Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 8 - Evidence, May 26, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:39 a.m. to study on the Senate committee system as established under rule 86, taking into consideration the size, mandate and quorum of each committee; the total number of committees; and available human and financial resources.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. Today we are meeting on the committee study referred to us by the Senate on motion of the leaders of the two official parties in the Senate. We have met once on this topic, and you will recall that we agreed to send out a questionnaire surveying all senators on their opinions on various topics.
Those questionnaires have been reviewed and the analysis of the results has been received. If our consideration tomorrow of the draft report on rule changes to accommodate changes in the conflict of interest code for senators does not take too long, I propose that we consider the results of that survey as well as evidence we are about to hear today in order to determine the direction that this committee will take in dealing with the matter that has been placed before us with respect to committees.
[Translation]
Today, we are honoured to welcome Sonia L'Heureux, Assistant Parliamentary Librarian. Ms. Lemieux is in charge of the parliamentary information and research service that provides us with the excellent analysis that we depend on a great deal for our committee work.
The research service has undergone a reorganization in recent months and, among other matters, Ms. L'Heureux will be able to tell us about the long-term advantages for our committees.
[English]
In addition, Madam L'Heureux can answer any questions you may have concerning how the library serves committees and the governing principles behind its work, and I am sure she will welcome your input on how her service can be improved.
Madam L'Heureux, I believe you have a prepared statement. Please proceed with it. We will follow with a period of questions and answers.
[Translation]
Sonia L'Heureux, Assistant Parliamentary Librarian, Library of Parliament: Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be with you today. Committees have always been an extremely important part of the Senate's work, and many senators find their committee work to be particularly rewarding. Assessing the structure of your committee system, therefore, is both a timely and important initiative and the library is delighted to have this opportunity to contribute to this analysis.
[English]
As Assistant Parliamentary Librarian, I am responsible for the research service of the library. I will begin by giving you a quick overview of how the library goes about supporting your committees.
In 2008-09, the library completed almost 900 research requests for parliamentary committees. Some 35 per cent of these, or over 300, were done at the request of Senate committees. As shown in the fact sheet, which we are distributing to you, which highlights the number of requests completed by the research service, this level of activity is slightly lower than the previous year. This is largely due to the fact that committees were not active during the 2008 election and December prorogation of Parliament.
[Translation]
As you well know, each Senate committee is different. Their needs and requirements vary widely from one committee to another, as do the frequency of their meetings, the number, depth and range of the studies they conduct, their travel requirements, the number of their witnesses, the subcommittees they create and their responsibility to review legislation.
[English]
As a result, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to determining the right level and type of support required for the committees. In fact, experience has taught us that this is more often art than science.
As a general starting point, however, I should mention that a lead analyst is identified for each committee. This person is tasked with reviewing the preparation of various documents, including briefings, analysis for the use of committee members, suggestions of witnesses, as well as ultimately drafting committee reports. The lead analyst works to support all members of the committee and collaborates closely with the committee clerk to plan and carry out this work under the direction of the committee chair.
Back at the library, research managers monitor the workload and assess whether lead analysts need extra help and whether this need is temporary or ongoing. The research manager's role is to ensure that support is provided to a portfolio of committees that deal with related topics. For example, one research manager is responsible for supporting committees that focus on energy, resource and environment matters, while another manager has a portfolio of committees focused on international trade, foreign affairs and defence issues. Through this portfolio approach, the research manager can allocate work to the members of his or her team based on availability as well as the overall demand from committees and individual parliamentarians.
The library is moving toward establishing multidisciplinary teams, people with a variety of backgrounds, to support committees tackling related issues. The team serves committees from both the Senate and the House of Commons, with each member of the team equipped to serve as a backup for his or her colleague when required.
The increased flexibility inherent in a team-based approach allows the library to be more efficient, especially when legislation must be reviewed in both chambers or similar topics are tackled by different committees. For instance, when criminal law bills that have been approved by the House of Commons are referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, we try to have the analysts who assisted with the consideration of the bill in the house also work with the Senate committee. Under this team-based approach, corporate knowledge can be better retained and transferred amongst analysts, an important consideration for us as baby boomers are retiring.
[Translation]
In assigning work, the research manager will take into consideration the type of skills and expertise required to respond to the demands of each committee in his or her portfolio. Due to the high volume of requests coming from some committees, a second analyst may be identified to support the lead analyst. This is why you may see two people from the library at committee meetings.
Overall, we strive to balance continuity of support with the level and type of expertise required. This approach provides you with consistency and optimizes the management of library resources in responding to your requests. Library research managers will seek to meet committee chairs on a regular basis to be able to better plan your committees' needs and the assignment of analysts to meet them.
[English]
The question is whether we have enough analysts. At the moment, we have 32 analysts supporting 19 Senate committees, including special and subcommittees, for an average of about 1.7 analysts per committee. As any manager will tell you, there are never enough resources to provide the level of service we would like to provide. However, the reality is that resources are finite. Moreover, demands fluctuate with no two years being the same. For example, individual requests from senators doubled by 2008-09 compared to the previous fiscal year. When it comes to parliamentary committees, as I mentioned, the scope of the studies conducted, the number of witnesses appearing, the amount of legislation reviewed and the travel requirements all vary, making it difficult to be precise about what the optimal number of analysts should be.
Subcommittees are an important consideration. Every time a committee creates a subcommittee, it creates extra work for us, as it does for the Senate Committees Directorate. There are more meetings to attend and more notes to prepare, yet the calendar is not extended, and all of this additional work occurs in parallel with the support we already provide to the full committee. I suspect a similar impact is felt by clerks.
[Translation]
As you consider the structure of committees and subcommittees, I would encourage you to keep in mind the impact on library analysts and Senate clerks. An overall increase in the number of committees and subcommittees would be felt by the library and, most likely, the Senate staff.
