Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence - June 12, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 12, 2014
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day, at 9:02 a.m., for the consideration of administrative and other matters.
Senator Noël A. Kinsella (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, the first order of business is the adoption of the minutes of proceedings of our May 29 and June 5 meetings. Is there a motion?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes. I've read them fully; they were all in order.
The Chair: Agreed. Honourable senators, item number two is the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. I am happy to report that the steering committee constituted itself as a search committee on your behalf. Publication of the opening was made in the Canada Gazette. A short list of three was developed. Interviews were held, and I am pleased to recommend, on behalf of the steering committee, the unanimous recommendation to the full committee that Michel Patrice be recommended as the Law Clerk.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Chair: I report that it will be tabled to that effect, with your agreement, as just indicated, to the Senate for the adoption of that report because it requires a resolution of the full chamber.
No. 3 is an update on additional funding requirements. We dealt, in steering, with the recommendation that we had received, as a full committee, from the JIC to do our share, as the Senate, of the funding of the Asia-Pacific conference. I think all senators wanted to know where we would find the money, if we could find the money, and we found the money in one of the budgets. If you wish to have the details on that, I have to ask Jill Anne. She's going to tell us where we found the money. We think we found the money in the budget of the committees branch.
Jill Anne Joseph, Director, Strategic Planning, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, you had approved, in principle, the Vancouver conference, and likely surpluses have been identified in at least two of the voted budgets — committees and the Senate Administration. That will cover off the cost of the Vancouver conference.
Senator Tkachuk: About how much from each budget? Was it mostly from administration or mostly from senators' programming, committees?
Ms. Joseph: For both budgets, we have identified a potential surplus of $400,000 in each.
Senator Tkachuk: In each one. Thank you.
The Chair: That was $72,000.
Ms. Joseph: For the APPF conference.
The Chair: We think it's very reasonable to expect that surplus to be there, based upon previous experiences.
I don't think we need a motion, honourable senators. It was more of a reporting. Maybe we should have a motion.
Senator Tkachuk, do you want to move that as a motion that we adopt this?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, I will.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Tkachuk, seconded by Senator Doyle, that we adopt the funding for the Asia-Pacific.
The second item, honourable senators, is that we were looking at recognizing that sometimes you try to do everything within the budget cycle that you're in. This matter of the computers is a shared activity with the House of Commons. In fact, they are doing the lion's share of the business. We are in a situation where, if we don't upgrade with them, we're going to have blank screens. I'm not happy about that approach. I'm going to express my own view, if I may, colleagues. I think that, in public administration, we have to be more critical in our budget-making exercises than even in the private sector. When we are going through the budget exercise, we really have to anticipate projects that might come up, and we can't allow ourselves to continue to be in a situation where projects are coming up that were not part of the budget cycle. Otherwise, you lose management control of it.
I think we've turned the corner and are getting out of that, but we are faced with a couple of issues. One is the computer/Internet upgrade. We pressed the administration to see where we could find funds because it is a matter of some priority so that we don't have blank screens.
Ms. Joseph: Again, senators, the network that the Speaker is referring to is the Parliamentary Precinct Network, which is moving from a Nortel to a Cisco system. The cost for the current year is $353,000. I just talked about identified surpluses in the voted budgets that will cover that off as well.
The Chair: We would like to have the agreement of the full committee that, on that project, we have identified that there are funds in the current budget and that we apply those funds that have been identified to that particular project. Are there any questions on that?
Senator Lang: Perhaps you could clarify for the record, when you say we identified $350,000, was it money that was allocated for some other purpose, or is it extra finances that are available? If it comes from other identified projects, which projects is it coming from?
Nicole Proulx, Director of Finance, Senate of Canada: What we have done, over the last few weeks, is meet with each director and ask that whatever savings be found, be it in terms of not staffing immediately positions that become vacant or whatnot. Each director has been very cooperative in helping to identify those funds. There is no specific project that was set aside. It's more a question of waiting a bit longer before replacing someone who is on parental leave or something like that and seeking funding that way. So there are no specific items or projects.
