Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence - April 3, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 3, 2014
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day, at 9 a.m., to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator Noël A. Kinsella (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, Item 1 on the agenda, which is covered by pages 2 to 6 in the briefing document, is the third report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets. Who is the chair for Committee Budgets?
I would like to point out the photographer here. He's taking pictures to put on our website.
Senator L. Smith: We brought up last week the annual review that we'd like to put into place. The senators wanted to have a week to review it. I would ask you and the group where we stand on that particular review of the annual report that we'd like to be able to put in place for committee travel.
We read the third report, if you remember, outlining this particular budget review. In it, the concept is that we would take the number of senators who travelled — there would be no individual identification. We would multiply by the cost of travel, plus the cost of hotels, per diems, et cetera, and give a total. This would be done annually.
There was some feedback and it was suggested we should do it semi-annually. Our subcommittee believes it's probably important to try to put something in place, create a position and some feedback. If we had to put it in two times a year in terms of a semi-annual or annual statement, we could take a look at doing that. But the objective was to get something out that would be a credibility builder and something that reinforces the transparency of the Senate.
Senator Tkachuk: My understanding of this third report is that there is not only the annual report, which is published on the committee travel — and that's the one we're talking about — but also if a media person asks for information, we would provide it ASAP via staffers trying to find the information and then report it.
My view is that, one, I think it's a lot of unnecessary work if we published a report annually. I don't know why we're doing it if we table it in the Senate. But I would not mind getting yours and Heather Lank's view as to the amount of time it's going to take to provide this information when I don't think we have to.
Senator L. Smith: I'd have to defer that question to Heather, since these individuals will be the people responsible for providing the information.
Heather Lank, Principal Clerk, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, we work very closely with the Finance Directorate to put together these post-expenditure reports following a trip. As was said last week, it could be several weeks or months after the conclusion of the trip that we have received all of the invoices and are actually able to close the books. But as soon as that is possible, we do so, because you will remember, senators, we do have a clawback provision in place that any funds not spent on a trip are put back into the pot for distribution to other committees for other purposes.
So it is a process that is ongoing throughout the year, but the length of time it takes varies tremendously, depending on the particular trip in question. So if a request were to come from the media or the public for that information, say, a week or two after a trip, realistically we would not be able to provide that in a very short time frame. But there may be times when it can be provided one, two or three months after the event, which could be several months before we would be actually tabling all of those post-activity expenditure reports here at Internal. So it would get the information to the media more quickly, but it may not be as fast as some people would expect or want.
The work has to get done anyway for the purposes of the clawback and for the purposes of the annual reporting. But clearly if there is a request from the media, and if this recommendation were to pass, there would be pressure obviously on the administration to put in the time to more quickly close the books, and that could be an additional burden on Finance and on Committees to provide that in a timely way, when it might have waited until later on when things were quieter for us to do that work in the normal process of reviewing expenses.
Senator Tkachuk: I'm pretty ambivalent towards what we end up doing with this, but we never get any credit for transparency anyway. If we are going to go in that direction, I think there should be one more step in that the chair and the deputy chair should be notified and consulted as this process is taking place, so that they're prepared and know what's going on when it's released. They should sign off on it, both of them.
Senator Marshall: I support the recommendations, and annual reporting would be sufficient for me.
I do have two questions. The first one is: When do you think we'll table the first report? Would it be between now and the end of June? Are we expecting to table one this year or next year?
Ms. Lank: We're looking at the fall, most likely late September when you return from the summer adjournment, senator.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
My second question is similar to a point that Senator Tkachuk and Senator Lang raised last week, and that's with the Committees Directorate. I'm not sure who that includes, but I think that the committee chair and deputy chair should be advised when we're providing information to the media.
Senator Lang: Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should be as transparent and accountable as we can be. At the same time, I think, quite frankly, that the question of what we ask our administration to do on any given day has to be taken into account. It would seem to me that with the second provision — because there has been an inquiry by the public or someone in the media in respect to a particular financial obligation that has been taken on for a committee — that the finance department be almost required to take that as a priority and provide that information as soon as possible in order to meet the transparency that's being asked for.
It would seem to me that we're taking one step, and that's the question of ensuring annually that the various expenses, actual expenses, of committees that have been incurred will be on the website for anyone to see, and rightfully so it should be. I would maintain that the second part of this, at least at this stage, should not be taken on by us as Internal Economy. We should maybe leave a year for our reporting to be done, see how it works, and then at that stage maybe we can go back and revisit it.
