the question has come up as to whether the work must all be done in this fiscal year. The intention of the committee, as I understand it, is to do the work in this fiscal year.
Senator Forrestall: It may not be done in total.
The Chairman: There may work continuing in the next fiscal year.
Senator Forrestall: The work will continue for a considerable time, but we must get it started.
The Chairman: There is the potential for intervening events of which we are all very conscious. In the past, this committee has exercised a fair degree of creativity in keeping our committees functioning, notwithstanding the interruptions caused by the other place. It is within our capacity to exercise that form of creativity. If you recall, we established two task forces that took us through a prorogation. The task forces, by chance, had the same membership as the committees. They carried on with their work. The committees later adopted the work of the task forces. The net result was that we did not hold up the work of our colleagues because the other place had to go through some mysterious procedure.
There are ways of solving problems. Until the committee sits down and looks at the numbers, being already about $200,000 over, and until we do an assessment of where the spending stands, it is imprudent to say that it is all on the table.
Will you take the first half now? We will work as quickly as we can to get a clear picture to the committee. I am optimistic. How is that for an answer?
Senator Bacon: You will deal with this document at the next meeting?
The Chairman: We will deal with it as soon as we can get a clear picture. If that is in two weeks, then so be it.
Senator Bacon: That is fine.
The Chairman: We will try to meet your needs.
Senator Bacon: We should not start doing the work if there is a possibility we will have to stop.
The Chairman: We all agree with that. There is nothing more frustrating than that. We are all on side on that.
Senator Di Nino: It may be wiser to postpone the whole request then. This is what I hear.
Senator Bacon: No. We are leaving soon.
The Chairman: Is there a consensus that we approve the first half?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Senator Carstairs: Senator Kenny, I must leave to chair another meeting. There is to be a discussion later today on pages. I should like to have it deferred until it is possible for me to be here.
The Chairman: I will ensure that it is deferred. We are over time in any event. We will have it on the agenda of the next meeting.
For those of you who are curious, there has been some concern about the study that was ongoing on the rooms that the pages were taking. That study was to develop a baseline. It has now ceased and will not continue again for some time. Those who are concerned about it need not be until we have another discussion around this table.
The Chairman: Senator Hays, please.
Senator Hays: Mr. Chairman, it is nice of you to hear this request for an increase in budget for purposes of holding the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum meeting in Vancouver in January of next year. The request is for a total increase of $11,502 from the Senate, being its 30 per cent of the interparliamentary allocation, and $26,838 from the House of Commons. The House of Commons has approved the request made to them.
The request is being made because the number of delegates attending the conference has increased from 150 to 200 and the length of the conference has increased by one day.
Do you require details?
The Chairman: Are there any questions of Senator Hays?
Senator Di Nino: Perhaps it would be wise to restate the principal purpose of the conference, and its objectives.
Senator Hays: The conference is one that we are hosting for the first time. It is a relatively new multilateral interparliamentary association of countries in the Asia-Pacific region. There are 25 members. The chairman of the organization is the founding chair of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum Yasuhiro Nakasone. Our meeting will be the fifth annual meeting. They alternate between the Americas and the Asia side of the Pacific Rim. It will be the first Asia-Pacific event in 1997, which Canada will be declaring, if it has not already done so, the Year of Asia-Pacific, because we will be hosting the APEC meetings in Vancouver later in the year.
Asia-Pacific is an extremely important trading area for Canada. That is one of our principal reasons for wanting to be active in this organization. It is at the parliamentary level. APEC is at the ministerial level. Japan is our second largest trading partner and is one of our principal reasons for interest. However, the rest of the region is also of great interest to us. The Prime Minister will be making his third trip under the Team Canada initiative to that region to try to improve our trading relationships, and this is part of that process of coming closer together with this fastest growing part of the world's economy.
Senator Di Nino: In effect, it is a continuation of building the bridges which lead to not only economic but cultural ties, among other things.
Senator Hays: I could not have put it better.
Senator Rompkey: I support the initiative. Does the increase in delegates reflect increased interest or is it an increase in each delegation?
Senator Hays: I cannot give you a precise answer. It does reflect increased interest. There are 25 countries involved. We limited the number of delegates at our executive meeting in September here in Ottawa to ensure that there would not be in excess of five delegates from any country.
At that meeting, we were told how many would be coming. It could fairly be said that there seems to be more interest across the board in attending.
Senator Rompkey: What does this do to the reserve for associations? Could we have a reckoning? If we approve this, then what?
The Chairman: As far as the associations' budgets go, there are requests for $500,000 more than there is money. However, this does not come out of that budget. This comes out of the Senate budget.
Senator Cochrane: I have travelled to various countries in Asia. That which Senator Hays is saying is exactly right. We have a global economy throughout the world. These countries are coming to us; we are going to them. We are doing business with China, Taiwan and Hong Kong as well as Japan.