Senator Lang: Perhaps I could go a little further. Do I have an understanding here that this isn't going to affect any of the work that we do on the various committees from the point of view of finding this $350,000? In terms of finding this $350,000, from the point of view that we're not taking a general delay in staffing, will it take six months to do this? What kind of term are we dealing with to get this amount of money?
Ms. Proulx: In terms of the staffing, we looked at the present vacancies, as well. Each director was quite prudent in identifying reasonable funds, so those are numbers we will be able to find. There is no impact on services and certainly not on committees; that was one of the basic requirements when doing that review.
We have to recognize that it is early in the year. Usually we would do that type of exercise more in September — we would have a better idea of where we are at. That was a bit early in the game, if I can say, but each director was quite cooperative, like I said, and took the task to see what could be found to help with this project.
The Chair: Senator Lang, if I could add to the important point you raised at our last meeting: You were seeking a list of these projects that are effectively outside of this budget cycle. That's being prepared. We will all have a full understanding of a wish list, which you can't identify by examining the budget that we adopted for this fiscal year.
Senator Marshall: Nicole, none of the savings is expected to come from the committee budgets, because my recollection is that the committee budgets have been fully committed, haven't they?
Ms. Proulx: Actually, yes. As Jill Anne mentioned, there are two identified savings — projected surpluses — one in committees and one in the Senate administration.
In committees, yes, the funds have been allocated, but if we look at past years' usage, it's been very low. We have consulted with Heather, as well, to see what types of other budgets are coming forward. A reasonable estimate was $400,000.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Even though it's been fully committed —
Ms. Proulx: Yes.
Senator Marshall: — we're expecting to save $400,000 through clawback?
Ms. Proulx: Yes.
Senator Marshall: It's committed, but it's not expected that the committee — okay, thank you.
Senator Moore: Internet is going to be provided by Cisco, which is a company in the United States. Is that where the mainframe computer is that drives the system? If that's the case, are we subject to the Patriot Act and communications under that?
Ms. Joseph: No, this is all equipment on-site that is being purchased.
Senator Moore: So there is no mainframe computer somewhere in the United States —
Ms. Joseph: No, no.
Senator Moore: — that serves us?
Ms. Joseph: No, there is no storage of information off-site.
Senator Lang: I don't want to belabour this, but this is a cost this year. Next year, will our costs be less because we've updated our systems, or will they be increased? What are the projections?
Ms. Joseph: This is a two-year project. Next year, the costs will be similar.
Senator Lang: So we're talking at the end of the day about a $700,000 commitment?
Ms. Joseph: A little more — $800,000.
Senator Lang: At the end of the day when we're finished this project, are our ongoing O&M costs less or more?
Ms. Joseph: Ongoing will be $100,000 a year.
Senator Lang: Is that the same as what we pay now?
Hélène Bouchard, Director, Information Systems Directorate, Senate of Canada: No, because we don't have any more maintenance right now on the old equipment — for the last two years. We used to pay $30,000 a year, so the difference is quite large. Right now, the equipment we will be installing is more sophisticated and expensive. It also includes the Wi-Fi.
Senator Lang: I'm trying to get a sense of what costs are here. At the end of the day, this will cost us more, and it will be going on an ongoing basis.
Ms. Bouchard: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Last week, we were given a chart for the project that showed the costs for each year. If somebody has that chart, perhaps somebody could provide the dollars to Senator Lang. The dollar numbers are available; it was in our package last week. Somebody should have it.
Ms. Proulx: Senator Marshall, are you looking for PPNU?
The Chair: In the meantime, we will move on.
Senator White: I have a follow-up on the question around the data being stored. I want to make sure that we're clear that the data is stored in our facilities and not on the cloud or anything else as in relation to the Patriot Act.
Mr. O'Brien: Our manager is just talking to Senator Lang.
Senator White: As soon as she's done, I'll ask her.
Mr. O'Brien: Senator White has a question, Ms. Bouchard.
Senator White: The question concerns the Patriot Act in the U.S. I want to make sure that all data is stored in our facilities and not on the cloud or anywhere else.
Ms. Bouchard: Absolutely. It is on the precinct; you don't have to worry about it.
Senator White: Thank you.