[English]
Another important consideration is the use of consultants by Senate committees. Clearly, the library cannot have expertise in everything. There are instances where a committee requires specific expertise, and the services of consultants are sought. Unfortunately, the roles and responsibilities of consultants vis-à-vis analysts are ambiguous, and precious time and effort is often wasted trying to sort things out. Who holds the pen on the drafting of a note or report; to whom does the consultant report; who reviews the work; who processes the work; who is accountable for the work?
I do not expect most committee members to worry about such details. After all, it is up to the chair, the analyst and the clerk to work these things out. It is not always easy. The chairs do not want to take sides, so we often have documents going back and forth. Analysts often end up rewriting documents produced by consultants, not so much for content but to ensure neutrality in context in light of previous work from the committees. Ironing out these roles can be frustrating for both the consultants and the analysts and may risk wasting time of chairs and committee members.
Part of the problem arises from the fact that, while analysts are used to working with committees, consultants are not. Parliament is a unique environment and our analysts have developed an understanding that guides them as they write for you and for your committees. Consultants bring different skills and unique expertise, but the practices and procedures of committees are unfamiliar territory for many consultants. We believe that committees could be more efficient if greater clarity was brought to the respective roles and responsibilities of consultants and analysts.
This concern is not unique to Senate committees. In fact the, library has developed a memorandum of understanding with the House of Commons Committees Directorate to address this very issue and bring clarity to the working relationship between analysts and consultants for committees. Based on this MOU, the need for a consultant is identified by the committee; the committee pays for the consultant out of its budget, but the responsibility for selecting the consultant, reviewing the material and improving the deliverables rests with the library analysts. This MOU was developed after a pilot period running from 2004 to 2008. You may wish to consider this concept as part of your deliberations.
[Translation]
As I close, let me reiterate the library's commitment to supporting the Senate's work, including this committee. As always, we stand ready to provide any additional information you require.
I would be happy to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent overview. I appreciate all your facts and details. It is exactly what we needed to hear. I know that many questions will come from that.
A number of Canadians feel that one of the great contributions the Senate makes to Canada is the work of Senate committees. In one sense, the work produced by Senate committees is based, in part at least, upon the quality of the researchers that we get from the Library of Parliament. I know that you referred to a major restructuring that you have done, and one of the things that occurred in that restructuring is that some very senior members of the Library of Parliament are no longer assigned directly to committees where they have worked for years and built up a tremendous amount of expertise.
I would like to know whether you have had any feedback from that part of your reorganization and, if so, what the feedback is and what the reason was for taking those senior people, who for the most part are very highly respected in the various committees in which I have been involved, out of that role.
Ms. L'Heureux: In terms of the reason, I will speak to two points. One is we were facing a structural issue with the demographics as well of our organization. From a structural perspective, we were facing groups of about 30 people reporting to only one manager and, therefore, could not really provide the guidance and support to analysts. It is very difficult for someone with 30 direct reports to help with professional development as well as help and support the less seasoned employees in their work.
Employees were also asking for supervision and guidance, and at the same time, we were facing retirements of our more seasoned employees. In 2007-08 we lost, in our service, eight people, many of whom were assigned to Senate committees, and this fiscal year, I have about 15 individuals eligible for pension. We were very concerned about knowledge transfer and being able to teach our less seasoned employees the workings of Parliament, so we moved to smaller teams and having a multi-disciplinary team to be able to have built-in knowledge.
We did it with internal resources. We reallocated internally, so we looked at who could best perform that role and be active in the work and in developing the work, so we created research manager positions. Many of the people that we used to call principals undertook that leadership role.
Their role is to guide and supervise the people you see at committee who do the individual requests. They review their material, but they are also a key part of planning for the future, identifying skills gaps and identifying who we need to help prepare ourselves for the future in light of the retirements we are facing of our more seasoned employees. That is broadly our rationale for moving in that direction.
The Chair: Have you had any complaints or concerns?
Ms. L'Heureux: I have not heard any complaints. We are in the process of watching how this is progressing and talking to employees. I have started to meet every committee chair to see how it is progressing, and we strongly encourage our team leaders to meet with the committee chairs to identify any issues that may come up in their committees. I understand sometimes it is difficult to raise them with the analysts, but at least there is an opportunity to talk with the manager of the analyst if they feel there are deficiencies in some areas. If you get calls for a meeting from one of our supervisors, it is just to maintain the conversation and ensure that nothing goes off the rails.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator Andreychuk: I have many questions, so I will put a few and go on the second round.
I have often heard in the Senate that the researchers are here to serve the Senate, the senators and the chair. While I think it is valid that they provide the service, what we look for is their expertise and their neutrality, and I rarely get into a discussion about their neutrality. I was pleased to hear you raise that.
That comes to the point of the analyst and the consultants. Do you have any points of view on the types of consultants that would fit in this mould of service, neutrality and expertise? We take department personnel who retire, because they obviously have had experience in that area, and hire them on contract shortly thereafter. However, those people come with a certain point of view, otherwise they would not have lasted in whatever ministry they were in.
Is there any discussion on the house side about the gap there should be between someone retiring from a ministry and hiring them as a contractor? Let us use the Ministry of Health, for example. If you have worked there, been a deputy minister, senior director, you have obviously come through the system. You are then hired on right after you retire. The Senate is always looking for new initiatives, new ideas. We are trying to bring together a whole host of credible options. Is there any way of saying that you cannot be employed as a contractor, analyst, consultant until there has been some cooling off period?
Ms. L'Heureux: To my knowledge, I do not think there is. Where we try to move in the library is that, depending on what we need a person for, we are looking for very specific deliverables. If it is a particular study or writing a report or doing some consultation, whatever the task is, then we will adjust how we work with that person, given the deliverable.