My feeling is right now in a broader context. I don't think what we're doing, in respect to going through the exercise of tabling these projected costs in the Senate — which most times are 50 per cent over what is actually spent — gives an impression to the public and those that might be interested that these particular visits we do in most other parts of Canada, in respect to our committee reports, are costing dollars that at the end of the day we don't spend.
I come from a provincial-territorial legislature where you get your vote authority for a particular department — in this case it would be for committees. My recommendation in the broader context would be to change our procedures so that we are not asked to vote these enormous amounts of money for these committee travels, but that we vote the amount of money for the total committee travels for the year. For example, we go before Internal Economy for each committee to justify the allocation of dollars, but at the end of the year you post what you actually spent.
It would seem to me that there's a broader question here as well. It's just not the question of posting. It's how we go about the procedure to make those dollars available so that the public gets a fair understanding of what we're doing.
I would submit two things. The second part of this — and I appreciate the work that has been done — is that we do not request Finance to do this at this time, or a chair of a committee, and that the information will be published in due course where nobody is trying to hide anything. Second, I would ask that the administration look at the procedures that we're presently doing and see whether or not we can revise them so that we can not only meet the objective of transparency and accountability, but also have the real figures so that people understand what we're doing.
Senator Campbell: I agree with Senator Lang. I'm getting concerned that every time the media pushes a button, we jump on it. Next thing you know, we'll be doing it daily: "Here's what I spent daily."
We have to understand that on one hand we're going for economy in our finance, our operations. We're talking about lowering the number of people who will be working there through attrition, and at the same time we're talking about adding on another emergent detail because the media writes and asks a question. I just don't think it's reasonable. I think we're being completely transparent, and I quite frankly don't see any right of the media to be able to direct what we do here. It's going to come at a cost, and it's just one more step down that road that I think is unnecessary.
The media will never get enough information about what we do. It just is not possible. If you read what our media person has to put up with, they have the patience of Job because I wouldn't put up with some of the questions being asked and the answers that are coming back to them.
Once a year, if there is something way out of the ordinary, then we can consider it. But the idea that we answer every time somebody barks at us, I think is wrong.
[Translation]
Senator Charette-Poulin: I completely agree with meeting the objective of transparency and accountability. My discomfort has to do with our communications. We have discussed that here a number of times. A few years ago, our communications with Canadians began to focus on information regarding how much money we spend. Canadians currently think that we are sitting in our offices, smoking cigars, drinking port and spending money.
Could we focus more on the work we do instead of on the money we spend? It is important to publish accounts on our expenditures. My discomfort began when we decided to publish quarterly expenditure reports. However, we have seen that this does not reflect the reality and that an annual report is a better reflection of a senator's reality. We were publishing annual reports, and that should have continued. I still remember how we saw, with Senator Marshall, the problems this approach caused senators who purchased travel passes. We are not a private company. Once again, focus is being placed on financial spending.
[English]
We are becoming unbalanced as an institution in terms of communications, and that is my worry. I won't repeat what others have said, but that's my worry.
Senator Fraser: It may not surprise you to know that I take an opposing view to some of what has been said. I don't think we're communicating too much. I think we are remarkably poor at communications, that we convey the impression of not wanting to tell anybody anything, and of needing to have information extracted from us as if it were our very own wisdom teeth.
As one small example, I've been here now coming up 16 years, and I must have been here about a month when I first heard the suggestion that our attendance records be publicly available other than at the Clerk's office or wherever it is that they're kept. Sixteen years later the Internet is there, but our attendance records aren't, as far as I know. Certainly they weren't the last time I looked.
I believe that we are a public institution, we serve the people who pay for us, and we have an obligation to provide information in as timely a fashion as we can. I take the point that it can reach a point of diminishing returns, that if we're asking to shell out more and more taxpayers' dollars to provide less and less additional incremental information, we have to watch that very carefully. But I think our bias should be more, not less, and faster, whenever that is a reasonable request from a representative of the public.
On Senator Lang's point about the fact that we vote budgets for these large amounts for committee work and then don't spend it, I strongly believe that the Senate itself should authorize budgets. Listening to him I found myself wondering if we might not present those budget requests in a slightly enlarged format so that the budget the Senate voted would include columns for "maximum allowable expense," say $500,000, and "expected expense," $350,000 or whatever history suggests to us, to flag the fact that we almost always end up spending way less than authorized. I agree that people tend to look at those big numbers and say, "My goodness, look at these people lavishing money on themselves," when in fact we don't.