The Chair: Honourable senators, on this particular file, is it agreed we will proceed as indicated?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We will turn to the next item, which is the advisory working group.
Mr. O'Brien: Yes. As we know, honourable senators, Senator Downe was appointed from the Liberal side. It is being proposed that Senator Batters be the representative for the government side on this working group.
The Chair: Agreed?
Senator Fraser: Which group is that?
The Chair: This is the working group on the long-term vision plan.
Senator Fraser: Oh, right.
The Chair: The next item is the follow-up to the proposed Diversity and Accessibility Action Plan, 2014-16, which is on pages 7 to 15 in our notes.
We'll ask our Human Resources Directorate to give us a brief introduction and executive summary. Five minutes.
Darshan Singh, Director of Human Resources, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable senators.
The Diversity and Accessibility Advisory Committee considered the comments you shared with us in early April, and I have come here today with responses to your questions. I would like to thank the committee and its chair D'Arcy McPherson and Angela Vanikiotis from HR for sustaining the momentum on this important initiative.
Senator Seth, thank you for your suggestion to replace "visually impaired" with "blind and partially sighted." We will replace "visually impaired" with "blind and partially sighted" and in French we will say personnes aveugles ou atteintes de cécité partielle throughout the documentation.
In addition, in response to your second recommendation about Braille labels on vending machines, we are pleased to advise you that a couple of years ago, François Michaud from the Senate administration did a walkthrough to see how Senate services accommodated persons who are blind and partially sighted. At that time, the vending machines were not identified. We will contact our service providers to see if they would be able to provide an after-market enhancement to our vending machines to include Braille labelling.
[Translation]
Let us move to the comments from Senator LeBreton and Senator Seth on the status of the three new community organizations interested in collaborating with the Senate in announcing our employment opportunities. As mentioned on page 3 of the diversity and accessibility action plan, we are pleased to advise that, from now on, we are going to make use of our social media and announce our employment opportunities more widely to various groups, instead of focusing only on three groups, as a way to increase the number of applicants in the four designated groups.
[English]
Senator Seth, in response to your question about whether the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community should be given consideration by the Senate as one of those new partnership communities, this is a topic that the Advisory Committee on Diversity and Accessibility plans to address in the coming year. It may be useful for planning purposes to include this as an action item in the plan.
Senator Lang, you asked whether we are satisfied with the hiring practices. The Senate is truly focused on the diverse and representative needs of the organization while ensuring all successful candidates are hired based on merit. We will continue to incorporate that into our hiring practices.
Senator Downe is not here, I believe, but I will still address his question. He inquired on how the Senate compares to the labour market participation rate. The self-identification campaign was a voluntary questionnaire sent to all employees. The results are indicated in the employment equity updated tables dated March 31, 2014, which will be available on the IntraSen shortly. Our participation rate was close to 90 per cent.
Senator White, you had inquired about the status of women in terms of representation by employment level or positions within the organization. A comparative study by directorate can be made available. In the updated employment equity tables, dated March 31, 2014, which will be available on the IntraSen shortly, table 7, which was been distributed to you, depicts the use of Senate administration employees by salary range and designated groups.
[Translation]
I would like to once more submit to the Clerk of the Senate the third report of the Diversity and Accessibility Advisory Committee. On page 3, it contains the statistics you asked for on the representation of the four designated groups. The report indicates that representation in the Senate administration of the four designated groups, namely women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and members of a visible minority, has increased. I would therefore like to ask you to approve the revised report.
[English]
Senator Munson: Thank you for this. It's a very impressive list of what we're doing here and I am proud of the administration in its work. I'm just curious, where do we sit in comparison to other like-minded organizations, House of Commons, other provincial legislatures, and are we following any particular model in this capacity?
Mr. Singh: I will talk about the representation and then I will ask members of the diversity committee to talk about the model. In terms of the representation, our statistics are favourable in comparison to the general public service, as well as the national public service. If you look at the municipal legislatures, provincial legislatures, our representation is quite good. We have some areas of work which are identified in the report, which we will continue to stress in the upcoming year and years. Our representation numbers are quite good. I will ask D'Arcy and Angela to address the question about the model that we are looking to follow.