Our analysts are trained, and their supervisors are ensuring they do that by ensuring that the various perspectives are scanned when they provide something to you. If you have someone with a particular point of view because of their past professional endeavours, it is our duty to ensure that you have all the perspectives there, which is why I was mentioning having clear expectations from the committee members and the chair as to who you want to approve the document, who you want to hold the pen, who would make us more efficient because otherwise we might say that if you really want to provide a balanced point of view, here are some perspectives that need to be reflected in the document. It is difficult for us if we work in parallel rather than having some oversight.
Senator Andreychuk: Some years ago we created a human rights committee, and it has been a struggle to get analysts who have studied human rights. We tend to get analysts with a particular human rights aspect, whether it is women's rights or something similar. While our committee moves from one area of human rights to another — and it can be anything from overseas issues to Canadian issues — it has been very difficult to get analysts.
When we first started, there was virtually no one, I was told by the chief librarian, doing human rights. One of the reasons was that it was such a hot topic in Canada. Therefore, they were taken up by organizations and law firms because much of it is international law and international relations. It was a struggle, and it continues to be a struggle. Have you given thought to that being more of a category as opposed to specifics?
It seems as though if we do something on women's rights, you go into the women's bureau, which gives you some of the perspectives of human rights, but it gives you a whole host of other women's issues. We are getting people who know a little on that particular issue on human rights but not how to set it within the context of human rights internationally and nationally, which is the growing area.
Ms. L'Heureux: I understand your point. Today I cannot really answer your question in great detail. I am hoping that our team approach can help bring different perspectives in our capacity to support, but you are right. It is a competitive market, and we certainly feel it.
The more we can provide those opportunities to tackle different issues different ways and have collegiality with our employees, the better we are at retaining them. It is a gap that we will need to take seriously if that is creating issues for your committee. We will need to ensure that we tap into those various dimensions.
Senator Andreychuk: Just for practical information, you have X number of researchers and you have the house and the Senate and now you are saying the subcommittees, which is a problem also. Who makes the final decision? I am not sure in the system where those analysts go if you have two or three competing requests and are running out of analysts. Is it on our side in the Senate somewhere, or do you make the final determination where those analysts go?
Ms. L'Heureux: It is within the library. We look at all the demands that come in and the deadlines faced by each of the different sources of the demands. For example, when legislation is going through committee, there is a certain process there that would require a lawyer that might help support the committee. If it is a study with a particular focus, expertise, we will try to align the analyst there.
As I mentioned in my example, sometimes something comes up in the house and is approved and referred to the Senate. We might want that analyst to continue supporting because of the body of knowledge developed there. By having that flexibility to reallocate people, we hope we can be more efficient in providing support.
The Chair: You told us that this year 15 of your employees will be eligible for pension. Have you undertaken a major hiring program to fill those 15 positions? If so, where are you on that now?
Ms. L'Heureux: We have launched a major competition to fill our vacancies. We have made a number of offers that have been accepted. I think people started to come in during April. We have some coming in now in May, and we have a few more we hope to be able to bring on board before the summer. We want to move to more ongoing staffing to ensure that we always have a pool to draw from and are planning for retirement. Some people have indicated when they are retiring, so by having a pool of candidates that we can tap into, we would be better able to ensure a smooth transition to support the work that we need to carry.
The Chair: Are you looking for post-masters and many doctoral?
Ms. L'Heureux: All of our candidate analysts have graduate degrees. A number of them have PhDs as well. Our lawyers are members of provincial and territorial law societies, so those are people with educational credentials.
Senator Furey: Thank you for coming this morning, Madam L'Heureux. With respect to consultants, you referred to your MOU that has been in place for four years now with the House of Commons. Can you walk us through exactly how that works and, if you would not mind, just comment on what, if any, problems you have experienced with it over the last four years?
Ms. L'Heureux: On the MOU itself, it works by having the library analyst as the project authority for the contract. What the library does, in practice, is the analyst will draft the statement of work. We will highlight the work of the deliverable expected by the committee. We will solicit a proposal and evaluate and select a contractor to recommend to the committee. Once the consultant is hired, we will review the material and approve the deliverables. In practice, that is how we do these things.
In terms of the budgeting, the committee budget is the source of funds for the consultant. Basically, the committee decides whether they want the consultant, but the process is left to the analyst as if it was another analyst we went and tapped into to get specific expertise.
In terms of past experience, I do not have any personally. I have only been in the library a year, so I do not have the depth of knowledge of experience. I have some senior members of my team with me. I do not know if they have experience. They do not have typical experience. We can look into it if you would like.
Senator Furey: That is not really necessary. I was thinking more in terms of your recommendation that we consider this model. We know how it works right now in the Senate. Why do you recommend that we consider this model? What ills or problems do we have that you think this model will cure?
Ms. L'Heureux: As I was mentioning earlier, the difficulty is what is a deliverable and who is accountable for ensuring the deliverable has been met. At the moment, in many of the situations, this is unclear. It is ambiguous. The interests of committee members are not always well expressed. There may be a divergent view on a committee, and we are not necessarily in a position to manage all these different views. We are sometimes caught between a chair or a committee member with different perspectives, and for us, we have no guidance and would not want to be caught in sometimes partisan discussions. If we had clear directions, we would be more efficient in providing whatever you need.
Senator Furey: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Furey, I am making arrangements now to have a copy of the MOU circulated to all members of the committee so that you can read the details.
Senator Joyal: On that same issue, Madam L'Heureux, may I make the assumption that consultants are more needed when committees are doing what I call policy studies than when they are reviewing bills?