That's just a thought I leave for your consideration, colleagues.
Senator Cordy: I'm a member of the subcommittee that has been dealing with this. The post-activity reports have been done for the subcommittee. We've looked at them. This is a bit of a new format, but post-activity reports have been done. We are aware, as a subcommittee, of how much money has been requested by committees and how much has actually been spent because we do have the clawback system where what's not spent comes back into the general coffers, into the overall budget. That was brought in a few years ago, and I think it was an excellent move.
I think our committees do excellent work, and I don't think that we should be getting into the game of apologizing because we're spending taxpayers' dollars to go out and talk to Canadians. If the Fisheries Committee is going to Atlantic Canada, I happen to think that's a very positive thing for the Fisheries Committee, for the Senate and for the people of Atlantic Canada specifically.
When the Energy Committee goes to the North, that's a very positive thing for the people of the North and for the Senate. I believe it's money well spent.
It's interesting: The subcommittee had our meeting on Monday evening with all the chairs and deputy chairs of committees, and some of you were at that meeting. Someone who was attending the meeting said that, in listening to the discussion, they wished that the media were actually at that committee because every chair and deputy chair around the room, everyone who was speaking that evening, talked to the committee about how they would be economizing in doing their travel, that they would be taking the cheapest travel fare, either train or economy fare, to get where they were going, that they would be really economizing in looking at how the dollars were spent. It was a closed meeting, but I also think it would have been good if the media and the public could have heard the way people were talking that evening.
Senator Lang did raise an excellent point, and we actually discussed that, to some extent, on Monday evening. Some committees came forward with budgets for the whole committee — sorry, chair, if I'm going on a little bit here — and others came forward with budgets for not the whole committee. I happen to be a firm believer that if you're a member of the committee, you are entitled to travel with the committee when they go. The reality is, as Senator Lang pointed out, that that rarely, if ever, happens, but I still think that we have to look at budgeting for the whole committee.
He also raised the point that the expenditures, in fact, are often half or 70 per cent of what they actually budgeted for, but the media and the public will often look at the overall budget. I think that's a very good point that either the subcommittee, some subcommittee or the committee as a whole should look at just because of the points that you've raised and that were also raised on Monday evening.
For the post-activity report, I happen to think that it's good that the public sees what committees are doing, and that's one way for us to let the public know and to let people know that the expenditures are far less than the main budget. I think it was George Furey, last week, who pointed out that it's not a bad thing to be saying, "You know what? We spent half of our budget or 75 per cent of our budget, but this is what we did with the money that was budgeted for us."
The Chair: I thank colleagues for their comments to date.
Do you have a motion, Senator Smith?
Senator L. Smith: I do. If I could just make one little comment beforehand, our subcommittee looks at travel costs. That's what our mandate is. The purpose of suggesting the sharing of information is not because the media is pushing us but because we feel that it's a way for us to be more transparent. It's a way for us to be more modern in our approach and to provide proper updates to the public who pay for our salaries.
The other thing that's important to understand and that I would like to make sure everyone gets is that we ask for each committee to include their objectives and results in the post-activity expenditure report. We're not trying to do the job of the whole committee but to make sure that people have the proper focus because we're proud of what we do.
The other issue, which is a distinct issue brought up by Senator Charette-Poulin, is that there is a communications question. That's another issue. That's not necessarily within our mandate. Our mandate is to try to provide as much support and information as possible.
If I could present a motion, it would be to adopt the third report so that we could move forward, because I think there will be a benefit to the public in terms of our credibility.
Senator Tkachuk: Can we add an amendment to that, or would the mover add an amendment to that, so that there would be a third piece to that, that it would be with consultation and sign-off with the chair and the deputy chair of the committee?
Senator L. Smith: That's in terms of, if there is a request made by the press for specific information, we want to make sure that there are no surprises for the chair and the deputy chair. Is that correct?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Senator Fraser: It's already here, is it not?
Senator Tkachuk: It's not clear in there.
Senator Cordy: That's not to say that somebody would contact the chair or deputy chair before they would contact Finance, and that would be totally out of the control of Finance.