D'Arcy McPherson, Chair, Advisory Committee on Diversity and Accessibility, Senate of Canada: Thank you. The representation of three of the four designated groups has increased in the Senate administration — Aboriginal peoples, persons with a disability and members of visible minorities — and compares favourably as I think you can see on page 3 of the 2012 annual report, in regard to the NCR 2006 census and the 2010 indicators.
In terms of a model that we're using, I think human resources can probably speak more clearly to that, but our objective has always been that we should model as much as possible the population as well as other organizations of a similar nature.
Senator Munson: Where can we do better?
Mr. McPherson: I think there's always room to do better and meeting the median is not always sufficient. In all of the categories, especially the employment equity groups, if we exceed targets then that is a laudable objective and an indicator that would be well-received.
Senator Munson: Is there a specific outreach to Aboriginal people?
Mr. McPherson: As Mr. Singh has outlined, we haven't specified groups in particular, one at the expense of the other, but as an employment equity group it is certainly one that is very much in our focus. I think we can improve those numbers and we're looking at initiatives to be able to do that.
Senator Jaffer: I want to first start off with saying that I'm personally very impressed. We've come a long way from where we were. Thank you for what you are doing and I certainly see a change when I walk around and the way the Senate is representative of our country. I appreciate that very much.
I also caution you about categories. These are categories set out in the federal act and we can look at other ways, but these are what are required. These are the four categories that are in act, so if we look at other categories, we have to find another way to address them.
I also have a concern with persons with disabilities. We have a good Friends of the Senate program, but the Friends of the Senate program doesn't really feed into later on and them being able to get a job here, because they have huge challenges. May I ask that the next stage may be to look at bringing persons with disabilities in, in sort of an interim way, and then bringing them in? I know at Human Rights what we have found — and I'm not saying that's true here, so don't take it that way — in persons with disabilities is normally it happens that the person starts, then becomes disabled for whatever reason and then that's the category. I think that's somewhere we should focus on, encouraging people who have disabilities to find a way. That's a place where we could improve. I think you have done a great job and I thank you.
Mr. Singh: Thank you very much, senator. Yes, to address the two comments, the four categories we have listed there are the four that are predominantly seen in the federal public service or legislatures. I would agree with you, and we have had discussions amongst the committee about maybe looking at other categories as well and not just limiting ourselves to those four. Hopefully in future years you will see more reporting in terms of what our numbers are diversity-wise.
As to the question of the Friends of the Senate, it is an important program here at the Senate, but I would agree that it is not the be-all and end-all of helping persons with disabilities. We try to assist all our employees who become disabled while they are here, but we will also look at mechanisms to encourage persons from that group to apply here at Senate and be successful when applying for positions.
Senator Jaffer: Having been involved with the Friends of the Senate program, frankly, those people could never find a job here. I'm not being mean-spirited, because I work with them on a weekly basis, so I think we need to look at people who can truly work here and give them support so they become part of our structure. Give an interim, something to help them get in and then keep helping them.
Senator Marshall: Mr. Singh, I worked on the original report with Senator Jaffer and Senator Stewart Olsen. In response to Senator Munson's question about where we could do better, my recollection is that for three of the categories, the percentage in the Senate was representative of the population in general. I thought that we could improve in the area of the Aboriginal group. Is my recollection correct? I thought we had a ways to go with representation from the Aboriginal group?
Mr. Singh: I was not here but I imagine your recollection is probably correct. Our numbers over the last few years have been increasing in that area. But, as per Senator Munson's question, we need to spend a little more time focusing on that group. The committee and human resources will attempt to do so in the upcoming years.
Senator Marshall: In several categories in dollar values there is no representation from the Aboriginal people's group. Thank you.
The Chair: Honourable senators, is it agreed that this honourable committee supports the work of the committee and endorses the report that it has made to the Clerk?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Next item is the management procedure for employees with disability.