Ms. L'Heureux: I would be willing to agree with you. I think it is a fair assessment. I would not want to discount completely the review of bills because there might be some aspects that are very technical where we may need to tap into something.
Senator Joyal: Yes. The reason I am proposing that is that I have been a member of the Legal Affairs Committee for 11 years now, and in my memory — and I am looking at Senator Andreychuk who has served on that committee for a long time also — I do not recall that the committee ever hired consultants. Of course, the agenda of the Legal Affairs Committee in terms of reviewing bills is one of the heaviest. Senator Oliver would concur with that.
It seems to me that a committee with a specific mandate to study — I am looking at Senator Carstairs on aging — drugs, for instance, or other issues that are policy issues, and is trying to understand all the parameters of a subject that would be coming up for government to legislate, would have a greater need for consultants because they would have a specific issue wherein the expertise might not lie with the library. I understand that.
However, if we are to add to committees or to reduce committees, it would be part of the impact on the committees that we would be creating or merging on the consultant aspect of them. I do not want you to incur a lot of costs in reviewing this, but I would be interested to know that.
Off the cuff, I look at the Defence Committee and most of its activities are studies. I can understand that a committee such as that might want to resort to external consultants. However, I have sat on all the Anti-terrorism Act committees, the four that have been formed, and I do not remember that we have hired any consultants. In fact, in my opinion, which I think is shared by other members, the library had a very good analyst who was really very knowledgeable in all the implications of the anti-terrorism legislation. It seems to me there is some impact on that.
You seem to be nodding but that is not registered in the minutes. Would you care to comment on that so we have the benefit of your remarks?
Ms. L'Heureux: I suspect you are right that when we are into a discussion at committee that involves policy issues, we are probably more likely to seek consultant contribution compared to a study of proposed legislation. However, I would like to verify that is the case. I know there are some instances where there might be an interest for communication perspective, where you might want to see a consultant to change how a text is being drafted. I do not have the hard numbers with me, so that is something we would have to look into.
The Chair: Senator Joyal, before you ask your second question, could I remind you that there was a study done by the Senate on illegal drugs, and that was a specialized subject. As I understand it, the committee actually went outside the library to find an expert in that area, and that expert worked with the committee and the chair, and it worked very well, as an example of an area in which there is not much expertise.
Senator Joyal: I concur with that approach as such. I think when we create subcommittees or special committees, if they receive a mandate that is policy-study oriented, the need for a consultant might be more acute. The example you gave is a very good example in terms of what I feel might be specialized knowledge that is not immediately available in the library.
In such a case, as Senator Oliver has mentioned, would you take the initiative to propose consultants or to say that we do not have that expertise and one of the options is to find a consultant, or would you wait for the committee to ask for that?
Ms. L'Heureux: I do not see an objection in proposing a consultant if we really do not have the expertise required to do something. Our challenge is we do not have the budgets to go with it. We would have to work with the committee and the clerk to develop a budget.
Senator Joyal: My second issue is about the loss of seasoned analysts who are retiring. In 2008 you lost eight people you mentioned.
Ms. L'Heureux: Yes.
Senator Joyal: In 2009 you have 15 people eligible for retirement. Did you replace the eight people who retired in 2008?
Ms. L'Heureux: Some of these people, by their expertise, are hard to replace.
Senator Joyal: No, I mean did you fill the jobs?
Ms. L'Heureux: We have fewer vacant positions than we did last year, so we have made good progress in replacing these people and filling some of the vacant positions.
Senator Joyal: How many vacant positions do you still have?
Ms. L'Heureux: I would have to verify. Every week we have some changes. I do not know.
Senator Joyal: You mentioned about people retiring, but do you have a turnover of people who resign because they have other jobs elsewhere?
Ms. L'Heureux: We have some people, similar to any organization, who will have life events that make them unavailable, such as parental leave or moving to follow a spouse. We have some of those cases. We also have people who have better employment prospects in other institutions. We work next to the major employer, which is the public service. Obviously that is a competitor for us on the market.
Senator Joyal: That is my preoccupation. I understand that it happens that people are posted somewhere else and follow the spouse, or have an opportunity to go to a university to teach or something similar, but my immediate concern is more the internal competition that you might have from the public service because there is, of course, the attrition phenomenon in the public service of baby boomers. That is exactly the same in the public service.
Could you give us an idea of the percentage of people who leave on a yearly basis that would deplete your resource capacity? If you have someone leaving to join the public service, it would normally be someone with a skill who would be well prepared and would fill the competition. In other words, it would be someone who is totally employable on the market.
Could you give us an idea, in complementary terms, of those who retire and those who leave for other reasons on a yearly basis?
Ms. L'Heureux: I do not have those numbers with me, but I will look into it.
Senator Joyal: Okay. This is a question that might be a bit embarrassing. Is your budget large enough to fill your needs of analysts, generally?
Ms. L'Heureux: As I said, we always want more resources.
Senator Joyal: I understand that.
Ms. L'Heureux: I must say that if you give us analysts, we will obviously take analysts. Our challenge is these analysts need access to tools of the trade. Some of that is editing and translation capacity. That is deficient in our environment. We have structures that match a small organization. Our information technology, IT, infrastructure is not really commensurate to our needs. People need to have access to a good IT system and to have administrative support to be better able to do their job. That is rarely where the money is invested. People will not invest in analysts, and I totally understand that. Bringing more analysts will give us more horsepower, but it risks being wasted if we cannot edit the work they do, we cannot translate it and we cannot process it. Therefore we need to work with both aspects.
Do we have enough analysts? I can always use more analysts. Whether that is the first priority we go to, I do not know. We would need to look at the entire system, and that is what I am trying to do at the moment, seeing where the pressure points exist. I definitely see pressure points on what I call the production side around the analysts. I do not think an analyst should spend all of his or her time editing and reviewing translation and formatting documents when their time is better used at actually doing the synthesis and the analysis. I need some investment more on that side.