Senator Tkachuk: That's just if there is an inquiry to Senate administration for a committee report. It's difficult to send out the information and not tell the chair and deputy chair, because they're the ones who are going to get the phone calls.
Senator Cordy: I agree, but sometimes the chair may be contacted before Finance is contacted.
Senator Tkachuk: Now he or she will know that they can get Finance to do it for them.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I'm going to ask Ms. Lank to read a third recommendation that would follow the second recommendation on page three of the report, and it reads —
Ms. Lank: "That the chair and deputy chair of the committee concerned sign off on the post-activity expenditure report prior to its release to the public."
The Chair: So, for the report, the third report as just amended, are you ready for the question?
Senator Downe: I'm a little concerned about the amendment, that we might have gridlock at some point. If the chair and deputy chair are arguing over some other issue, is there going to be an "overrule" that Internal Economy or somebody can release the report? As it reads now, if the chair and deputy chair don't agree, what happens?
Senator L. Smith: I think it's more for information, to make sure that the chair and deputy chair are informed so that they're not taken by surprise. Is that correct?
An Hon. Senator: That's correct.
Senator Downe: Could I hear the motion again if you don't mind?
Ms. Lank: Could I ask for one clarification? In terms of the third element, do you want it to be specific to release to the media as opposed to just public, so that this is specific to media, linked to the second recommendation, which has to do with a media request?
So that would read: "That the chair and deputy chair of the committee in question sign off on the post-activity expenditure report prior to its release to the media."
Senator Cordy: Perhaps when the final report is due, the chair and deputy chair can then sign off even before any media contact, so that is already done. Do you understand what I mean? As soon as it's done for a committee, as soon as a final bill has been tabulated, the chair and deputy chair are made aware of that. So that would be immediately. That would be regardless of whether or not a media request comes in. Then it's done. If the media request does come in, then it has already been signed.
Senator Tkachuk: We can deal with this if it ever arises. That's why we have a steering committee.
The Chair: I'll ask the clerk to read that one more time.
Ms. Lank: With that modification, it would be: "That the chair and deputy chair of the committee in question sign off on any finalized post-activity expenditure report."
The Chair: Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: For the third report, as just amended, are you ready for the question? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Adopted.
The next item, colleagues, is the fourth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets.
Senator L. Smith: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets which deals with the budget applications for 2014-15.
[Translation]
As you may be aware, there is some $1.8 million available for distribution to committees, and the subcommittee has already received applications amounting to some $1.66 million.
[English]
We have also been informed by several committees that they intend to submit budget applications with travel later in the fiscal year. We therefore expect there will be some pressure on the budget.
In any case, the subcommittee wants to be certain that the objectives of any travel activities have been carefully thought out by the committee making the application so that they will be able to report back on whether these objectives were achieved.
With this in mind, the subcommittee invited the chairs and deputy chairs of committees whose budgets include travel activities to present their applications and answer questions. That took place on Monday night. The subcommittee held a long meeting on Monday night that allowed us to examine each budget very carefully, and it gave committee chairs and deputy chairs the opportunity to hear about what other committees are planning.
[Translation]
Following the presentations, the subcommittee decided to defer its decision on two budget applications.
[English]
We have asked the Aboriginal Committee to resubmit their budget application for their study of infrastructure on reserves to include a more detailed description of where the committee intends to travel. We have also asked the Foreign Affairs Committee to provide the subcommittee with a more detailed explanation of the objectives of their proposed travel to Vancouver, Indonesia and Singapore. Once we have received this information, we will meet again to consider their applications.
Based on Monday's presentations, your subcommittee is prepared to recommend the release of funds to the following committees: First, $59,250 for the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to travel to Washington, D.C., and Morrisburg, Ontario, as part of its study on bee health.
Senator Campbell: Morrisburg?
Senator L. Smith: Morrisburg is a key area where there is a thriving population of bees.
Second, $243,660 for the Energy Committee to travel to Nunavut, Northwest Territories and the Yukon for their study on northern territories energy, in addition to $13,500 for general expenses.
Third, $263,645 for the Fisheries and Oceans Committee to hold public hearings and conduct fact-finding in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec.
I should note that the subcommittee is deferring its decision on the Fisheries Committee's request for funds to conduct a fact-finding trip to Scotland and Norway. We have asked the committee to submit a reduced budget application for this activity, which we will consider after the committee has completed at least one of its domestic trips.