I approve of Senator Hays' request. I would also like to know what countries the delegates are coming from.
Senator Hays: Thank you for your support, Senator Cochrane. The countries sending delegates are Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, the People's Republic of China -- which is quite controversial -- Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Laos, Malaysia, the Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Mongolia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippine, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, the United States of America and Vietnam.
Senator Cochrane: Taiwan is not attending. Taiwan is very interested in having a good relationship with Canada.
Senator Hays: It is, Senator Cochrane, but the sensitivities of the People's Republic of China are such that their attendance is not possible.
Senator Poulin: Senator Hays, this is such an important event in terms of contributing to the progress of our country with good working relationships with a part of the world which truly can be very helpful to us. Is there a communications plan in place? If so, do you have sufficient money to implement it to ensure that the highlights of this collaboration of the two houses are publicized?
Senator Hays: Yes, to both those questions. We are hopeful that this will be aired on CPAC. The Prime Minister he has been invited and I believe he will attend to welcome the delegates. We will have a strategy to highlight our achievements. We are hopeful that that will be successful.
Senator Prud'homme: For the record, I repeat what I said earlier. I find it strange that we should force Senator Hays to ask for such a small amount of money for such an immense event, as Senator Cochrane has said. The entire government should be behind this conference.
Second, I am the one who discovered that we were all geared for European associations. In my first report I asked why it is that we forget about our window of opportunity in the Pacific. Having written that, I am glad to say that Speaker Fraser sent me to Australia and then to Singapore. It was that which created the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum. I am the one who founded that name. There was a big controversy over that. I was highly rewarded, when I applied to become a delegate to the Japan meeting, by not being chosen. Everyone wondered what had happened.
Senator Hays, is it at all possible that senators who will not be chosen, which will be my case, I am sure, and who would like to go at their own expense, could attend as hosts? If senators were around to help welcome delegates, would they be well received by you as chairman? Would you not mind if they were around?
This is so important in terms of development for Canada. It is great for me as a Quebecer. This is a window of opportunity on Asia.
Would you comment on that?
Senator Hays: Senator, I acknowledge your important role and thank you for it in terms of the beginnings of this association.
We are the host country. It will not be possible to have more than five formal delegates, but we could have more than that present to participate in the events.
With respect to those wishing to speak, we will have to arrange a system of alternates so that a place can be made at the table for participation if that is desired. We welcome the presence of other parliamentarians. In particular, we have encouraged those from the lower mainland of all parties both in the Senate and House of Commons to be present.
The Chairman: Do I detect a consensus in favour of this?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The next item is the one with respect to which Senator Stollery is here on behalf of Senator Stewart.
Will you speak to the budget about which you are here, senator?
Senator Stollery: Honourable senators, as you all know, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs has just completed an excellent report on the European Community. We are now dealing with a reference from the Senate to examine and report on the growing importance of the Asia-Pacific region for Canada. I remind senators that ever since the Free Trade Agreement, the Foreign Affairs Committee has become very much a trade policy committee, which is why we did our report on the European Community.
Our budget request is for $127,845. Of all committees, the Foreign Affairs Committee has been, perhaps, the most conscious of spending money. We are not a big travelling committee. We have been pretty conscious of keeping our budget down. This request is consistent with that.
We have many witnesses to hear, many of whom are from British Columbia, since a majority of our exports in Canada are from British Columbia and Alberta. As you go east, the level of exports generally declines. Many of the 40 witnesses we wish to hear are from British Columbia. We decided it would be better for the committee to go to Vancouver than to bring these people to Ottawa.
We are contemplating a trip to Vancouver around the first week of February. We have a work plan that would probably take us into the next Parliament. Before we go any further, we want to do as much of our research in Canada as we can. In that way, we will have our groundwork done before we start advancing into the Far East which is, I suppose, where we will end up.
Anticipating questions on the communications policy, we have arranged for our hearings in Vancouver to be televised on CPAC. As well, we have a $3,000 item for communications following the policy that the committee has established.
Senator Prud'homme: Senator Stollery, do you think some members of your committee will be in Vancouver in January, too?
Senator Stollery: Some of our members may have difficulty being there at that time. We are trying to arrange our work around the time that is available.
The Chairman: Are we comfortable with this budget colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Stollery.
Mr. Gary O'Brien, Director of Committees, will speak to one small issue.
Dr. Gary W. O'Brien, Director of Committees and Private Legislation Directorate: Honourable senators, I am seeking your direction this morning to deal with the question of covers of committee reports. It is a question which regularly comes up.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The issue is that there be no more special covers.
Senator Poulin: It is a very good idea.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
You have been a very patient committee today. We have dealt with several difficult issues.
The committee adjourned.