Senator Joyal: How many will retire in 2010? You talk about 15 people in 2009. Do you have any statistics for 2010? How many would be eligible to retire? It does not mean they will retire, but they would be eligible to retire in 2010.
Ms. L'Heureux: In 2010-11, I do not know. I would have to check that. I would have to do the calculations.
Senator Joyal: How long does it take for an analyst who joins your staff to become, I would not say totally autonomous, but I think you understand what I mean.
Ms. L'Heureux: Yes.
Senator Joyal: For any one of us who hires someone, there is a period of adaptation and understanding of the complexities of Parliament. It seems easy from the outside, but it is not at all from the inside.
How long would the average time frame be for a person to be among what I call the operational?
Ms. L'Heureux: You mean the big leagues.
Senator Joyal: Yes.
Ms. L'Heureux: In the past, before we had our current structure, it was not uncommon to see people not being assigned to committees for a year. Now we have a different structure. We have people under direct supervision. We will put people on committees much more quickly, sometimes the first month they are here. However, they are not by themselves. We will endeavour to have them maybe as a second analyst so that they get to see from the lead analyst how it is done, and they also have their managers supporting them.
It also depends on what skills they have: Are they people with a good ability to synthesize and be able to work with many people at the same time? Are they people with more experience in the workplace that allows them to move more quickly into committee work?
It depends on which committee work their expertise is aligned to. I think we are moving more quickly to that. Similar to most organizations, what people of my generation went through was at a slower pace, and the generation that follows me is moving up much more quickly to being in the operations. We certainly felt that at the library as well.
Senator Joyal: Would it account for the perception that the analysts are, I would not say younger, but less experienced generally?
Ms. L'Heureux: Probably, yes. They are younger, for sure, because we are seeing a number of people in their 50s, for example, retiring. Some of them, as I mentioned earlier, were assigned to Senate committees. You would have seen their faces. They were people that you got accustomed to seeing supporting you in committees. Now we have a new generation coming in, which is why I felt it was important to put the proper structure in place to ensure that we were helping these people and managing them rather than just leaving them on a trial basis and seeing if they can make it. I did not want to take that risk. We could not do that, so we wanted to ensure that they were guided in doing this.
Senator Joyal: Through the scale of your salaries, are you condemned to hire — I do not like to use that word — ``non-experienced'' people versus experienced people; so, in fact, all the positions you fill from attrition and those who leave, you are more or less condemned to hire less experienced rather than experienced people because of your salary scale?
Ms. L'Heureux: I have not done an analysis of it. I can only speak from my personal experience.
For the salary we pay, we look at relativity with the market in which we are competing. Obviously, the public service is the market with which we compare.
I spent most of my career in the public service. The issue of salary and experience was there at all levels. It is not specific to the library. It is the same everywhere. We are now facing a labour market that is much more mobile. We have people who will seek different remuneration, different working conditions. Where we have an advantage is the unique environment Parliament provides. It is a different access to policy in the making. Also, the working conditions, given the parliamentary calendar, is of interest and appeal to many people.
The younger generation coming on is very concerned about work-life balance, and I think the library has an advantage from other institutions from that perspective. We have to keep it in check. We have to ensure that we live by that, but it is something definitely we mention during our interview process with potential candidates, and it resonates with many people.
The Chair: You talked about information technology and that you were lacking in infrastructure. What specific infrastructure are you lacking, and what costs are you looking at?
You talked about senior people who have left. One of them would be Jack Stillborn, who was a veritable library within himself with the knowledge he had of this place. Do you have a policy of offering contracts to people who are retired to come back for special jobs and purposes?
In my introductory remarks, I mentioned that a questionnaire had been given to all honourable senators, and there were questions about the library. Concerns were raised about the service of the Library of Parliament. It was suggested that analysts were oftentimes too junior and did not have the expertise required. Another survey respondent expressed the concern that analysts were overloaded. Can you comment on both of those?
Ms. L'Heureux: On information technology, at the moment we are trying to improve our request tracking system. Basically, when a committee or an individual parliamentarian wants us to do something, we have a request tracking system.
The Chair: Is that a piece of software?
Ms. L'Heureux: It is a piece of software. It is a database. At the moment, we have two or three different databases that do not speak to each other. It is very hard for someone to track who has done what on what topic so that we can access information and help prepare the answers you require quicker.
We have difficulty producing metrics to know how we are doing, what we are producing, how much time people devote to those things so that we can do resource planning. It impacts both the analysts and how we manage resources.
It is the same thing with document management. We need a document management system so that we can easily tap into our documents rather than chasing someone who has worked on the document.
One of the things we are exploring, given new technologies, is ways to internally use collaborative tools electronically to talk to each other.
Those are all elements we would like to improve to modernize how we work, our practices. As for the costs, that is not really for me to say. I could endeavour to look for the costs. At the moment, I do not have those with me, but those are the types of challenges we have on information technology.
With respect to contracts for retired analysts, we certainly do look to retired analysts, if they are interested, to continue to contribute. If we have a particular need that aligns with their expertise, we are certainly open to do that. We will bring them in on contract.
For your questions arising out of the questionnaire, analysts being too junior, that speaks a little to what I was mentioning to Senator Joyal. We do have a number of people on board who are junior, and they are brought to committees earlier than we did in the past. As I mentioned, all are people with post-secondary education. If there are specific issues being experienced in committees, we hope that they are brought to our attention so that we can correct them.
The fact that it is hard to attract people with a lot of experience is something we are looking into, but we have to explore different ways of recruiting. We have not crossed that bridge yet, but those are things on our minds. The more we are capable of identifying skills gaps, the better we will be at filling those gaps.