Finally, in terms of budgets, which include travel, the subcommittee recommends the release of funds to the National Security and Defence Committee for four travel activities related to four separate orders of reference. The first trip is to Washington, D.C. as part of the committee's travel on Canada's international security and defence relations.
[Translation]
The other three are one-day trips — two within the National Capital Region and one to Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue. Each of those is for less than $4,000. The total recommended release for those four trips amounts to $64,040.
[English]
The fourth report also includes recommended allocations for five committees with modest budgets that do not include any travel activity: Banking Trade and Commerce, $6,800; Conflict of Interest for Senators, $50,000; Human Rights, $7,200; Scrutiny of Regulations, $3,378; Social Affairs, Science and Technology, $20,470 and $10,360. As a point of reference, the $50,000 amount for Conflict of Interest for Senators is never really spent; it is more of a cushion to protect against any type of needs they would have.
At this time, your subcommittee is recommending the release of $742,303.
I request the adoption of the fourth report.
The Chair: Discussion?
Senator Downe: What is the balance remaining?
Ms. Lank: We have roughly $1.8 million available, so just over $1 million.
Senator L. Smith: We are very sensitive to ensuring we are managing these things as tightly as possible. But, as Senator Fraser said earlier in terms of the importance of travel, we want to make sure that we focus and do the best we can with what we have.
The Chair: Senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion by adopting the fourth report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The next item on the agenda is the third report to the Clerk of the Senate from the Advisory Committee on Diversity and Accessibility. It is on pages 7 to 14 of the briefing notes.
Senator Seth: Page 18: Action plan, diversity and accessibility. I see action plans on diversity and accessibility describe the Senate's efforts to achieve and maintain equality in the workforce for women, Aboriginal people, people with disabilities and members of visible minorities so that when employment opportunities are denied here — and the promotion of benefits for reasons unrelated to competence.
I am concerned about there being no mention of the LGBT community. I think everyone understands what I am talking about. We should include a plan to provide a support-enabling environment for LGBT, which are the gay employees. Just like we celebrate Black History Month and International Women's Day, the Senate should also observe days like Pink Shirt Day, a campaign to fight homophobia and bullying. That is one recommendation.
At page 22, regarding the action plan on diversity and accessibility, the Senate will review new accessibility technology on the market for visually impaired and make some recommendations. My first recommendation is that the wording "visually impaired" should be changed to "blind and partially sighted" because it is less derogatory. That is how we are using it. We no longer use "visually impaired."
My second point is that great investment is there for the blind and partially sighted. There are many high and low technologies available to make reasonable accommodation for blind and partially sighted employees; for example, a low-tech example is a dot of silicon on the knob of a switch or button. It will tell the blind person which position is on.
My second recommendation is Braille labels on vending machines so that they can have accessibility of choice of different flavours.
With regard to a high-tech example, they should be provided computers with a larger screen display and a synthesized voice for Braille output. There are scanners, also known as reading machines. The scan can be printed and transferred to the computer with a hard voice synthesizer. It will be helpful for this disability area where they are blind and partially sighted individuals.
Are there any comments?
Senator LeBreton: On this report, there is a list of objectives for the fiscal year 2013-14. Objective 3 is:
Identify 3 new community organizations interested in collaborating with the Senate in the advertisement of our employment opportunities.
That's a small sentence for potentially a very big area. I am wondering how that would work. How are these community groups going to be identified, and exactly how would that work to pick three communities and have them collaborate with the Senate? I would like a little explanation as to how one would envisage that. First, who would they pick and, second, how would they make that work?
The Chair: Do you wish to comment on that, Senator Seth?
Senator Seth: How it will work as we have suggested?
Senator LeBreton: Yes.
Senator Seth: Well, when you have employment here, what area specifically are you mentioning? With regard to disabilities, we mentioned the blind and partially sighted, and then we mentioned the gay community. That implies two different areas.
Senator LeBreton: In both of those, who decides? Lots of community organizations are involved in advocating and working with various communities. Who will decide and determine the legitimacy of these organizations, because we are asking them to collaborate with the Senate? I don't know how that works.
Senator Seth: These communities should be called. If there are some employees in the Senate here, like from the LGBT community, they should have this accessibility.
Senator LeBreton: Who picks the community? Does the committee pick the community?
Senator Seth: We are organizing. We should take care of that part. How do we do it for women, Aboriginal women, people who are disabled? How are we managing it? It is managed in the same way.