Mr. Singh: Once again, senators, we the administration management team of the human resources directorate are recommending that the management procedure for employees with disabilities, which was implemented for Senate administration employees in 2012, be extended to senators' staff. These procedures set out the process for the release of employees for medical incapacity after two years or more of leave without pay if they have a medical prognosis of not returning to work for the foreseeable future. They also address the process to facilitate return to work and accommodations. Such procedures are considered a good human resource management practice and are in line with similar procedures in the federal public service and at the House of Commons.
[Translation]
At present, there are no established procedures or practices for dealing with senators' staff. The Senate is actively trying to facilitate a quick return to work for employees on sick leave or long term disability leave. There are cases in which a return to work is considered either not medically feasible for the foreseeable future or actually impossible. The proposed procedures would apply in such cases.
[English]
There are currently two senators' staff members who have been on leave without pay for more than two years with a prognosis of not returning to work in the foreseeable future. One has been receiving long-term disability benefits for 15 years and the other for over 13 years. Both are expected to remain on long-term disability until age 65; and we are in consultation with these employees. There are only two other senators' staff LTD claims from late 2013 and January 2014. Offices currently in receipt of LTD benefits: One is approved but expected back by summer and the other is not approved at this time. The termination of employment due to medical incapacity will not affect the employee's LTD benefit entitlement, which may continue as long as they qualify up to the age of 65.
[Translation]
In conclusion, implementing the proposed long term disability management procedures represents sound human resources management practice. The procedures allow a labour relationship to cease when the employee is on leave and not receiving treatment for more than two years and when the prognosis is for not returning to work in the foreseeable future.
[English]
Senator LeBreton: In terms of establishing a staff's claim for long-term disability, what process is followed and what are the criteria to establish that fact in the first place?
In the report you say, and you just repeated it, that there are two employees from senators' officers who have been on LTD, one with no return in the foreseeable future. One has been on the books for 15 years and the other for 13 years. You also talk about two other cases. In all of these cases, are you working directly with those senators who were connected with these staffers? What is the process followed?
Senator Lang and I were talking about a case today that we saw when we opened up the Ottawa Citizen and read a story by Jordan Press about a staffer. I have never heard of this. I don't know if there is a body in the Senate that's responsible for managing and handling these, but it seems to me that members of this committee should be given a head's up that these things are coming and not have to read about them in the Ottawa Citizen at 6 o'clock in the morning.
Mr. Singh: I will address the second question first, and I'll ask the Manager of Corporate Human Resources, Peter Nunan, to address the first question about the process. In terms of the second question on working with the senators, for both long-term cases, 15 years and 13 years, those senators are no longer with the Senate. We, as the enabler, work with the individual and groups in progress; and we monitor them closely. As I'm sure you would surmise, 15 years and 13 years is a long time for an employee to be on our books, if you will.
For the two new cases, we are working with those two senators' offices. We have been in contact with them, which, of course, is our responsibility. We have been working with them. Peter will address the question regarding the process.
Peter Nunan, Manager, Labour Relations, Learning and Policies, Senate of Canada: Senate employees, including senators' staff, are covered under the federal government's benefit program for health, dental and life insurance and disability. They are administered under that program and are either insured through Sun Life or Industrial Life Insurance. Under those programs, the criteria for disability are determined. The insurance company, based on the medical evidence, makes the determination as to whether a person is considered totally disabled. For the first two years, the determination is based on whether they can perform their substantive position and beyond two years, any position, based on education and experience, for which they could perform and earn at least two thirds of their salary. The decision isn't the Senate's. It is made by the insurance company based on the information we provide to them.
I did not read the Ottawa Citizen article. I can only guess which case it refers to. I don't think it would be the two cases we are speaking of here.
Senator LeBreton: Senator De Bané.
Mr. Nunan: Yes. That's a case where the person went on sick leave and their status was maintained. They went on long-term disability and their status was maintained. They were cleared to return to work so the insurance company determined that the person was fit to return to work.
Senator Furey: Are we in camera, chair?
An Hon. Senator: No.
Senator Seth: I have the same thing to ask as Senator LeBreton.
Senator Furey: Point of order, chair.
I'm concerned that if we're going to be discussing personnel issues, as we have just heard from Peter, I think we should be in camera.
The Chair: We will caution what we have to say, but let's hear from Senator Seth.