In terms of being overloaded, I looked at the time sheets that we have. For the fiscal year 2008-09, for Senate committees, our employees have booked 9 per cent of their hours as overtime.
The Chair: Is that high or low, comparatively?
Ms. L'Heureux: It is a little more than the previous year, and much of this is due to meetings in the evenings or travelling requirements. As I said, every year is different, for example, 2008-09 was a year with an election and prorogation; it is a minority situation; many interesting studies are happening with many witnesses and high turnover.
Anecdotally at the moment, we find that committees are interested in doing a greater number of studies and hearing more witnesses. Therefore, a higher turnover of work is required from us, which means that some of the work has to be done within the same time frame, but in the evenings. Our resources have not necessarily increased. We see the work of the committees impacting us because of the dynamics at the moment in Parliament.
Senator McCoy: I should probably defer to Senator Carstairs, who chairs the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, but I am curious to try to put this into context. What is your global budget?
Ms. L'Heureux: The budget of my service, if I look at salaries, is $12.9 million, I think.
Senator McCoy: What was it four or five years ago? Let us say five years, as that will make an easy number.
Ms. L'Heureux: I would have to check on that.
Senator McCoy: Would it have been higher or lower, or you do not know?
Ms. L'Heureux: It would have been lower because we have had an increase in the number of analysts since then.
Senator McCoy: How many staff does the Library of Parliament have in total?
Ms. L'Heureux: The library has about 350 staff.
Senator McCoy: Is it correct that 80 of them are analysts?
Ms. L'Heureux: Yes.
Senator McCoy: Is it true that 32 of the analysts are assigned permanently to Senate committees?
Ms. L'Heureux: They do a number of things. An analyst that supports your committee will also answer individual requests, and they may help with other demands that might come from a house committee, depending on what is happening in the different committees.
Senator McCoy: I am curious to know whether performance evaluations are conducted on analysts.
Ms. L'Heureux: They are conducted on their performance. For example, in order to be promoted, they need to have had two successful performance evaluations.
Senator McCoy: Who performs that?
Ms. L'Heureux: Their managers do.
Senator McCoy: What are the criteria?
Ms. L'Heureux: Based on memory, one of the criteria is obviously satisfaction in completing their work. We also consult with a committee chair if they are assigned to a committee to see that everything is okay.
They also contribute to the publication program. It is all related to how they perform their work: Are they communicating properly; are they neutral in their work? The quality of their work is being reviewed by managers. We have a promotion committee that reviews their work.
Senator McCoy: How would you assess their knowledge in any one field, their currency or their accuracy, for example?
Ms. L'Heureux: The question is whether they can meet the demands placed on them. As I mentioned, they all have post-graduate degrees. Some of them may continue their studies.
Senator McCoy: Many lawyers have legal degrees and are not very good lawyers. Of course, you want to have your basic qualifications, but that is really just a starting point. It is hardly an evaluative technique, is it?
You have been with the library a year, I think. What was your previous experience?
Ms. L'Heureux: I was with the public service. I worked for different departments in different capacities. The last 10 years, I worked as an executive in the public service.
Senator McCoy: What type of executive?
Ms. L'Heureux: I have been a director general of different —
Senator McCoy: Programs?
Ms. L'Heureux: Policy; it was mainly policy.
Senator McCoy: In three pages of written comments, you devoted one-third of them to consultants outside the library. Were you asked to address that subject before us today?
Ms. L'Heureux: No.
Senator McCoy: That was something you generated on your own, then?
Ms. L'Heureux: Yes.
Senator McCoy: I will accept your comments about the contract of management, defining the deliverable, assessing whether the final deliverable has matched the contract requirements, et cetera. I ran a think-tank for 10 years. I am familiar with all those. I can well imagine it is not the main focus of many chairs and committees in both the House of Commons and the Senate.
However, contract administration is an entirely different thing from what one might be reaching out for. It seems to me, to use the word ``consultant'' is also a rather sweeping description of different skills that one might be reaching out to. You say that your people have had to rewrite some reports by consultants. I can tell you that I have had to rewrite and correct inaccuracies of Library of Parliament analysts.
I am thinking that this testimony is valid, but it is incomplete. Before we made any conclusions based on this testimony, I think, as you would no doubt urge your analysts, we would want to have a complete and unbiased picture of the situation.
One of the challenges I think many senators mention amongst us is communicating with the Canadian public in the 21st century. The traditional style of report writing in the Senate is hardly geared to a contemporary audience.
Do you have on staff people who are, in fact, trained to write compelling communications reports? I will ask it that way.
Ms. L'Heureux: I am not sure what you would define as a ``compelling'' writing style. Our analysts are trying to reflect the directions the committee is giving them. They are not communication specialists. That is not the expertise we seek at the library. We seek a different type of expertise.
I understand that you have communication officers in the Senate. Obviously, they have communication training. We did not see ourselves as being asked for communications expertise. Our expertise was elsewhere. If that is something that you would see needing some adjustment, then we would have to consider that.
Senator McCoy: It seems to me that, perhaps, in assessing the skills that a committee needs, we need to get a little sharper in our definition of what services are being requested.
It is possible that I did not frame the question very well. I think what you are saying is that, out of the 80 analysts, the 32 — which is about 10 per cent of your library staff — are reaching out for information gathering and, to some degree, some analysis, although I have not seen much analysis in my experience in the last four years. I have mostly seen information gathering services offered by library staff, which is valid and needed. Perhaps we should not stretch, or ask for resources beyond that, given the severe limitations you are facing with your resources.
The Chair: Did you expect an answer to that?
Senator McCoy: No, I think I will defer.