Senator LeBreton: If I were part of a community group and was interested in one of the areas that we are looking at, and I heard that the Senate had a program to collaborate and there are competing community groups, who will decide which of those communities groups we will collaborate with?
Senator Seth: We can find out and explore the idea more with regard to managing it. This is the suggestion, so we have to explore how to collaborate. This one can be done, but it is the idea that some communities are left out and they come under "disability." We are all under disability under the code. Why do we never mention them or do it? There are already many visible minorities, so how can we make it correct? We have to decide. I am throwing out this idea so that we can discuss and come to a conclusion.
Senator LeBreton: Again, if I were a member advocating for a community group and found out that the Senate was going to be working with a community group, in collaboration to improve the situation, and I was not consulted but some other community group was, I want to know how we will actually manage this and make the decision that we are picking a representative, a legitimate community organization? I want to know how the committee will decide who these community groups are.
Senator Doyle: I am wondering if what Senator Seth is raising would not be the subject of a different or separate study, or an addendum to what the committee has done. I can't figure out how sexual orientation figures into the study that is being done right now. How far do you go with the whole idea of the different groups that you would have to bring in to make it part of the study?
Senator Marshall: I have a question on a different part of the report. On page 5 we are talking about conducting an annual analysis of the workforce data. When the subcommittee on diversity was doing their work, there were a lot of statistics produced. One of the statistics showed representation of the four groups as per the general population, and compared it to the Senate population. I would be interested in seeing some statistics in the report. It is not in this report, but I am given the impression that on page 5 it might be in the Senate Administration performance report. I want to raise it. I would like to see it in one of the reports. I think that statistic is informative for people who read the report.
Senator Lang: I share Senator Marshall's observation as well. I have gone through this and I think that overall, from where I sit when I work with the people in various departments, security, et cetera, I see a diversity of individuals. Are we dissatisfied with what we're doing so that we're proceeding further along, or can we look at what we're doing once we see the report? I have not seen that report; maybe it is available. Are we satisfied with the hiring practices? Perhaps we are asking the administration to take on a further task that is not necessary because the policies in place are working. That is the question I would ask in respect to, once again, whether we are asking the administration to have more meetings and do more work while at the same time we are overall satisfied with the information that is being provided.
Darshan Singh, Director of Human Resources, Senate of Canada: In terms of the results, as I mentioned last week, our representation numbers are very representative of the Canadian population, the diversity of the Canadian population. I would submit the reason for that is because of the work that is currently being conducted and has been conducted in the past. Most organizations, especially with organizations that have a federal, national presence, do have employment equity programs in place. They are seen as very productive and engaging, and they improve the morale of the workforce. Even though you made the comment about additional work for the administration, as a representative of the administration, this is work that we enjoy doing and would have no problem continuing to do.
Senator Downe: Do you compare the Senate workforce to the Canadian population or to the labour market participation rate?
Mr. Singh: Both, senator.
Senator Downe: You mentioned the Canadian population. How do we do on the labour market participation rate? Are we above?
Mr. Singh: In some areas we are above; in some we are a bit below. In the federal public service it is the same; some above, some below.
The one group we are having a bit of difficulty with across all federal organizations is in the area of Aboriginal peoples. There have been a lot of efforts put in the work for Aboriginal peoples, so that number has been rising over the years.
The main area of concentration, if you notice the other two groups, in terms of women, we actually are above the workforce population. It is the same with the fourth group, accessibility. We are above the market availability. We are somewhere close to 3.7 per cent.
Senator Downe: So on two we are above, one we are a bit below and one we are significantly below?
Mr. Singh: "Significant" would be a big word. We are slightly below. They examine not only your total market but also in various groups and levels. For example, in the executive group are you representative in all the categories; in the EX minus 2 positions or the SEN 07 or 08 positions. Are you representative? We have a bit of work to do in a couple of areas.
Senator Downe: I believe last week you said the participation of women is 52 per cent.
Mr. Singh: Correct, approximately.
Senator Downe: The question is: Where are they on the pay scale?
Mr. Singh: Yes. In terms of our compensation, we have no issues related to equal pay for equal work. In terms of pay scales, our compensation strategy was adopted, for the administration anyway, a few years ago.
Senator Downe: But my question is: Are the 52 per cent of them getting 52 per cent of the salary of the Senate?
Mr. Singh: That would be information that we can look into.
Senator Downe: That is the bigger question in my mind.