Senator Seth: If it is work-related, an accidental fall or something, and they are not able to work for two years, it becomes WSIB. After three or four years, they want to come back to the same job. What provisions are made for them to come back?
Mr. Singh: As the employer, we are required to protect the employee's rights. Putting the employee in the exact same position is not always feasible because we may have an employee who replaced them and we have since hired; but we can find an approximately equivalent position; and we would always endeavour to do so. With a senator's staff member, that would again require us working with the senators to ensure that if they were, for example, a political adviser, we would try to attempt to work with our various senators to see if we could find them a similar position.
Senator Seth: They are not left behind.
Mr. Singh: Right.
Senator White: I think this discussion is important for a number of reasons, but what we're talking about typically is very sterile, how an insurance company deals with people. I'm more interested in the procedure and maybe seeing something in writing about how we manage people who work for us and with us from a back-to-work process, from a more humanistic perspective. Do we have something in place? Is there a back-to-work manager or somebody responsible for that? Insurance companies don't build great rapport between employees and employers. They instead find reasons to tell them they should or shouldn't get benefits. I would like to see some type of process that we have and, if there is someone responsible for it, at some point having them speak to that.
Mr. Singh: Thank you, senator. Yes, of course, we wholeheartedly agree. It is our responsibility as the employer to try to assist our employees when they do return to work and to ensure they are well surrounded and supported.
We in Human Resources would, in this case, work with the senator to ensure that their staff members are supported, as well as that the senator is supported. We do this on the administration side. We support our managers. We train them, we assist them and we answer questions. I will turn it over to Peter.
Mr. Nunan: Thank you for the question. We agree 100 per cent with what you're saying. The actual disability management procedure that we're referring to in the briefing note is actually a document on our IntraSen site. We're talking here about the potential for a release from employment as just one element. It really talks about the whole process from the day the person goes off on sick leave, how we can facilitate early safe return to work and how we try to accommodate the employees. We do have an accommodation policy. We also work with an outside company that we contract with for disability management so we can refer cases of people on sick leave or on disability to them. They can deal with the medical side, which we do not have access to, again to facilitate early safe returns to work, and we do that on a regular basis. Yes, our whole program is focused on getting people back to work early and safely, and this is those rare cases where that is not possible.
Senator White: If I may, Mr. Chair, you say this is on the Internet now?
Mr. Nunan: The procedure, yes, because it applies to the administration currently, what we are proposing for senators' staff.
Senator White: If I have access, I apologize. If not, could you email that to me?
Mr. Nunan: Of course.
Senator Marshall: Peter, do we self-insure or do we get insurance from an insurance company or is it worker's comp?
Mr. Nunan: Worker's Compensation. We are self-insured. As far as long-term disability benefits, we pay premiums like government departments. Then they're there, and we're not charged.
Senator Marshall: The insurance company looks after it.
Mr. Nunan: That's correct, yes.
Senator Tkachuk: This is a complicated topic because the employees work directly for the senator. The senator hires them and the senator deals with that employee. I understand that we may have programs that will assist employees who become disabled during work or have long-term sickness or something like that. We should have programs for that. I think it should also involve the two whips, as far as coming up with a policy on how we deal with these employees. Working for a senator isn't a permanent job. It's there as long as the senator is there, or else the senator may find that person isn't competent and dismiss him. I don't know how all that ties together. It's always been a little muddy to me, but I think this whole discussion should be on a political level as well, with the whips, who usually assist senators in their staff hunt.
Senator Lang: I just want to follow up on Senator Tkachuk's question, and this is more of a general question in respect to Senate staff versus staff within the administration. I'm not quite clear on the benefits that are there for a staff member within the administration versus that of the staff of the Senate. I'm wondering if we could be provided with a bullet outline of what a comparable position in the administration benefits would accrue to a civil servant versus a Senate staff. One of the concerns I have, quite frankly, is yes, it's not a permanent position, but some of these staff are here for a long, long time. If they are, I think that we have to look at what benefits might accrue to them or should maybe accrue to them that aren't at the present time, recognizing that they do serve at pleasure. That doesn't mean that we treat them like they are that much different from those who are within the administration. I would like to see just a very simple outline just to see the differences on the benefits so that we fully understand.