Senator Carstairs: Senator Joyal mentioned the special study on aging, so I want to touch a little on what Senator McCoy is dealing with. I had an excellent analyst who did the necessary background research and analysis of the data presented to her to extrapolate in the appropriate fashion. I think it is fair to say that what I did not have was a punchy writer. That, it seems to me, is what we may be lacking in terms of the mix.
There is absolutely nothing to criticize about the work that my analyst produced, which was excellent. It was nothing but the best. However, we hired someone who would then make the report, as Senator McCoy was saying, consumer-friendly. As a simple example, we said that it had to go into larger point form because it was primarily dedicated to seniors. In order for them to read it, it should not be at the standard 6 point or 8 point; it should be at 12 point, just so that it could move on.
Do you think that is a role for the Library of Parliament, to have its communications side and to hire communications personnel; or should we, as committees, be looking to people who are either within the staff of the Senate and have some communications skills or outside the Senate altogether for this type of activity?
Ms. L'Heureux: I think you are right; we do not have, among our staff, people whose expertise is to write punchy reports. If that is a capacity senators would like to have access to, I think we need to have a conversation about how to get that capacity and where it would be properly housed — whether this is something that should be considered in developing added support from the library. Being on the Library Committee, you know that at the moment we are not resourced to do that. However, if that was something that parliamentarians wanted, we could certainly explore how to do that and bring options forward.
Senator Carstairs: The other issue is that committees vary. You have the legislative committee, and the primary example of that in the Senate is the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I have never known them, with the exception of a few little studies they have done on the magistrate general's office within the military, to really do policy studies. They are far too busy in the simple examination of bills, one right after another. We have special committees whose only functions are policies. Then we have committees such as the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights that occasionally gets a piece of legislation, but it is a rarity. They mostly are concerned with policy issues.
My concern, however, is that once an analyst is given to that committee, it seems to be a permanent appointment. I am wondering if we should not be looking at an issue-by-issue appointment as opposed to saying that, all right, this is the analyst for the Human Rights Committee. Perhaps the person is not the right analyst when they are studying the relationship with the United Nations, but he or she may well be the right analyst when they are studying the relationship with the public service.
Should we be looking at a more flexible way of moving analysts around within committees?
Ms. L'Heureux: That is something that we are certainly focused on. With the library analysts, you do not see them on rotation. That is not something we do because we try to align the skills with the committee requirements. Having said that, there are times where committee assignments will vary because we need analysts that are agile and can support different situations. For example, committees in the Senate and committees in the House of Commons may not work the same way, but analysts need to be able to function in both environments.
We spoke earlier of retirements. We need to be able to bring people up to speed to be able to take someone else's workload when they retire. Therefore, sometimes we need to readjust people to ensure a smooth transition.
That is part of the professional development of the employees. In the competitive market, some of our employees want to be agile in more than one topic. We hope that by moving to teams of analysts that are on related issues, they can help each other, back up each other, and we would be able to have these people support the different committees in more than one way.
We have not gone to a rotational system because we do want to keep some corporate knowledge in support of the committees. However, I tend to agree with you that we must retain some flexibility to best align resources, depending on what the committee is doing at a particular moment. There may be studies coming up in some committees that warrant a shift of an individual because of expertise they carry with them.
Senator Carstairs: I have had this final question posed to me. What do analysts do when the House of Commons and the Senate are not sitting? In the past year, we have had a number of examples of that with prorogations, elections and goodness knows what else. We are told by our Internal Economy Committee, of which the chair is here, that it is a prorogation and you cannot ask your researchers to do anything in this time, so there is a big myth that they are doing nothing. Can you satisfy us that that is not the case?
Ms. L'Heureux: That is not the case. Actually, the requests still come in. Senators are still senators, and we do answer individual requests from senators — not from committees because committees do not exist, but senators do send requests.
Also, it is a time where we have our analysts look into issues more in depth, where they can read publications, where they can catch up, bring themselves up to speed on a number of issues — monitoring issues, ensuring that they have read all the latest information that is happening on their topics.
They also take advantage of that period for training, including language training, because we do want employees that can be efficient in both languages. We encourage them to take vacations as well, while Parliament is not sitting. They do accumulate vacation time, and we want them to be rested and able to support you when you are here. They are occupied.
Senator Carstairs: I knew they were.
The Chair: Honourable senators, everyone has now had circulated to them a copy of the memorandum of understanding between the Library of Parliament and the House of Commons about the contracting of professional services for committees. I said that would be circulated, and it now has been.
Senator Keon: I want to focus on the interface between analysts and consultants because this has been discussed quite a lot by Senator Joyal and others.
I have served on quite a number of committees that have produced policy documents over the years. The evolution and production of these documents frequently required the use of consultants. Sometimes it worked well, and sometimes it did not.
It seemed to me that when it did not work well, it was because the chair of the committee did not take charge. The consultants fundamentally ended up writing a draft report sometimes, and then the analyst did not agree with the report. You probably know what I am talking about.
In other circumstances, you can hire a consultant to come in with some expertise that you cannot possibly get at this point in time from the library. You can take that document under advisement; you can use it in whole or in part as an appendix to the report if you want and reference it. However, there should be no question about who the drafter of the report is, where the report will go and who is in charge of seeing that no contradiction exists between the consultant and the analyst.
I think that is the responsibility of the chair of the committee; then there can be no confusion. Development of a policy document consists of information gathering at the beginning, refinement of the information as the document evolves and finally the recommendations. You can work hand-in-glove with analysts and consultants. Consultants give you the flexibility to get the expertise you need to have a good document, as you have said.
I am not asking you a question; I am making a statement. That is my contribution to the process.
The Chair: I would like you to reply Ms. L'Heureux, if you would, please.
Ms. L'Heureux: We have had positive experience with consultants. I do not want to leave you with the impression that it is all negative. That is certainly not the case.