Senator White: I have a bit of a follow-up. I am looking for positions. Where are women in the positions? Maybe a list of directors and a comparative study.
I came from a federal agency where we talked about the fact that 20 per cent of our employees were women. Ninety per cent of them were at the lowest level. I would like to see that as well.
Senator Fraser: I would second that suggestion. I think that it should not be a one-off report. It should become an automatic part of regular reporting on the whole diversity program.
I wonder if I could just come back, for a moment, to Senator Seth's suggestion about special activities and inclusive programs for LGBT people. We are getting into very touchy territory here because some LGBT people are very happy to proclaim to the world, "This is who I am." Others, for their own private reasons, are not. Building in formal programs, participation, whatever, could create pressures on them that we have no right to create. I would suggest that it be made very plain to everybody in this institution that discrimination, harassment or anything about LGBT people is absolutely unacceptable and will be sanctioned. I expect we do that, but let's go on doing it and really do it, not just talk about it.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I think this has been excellent discussion and feedback for the committee. We will ask the working group to delve into a lot of the suggestions that have been made.
Could we turn to Item No. 4, which is the action plan on diversity and accessibility for the 2014-2016 period? If you look at pages 15 to 23 of the briefing, this will be the fourth report. This is a report to the Clerk, but we are providing oversight through the important discussion that we're having on it.
Do you wish to speak to the fourth report, the program on diversity and accessibility in the 2014-2016 period?
Mr. Singh: We are basically seeking the approval of the committee on the report, as it is tabled, in terms of an action plan for the years 2014 to 2016.
The Chair: Senators, we are not under any pressure to completely digest this at this meeting, but if there are some initial questions, please proceed.
Senator LeBreton: I think this action plan is a good one, but I want more information as to how some of these things actually will be implemented. As to the point that I raised, it's not that I am against this, but I want to know, because of the various organizations, who selects these organizations and are we leaving anyone out? If there are three organizations dealing with one of the groups for whom we are trying to create a better and more equal access to the Senate, we should be sure that we are dealing with organizations that are supported by other organizations in that same category. I don't think it's complete enough.
The Chair: I think that is very important because we do have the four identified groups on an across-government commitment. The identification of new groups is a good question.
Senator LeBreton: It specifically said "new." Are we talking about the groups that we are already trying to deal with, or are we talking about others? Again, who picks them? Who decides who they are?
Mr. Singh: Thank you, honourable senator. What I would suggest is that, given the discussion that has happened today and the recommendations and questions that we have received, the Diversity and Accessibility Working Group will go back and examine these questions and come back to this committee with suggestions and maybe answers to some of the questions that you have asked today.
Senator LeBreton: Thank you.
The Chair: That item will stand.
Are there other matters that honourable senators would like to raise in the time that we have remaining?
Senator Lang: Mr. Chair, earlier today we debated the question about the committees and how we present the budgets. Do I have an understanding that the administration or the legislative side of the Senate will take another look at how we table in the Senate our estimates for the purposes of committee travel and see if, perhaps, it can be done in a different manner so that the public is not misled with respect to the amounts of monies actually being expended? I think it would be a worthwhile exercise because I don't believe that any other legislature does what we do. Perhaps we can compare our procedure to other places to see if we can maybe refine it.
The Chair: Do other senators have an initial comment on the point raised by Senator Lang?
Are there any other matters?
Senator Cordy: I confirmed, when I spoke earlier, that Senator Lang has raised a legitimate point. I think either the committee as a whole or some subcommittee should at least look at it. I'm not saying that there will be any changes, but I think he has raised a legitimate question.
Senator L. Smith: Senator Lang and Senator Cordy, I would suggest that it would probably be a good idea for Senator Cordy, Senator LeBreton and me to take this matter under advisement and have a chat. Is that okay?
Senator Lang: Yes.
The Chair: Honourable senators, the time for our meeting has been exhausted. I want to thank everybody for their participation and, once again, on your behalf, to thank our Senate administration for the incredible work that they do.
Also, we seldom have the opportunity, but I will use it this morning to thank our Hansard reporters, who are so assiduous in the chamber but who also cover each of our committee meetings. I would like to say to them, on your behalf, how much we appreciate the work that they do. It helps us to remember what we said at the last meeting.
The Hansard reporters present in the room today, please share with your colleagues our appreciation of the tremendous work that you and your colleagues do.
(The committee adjourned.)