Mr. Singh: Once again, I agree 100 per cent with what you are saying. These employees in senators' staff offices are employees of the Senate. They are employees of the Senate. We will, as you have requested, compile a list of the differences in the benefits for both groups, and we will share that with the steering committee, who will let us know if we should share it with you.
The Chair: I think we've had a good discussion on this topic. Can we proceed to the next item, which is the third report to the Clerk on occupational health and safety?
Mr. Singh: Honourable senators, the Senate's union management health and safety committees have been actively fulfilling their responsibilities under the Senate's health and safety policy since its adoption in March 2011. The health and safety policy committee that is co-chaired by my colleague Diane Boucher has met regularly to review health, safety and wellness practices and issues and to foster a healthy and safe work environment. The Clerk of the Senate has actively supported this committee's work through his regular and active participation in these meetings. The Human Resources Directorate, along with the Senate's Protective Service and Building Services Directorates, have lead responsibility for overseeing health and safety within the Senate.
Today we are tabling the third annual health and safety report that was prepared by the policy committee. It provides a picture of the work undertaken and the issues that arose over the 2013-14 fiscal year, as well as five year trends. Overall, the report indicates a very positive trend and points to areas of focus for the coming year. I will now turn it over to Ms. Boucher, who will present some of the key highlights.
[Translation]
Diane Boucher, Director, Legislative Systems and Broadcasting: Honourable senators, when the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration passed the workplace health and safety policy in 2011, programs were put in place and steps were taken to comply with our obligations and to provide a healthier and safer workplace for all at the Senate.
Those programs and those steps bore fruit. I am pleased to share with you the progress that has been made over the years. The number of incidents in the last five years has gone from 49 in 2009-2010 to 20 in 2013-2014, a reduction of more than 59 per cent.
Incidents have decreased in all work categories, including those where the risk is highest, such as operations and security. There, they decreased by 50 per cent. The number of invalidating incidents went from 15 in 2009-2010 to 7 in 2013-2014 and the number of days of work lost went from 418 to 132.5 for the same period. Slips and falls are still the main causes of incidents, accounting for 40 per cent of the total. Spring and autumn seem to be the most likely times for incidents. This also coincides with the Senate's busiest work periods.
[English]
We have also had very good results to report with the new annual inspection programs. Since its implementation three years ago, the number of problems or hazards identified in all Senate-occupied buildings has decreased from 221 in 2011-12, to 129 in 2013-14, which is a reduction of 44 per cent. Increased awareness, training, dedicated employees working to provide healthier and safer workplace, and the Clerk's leadership have all contributed to the significant progress made in the past five years.
While we have demonstrated significant progress so far, we must continue to work toward ensuring that the risks are identified and eliminated or at least brought further under control.
I would like to thank honourable senators and their staff for their support and contributions during the annual inspections. I would also like to thank the Clerk for his leadership, my colleagues from management, union representatives and my assistant Kathleen for their support and hard work.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?
Senator Seth: I see that "high-risk operation" incidents are decreasing. First, what is the meaning of "high-risk operations"?
Mr. Nunan: We've identified that based on the statistics. We see that — if you like — "blue-collar workers" who are doing more physical work and the security staff are the ones who have a higher propensity to have an accident. Within our context, those are the areas we're talking about.
Senator Seth: What kind of jobs are these employees performing?
Mr. Nunan: In Buildings Services, they can be setting up and tearing down the committee rooms, delivering the mail and cleaning our offices. In security, they are inspecting the sites.
The largest percentage of our accidents are slips, trips and falls, so these people are inside, outside and moving around. As in other workplaces, they tend to have a higher rate of accidents.
Senator Seth: What steps are you taking to make sure they are not disproportionately affected?
Mr. Nunan: Awareness and training. In the Buildings Services sector they have looked at what equipment they use to ensure it is being used properly. There is lifting techniques training for the employees, WHMIS. There are all the kinds of preventive measures that can you take. We have online training for supervisors so that they are aware of it and can orient their employees to the workplace.