I stress that we need clear expectations from committee. In some cases we are put in conflicting situations where the committee might want something and the chair might want something else, and it is not clear where we go with this. What is the role of the chair, the steering committee and the analysts versus the consultant? Some clarity on this would be helpful to be more efficient in supporting the committee.
I do not want to suggest that consultants are bad. On the contrary, I think they bring specific expertise that we do not have and make our work easier if we can tap into that expertise. We simply want clear expectations from you.
The Chair: I should advise this honourable committee that one of the people who has approached me on several occasions to appear before the committee is Senator Colin Kenny, Chair of the Defence Committee. It has been raised in the steering committee and will be raised again this afternoon in the steering committee for a determination. Senator Kenny's committee produces punchy reports — to use the language of Senator Carstairs — often in one sentence paragraphs, et cetera. That is a style Senator Kenny can be asked about at that time, should he appear before the committee. However, that is an example of the so-called punchy reports.
Senator Andreychuk: This is the first time I have heard that one chair has asked. I hope the steering committee will deal with that.
We often sit in studies, seek evidence and go in different directions. We then sometimes say that we have to get a report out, whether that is self-imposed as committees, from leadership or other extenuating circumstance. We work in one language, and then there is difficulty in ensuring that we have an appropriate report in both languages. It is often that we are working in English and translating reports into French. There is also the issue of editing. To what extent do you feel that is your responsibility, or is that a problem within the committee that we have to address in some other format?
That has been my dilemma. We have June 11 as a deadline to do a short-term study. It is tough enough to meet the deadline, but we are always caught at the end with a great worry on my part that we are not producing the same quality or the same text in both languages.
Ms. L'Heureux: On the editing and translation of reports, I have not personally spent as much time on that. For example, I know that the Translation Bureau is currently struggling with a record number of demands, so time frames are very difficult to meet.
If I am not mistaken, it is not the responsibility of the library to do translation; the Senate takes care of that. Therefore, we would have to explore different options on how to bring that expertise closer to the analyst. The analyst is not involved in translation because that goes through Senate administration.
We could explore options if committee members wanted the analyst to be more involved in translation, but that is not the current model.
Senator Andreychuk: While I am not bilingual in that sense, I understand that how you write a report and reflect points of view in both languages is different. The real magic in Canada is to bring the two together to say the same thing. If you are not doing it at the writing and conceptual stages, then you are back to translation. A book in translation is not quite the same. Dostoyevsky is not the same in English. That has been a preoccupation of mine when I have been trying to draft reports that are fair.
Ms. L'Heureux: I agree with you that a translated document is never exactly the same as one originally drafted in the language. We try very hard to have analysts with proficiency in the language to help us catch the nuances in the text when they revise translations.
I was pleasantly surprised when I joined the library to see the level of language proficiency being hired compared to what I had experienced in the public service. You get people who have better training in both official languages.
Senator Joyal: This is a supplementary question to that of Senator Andreychuk. Ms. L'Heureux, you should know that it happens more often than not that senators who speak French have to review the draft report and make corrections. That has been recurring, and I have been one of those victims, especially at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
We work on the English version, and at the end of it, the chair looks at me or some other French-speaking senator and asks us to go through the French draft to ensure it is in the same spirit as the English version. I have to go back to my office and spend X number of hours to do that to ensure I pay respect to my mother tongue.
I am sure I am not the only one caught in that situation. I feel that the point raised by Senator Andreychuk speaks to her respect of both languages of Canada. As much as you might want to testify that the services of the Library of Parliament are improved and are a model for the public service in a way, nevertheless, we are the Parliament of Canada. We are similar to the wife of Caesar: We should be above every suspicion that we are not respecting the principles of equality of status and quality of both languages.
It seems to me that if there is a service wherein that should be exemplary, it is the Library of Parliament. I concur with you; it is better than others, but there is still catch-up to be done in my opinion. If you want to make the best available use of time for researchers, that should be a compelling obligation for them to master both languages. It is your responsibility as much as any one of us here around the table to have the capacity to ensure we make the proper suggestions especially when we publish a public report that is a study or policy issue that speaks to a large audience and will be read and commended in both languages. It is up to you to ensure that you continue to improve and do not say that you are better than the other one so you are happy.
Ms. L'Heureux: I welcome your comment, which speaks to what I mentioned earlier. We need the editing services to support the work of the analysts. That is an important part of producing documents that are at the level of quality that you can look at. We are struggling with the editing and translation to ensure that the documents are of a quality that you expect. We have some issues in that area, for sure.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Is there room for a person who would be responsible — especially in translations from English to French — for ensuring that the message reflects the thought, rather than being word for word.
Ms. L'Heureux: That is the role of the revisors. For example, when we prepare our notes, revisors make sure that, more than just the translation being accurate, the thought is expressed in the English or French text, depending on the direction of the translation.
We need more revisors to make sure that the message comes through in both official languages. We are short of revisors, I believe; we do not have enough.
Senator Robichaud: I encourage you to move in that direction.
[English]
The Chair: In view of the last questions from Senator Joyal and Senator Robichaud, we will add to our agenda for the steering committee this afternoon the question of whether this committee would like to hear from the Mr. Alain Wood, Director of Interpretation and Parliamentary Translation. We should hear from someone on this very important point.
I thank honourable senators for their superb questions and Madam L'Heureux for her excellent presentation and responses.
I asked a follow-up question to one of Senator Joyal's questions about infrastructure. I would be interested in receiving more information from you on your needs to make information technology more readily available for the services that you deliver to senators and Senate committees so that we are modern and current in that delivery. Additional information on IT infrastructure would be most useful.
Honourable senators, this meeting is adjourned until tomorrow.
(The committee adjourned.)