Mr. O'Brien: The Health and Safety Committee meets once a month or so. At every meeting, we have a report on the accidents that have occurred in the Senate precinct. We try to dig down into why the accidents happen and do an analysis, and try then to take up preventive measures, so the accident doesn't happen again.
Senator Munson: Regarding the nonsmoking areas at Centre Block, I would suggest that we should be the first Parliament in the world to have no smoking outside on our grounds, everywhere. What does it mean "no-smoking signs were installed by PWGSC"? There are two signs — at the Governor General's entrance. . . .
Can you smoke on the Hill? Because if you can, it's awful.
Ms. Boucher: Yes, there is no prohibition.
Senator Munson: Why don't we be brave and have an initiative to stop it at Wellington Street. We have enough police officers on the Hill now, anyway.
What is the deal here? It's really getting so that you can't walk anywhere. People say, "You can go outside here" but you have to walk through a smokers' haze. I'm asking a serious question.
Mr. Singh: As the committee has become aware over the last few weeks, Public Works and Government Services Canada is the landlord of the building. They designate the smoking and nonsmoking areas of the building.
It's a comment that we can share in our dealings with them. We will take the comment, and Gilles Duguay and his team are here, so we can have conversations with Public Works about that concern.
Senator Marshall: I notice a couple of things in your report. One is mental health issues. I don't have any comment except to say I notice it. But the other was regarding the eye injuries and the eye-wash stations. I looked it up, and there are only a couple of eye injuries, but it seems like the eye-wash stations were a big issue. Is there a connection between statistics and the eye-wash stations?
Ms. Boucher: There were problems with eyes stations where some of them did not work. It was dangerous because if somebody had something in their eyes, they would go to eye-wash station, which would not work.
We looked at all of the eye-wash stations and checked to see which ones didn't function, which ones were not necessary, and if the eye station was installed in a proper way. For the maintenance people, we also verified that they have quick access to eye-wash stations. Pat McDonnell and Building Services did a survey of all of the eye-wash stations and implemented some initiatives to solve the issue.
Senator Lang: Just a couple comments. The statistics are interesting, and I think the administration and those involved in overseeing the workplace have to be given some credit in respect to the fact that the number of incidents are obviously diminishing. That speaks well for everybody, and they should be commended on that.
One of the major areas for wellness is fitness, and we are very fortunate to have a gym in the Victoria Building. What encouragement is given to encourage people to take care of their own health by becoming involved in fitness programs? Perhaps we can have thought given to that if there is none now.
Ms. Boucher: We put into place some initiatives. One is to create a program called SENVie or SENLife. We offer zumba and yoga classes that people can attend. We have three activities so far. We are planning to develop other initiatives, as well.
We also engage in broadening awareness by have articles written in 4th Reading and posting information on IntraSen. We've been working at it, and it's going well.
Senator Lang: I would strongly recommend that. In all workplaces with a large workforce — it's an area, whether private or government, where a lot of emphasis should be placed.
Senator Cordy: As Senator Lang said, it's good to see the numbers going down significantly.
Under the heading of inspections, and we look at the number of problems or hazards identified, you can see it goes down. But I was quite surprised: "Location: Ontario-Quebec." I was quite surprised to see Quebec. What areas of the Senate precinct do we have in Quebec?
Ms. Boucher: We have offices at 45 Sacré-Coeur Boulevard, which is the National Printing Bureau. We have the print shop there and a number of employees, as well. That's why we do have also a local committee there.
The Chair: Just before concluding, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in our meeting today of three senior officials from the Alberta Legislative Assembly: Scott Ellis, a senior financial officer; Jacqueline Breault, a corporate services officer; and Vera Beck, records manager.
We trust you've enjoyed your sitting in on the meeting of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Cordy: Under other matters, I wonder if the Director of Human Resources can pass along my compliments to Reina Bernier and the organizers of the Senate Staff Recognition Program that was held on Friday afternoon. It was a great event. Congratulations to all of those who were given awards for long-term service and for going above and beyond within the Senate precinct — volunteer work mainly. It was a great event. Please pass that along.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Chair: Is there any other "other business"? Then I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Senator Tkachuk: So moved.
(The committee adjourned.)