THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 11, 2023
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day with videoconference at 9:00 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1), to consider financial and administrative matters; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), to consider financial and administrative matters.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our meeting this morning.
My name is Lucie Moncion. I am a senator from Ontario and I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
I would like to go around the table and have my fellow senators introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest, senator for the Gulf region of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey, Manitoba.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Loffreda: Tony Loffreda from Quebec. Good morning, everyone.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, senator from Ontario.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn from New Brunswick.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Plett: Don Plett from Landmark, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan, Mille Isles division in Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I also welcome all those who are following our proceedings across the country.
Honourable senators, the first item of business is approving the minutes of proceedings from April 20, 2023, which are in your package. Are there any questions or amendments to the minutes?
Can someone move the motion?
Moved by Senator Carignan:
That the minutes of proceedings from Thursday, April 20, 2023, be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
I declare the motion carried.
[English]
The next item is our annual update concerning translation and interpretation services. Maxime Fortin, Principal Clerk; Dominic Laporte, Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau; and Matthew Ball, Vice-President, Service to Parliament and Interpretation, Translation Bureau will now join us as witnesses. As usual, these presentations will be followed by time for questions.
Colleagues, I will ask that you be mindful of the time this morning. I’ve already mentioned it to our witnesses. If we can do our work diligently, within half an hour, we should be good to go on with our agenda. Duly noted for everyone.
Welcome, Ms. Fortin, Mr. Laporte and Mr. Ball. Maxime, I believe you will begin with some opening remarks this morning, to be followed by Mr. Laporte, who will provide an annual update on translation services to the Senate. Maxime, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Maxime Fortin, Clerk of the Committee: Thank you very much.
Good morning, honourable senators.
[English]
I’m here as the representative of the Senate Administration, responsible for the agreement between the Senate and Translation Bureau.
You will recall that a few weeks ago, I was here to give you an update relating to interpretation services. We know last fall that interpretation incidents caused a lot of frustration for senators, especially when they resulted in delays or the cancellation of witnesses or a committee meeting. I would like to reiterate that considerable progress has been made in recent months. This progress has been made possible in large part because of decisions by senators to encourage in-person participation in parliamentary proceedings and to provide the administration with the resources necessary to conduct preliminary technical tests with all virtual participants and to ensure they are equipped with an approved headset.
[Translation]
Since the fall, there has been a significant decline in the number of incidents related to interpretation. Since the implementation of pretests in early March, we have had 130 committee meetings with 525 witnesses, 140 of whom appeared virtually. During that period, there have been interpretation issues that delayed seven meetings with four denials of service and one meeting cancellation. The downward trend is particularly significant since mid-April.
[English]
Although we are pleased to report this progress to you, we shall continue to work with the Translation Bureau to implement further solutions and to put in place a protocol with clear roles and responsibilities to ensure that we are prepared to address any ongoing issues with this essential service.
I will stop here to let Mr. Laporte and Mr. Ball present their remarks. I will be available to answer any questions you may have.
[Translation]
Dominic Laporte, Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau: Good morning, honourable senators.
Since we are meeting in Ottawa, I would first like to acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Algonquin people.
I would also like to express my appreciation for Linda Ballantyne, Josée Beauregard and Najet Glenza, who are providing the interpretation for this meeting.
[English]
Honourable members of the committee, it is an honour to meet with you for the first time alongside the Principal Clerk, Maxime Fortin. I’m joined today by Matthew Ball, Vice-President, Service to Parliament and Interpretation. Also in the room with us is our very first Director of Parliamentary Affairs and Interpreters Well-being, Martin Montreuil; and Justine Bret, Director of Interpretation and Chief Interpreter. We are pleased to be here for our annual update on the translation and interpretation services provided to the Senate.
Before we dive in, I would like to acknowledge how well the Senate Administration and the Translation Bureau have been working together in coordinating linguistic services. We are grateful to the Clerk, Gérald Lafrenière; and Maxime Fortin and Shaila Anwar and their teams for their ongoing support.
With respect to parliamentary translation and interpretation, this past year has been focused on continuous improvement. We have grown our workforce and increased our use of technology to allow us to manage peaks in demand more easily. We have assigned a translator, Isabelle Rivard, to the Office of Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, where she can provide services directly. We have strengthened our quality assurance to better take into account the Senate’s specific requirements.
[Translation]
With respect to interpretation, collaboration between the Senate and the Translation Bureau has been key to delivering our services. Indeed, in February, when the Labour Program ordered that virtual participants must use an ISO-compliant microphone, the Senate’s rapid response was to help the Translation Bureau comply quickly with those instructions.
I would also like to thank the Senate Administration for its commitment to implementing protocols to prevent, track and resolve issues related to interpretation. We are also creating a steering committee made up of senior leaders from the Translation Bureau, the Senate and the House of Commons, to make communicating issues and establishing priorities easier.
In addition, I would like to thank the Senate for its willingness to encourage witnesses to appear in person. Thanks to your efforts, in-person interpretation time compared to virtual interpretation time has increased considerably. It is the best way to prevent sound problems.
These efforts make it much easier for us to deliver our interpretation services. But more importantly, they are helping us achieve our primary goal: ensuring the health and safety of our interpreters.
[English]
Honourable senators, I want to thank you not only for your support but also for your patience. I am very aware of the difficulties that service interruptions and limits on our interpretation capacity can cause for you and your committees.
As far as interruptions are concerned, I can assure you that interpreters who make the difficult decision to suspend services know how much your work is negatively impacted, and they do so very reluctantly. We are currently working on a protocol that will guide decisions in such situations.
It is important to recognize that sound that is adequate for participants is not necessarily adequate for interpreters. We are continuing to work to improve sound quality so we can reduce the number of interruptions and protect our interpreters.
In accordance with the direction we received from the Labour Program, we have commissioned the National Research Council of Canada to conduct sound testing in all parliamentary committee rooms. The recordings required for the testing have been completed, and we are waiting for the audiologists’ report.
[Translation]
Regarding our interpretation capacity, the prevention of injuries remains above all the key to maintaining our interpretation capacity, and we are continuing our strenuous efforts to preserve it.
That said, there is a worldwide shortage of interpreters, and it is unlikely that our capacity will increase significantly in the short term.
However, I am very proud to point out that, thanks to the sum of all measures that have been taken, we have now returned to the number of hours that we offered to the Senate before the pandemic. This would not have been possible without the extraordinary co-operation we received from the Senate and its administration.
You are already aware that we offer a job to every official languages interpretation graduate from the two universities in Canada that offer that program. But unfortunately, the number of graduates is very low. To increase that number, we have been reaching out to several universities in Quebec to encourage them to launch interpretation programs.
Our other recruitment method, the accreditation exam, has recently netted us some new freelancers. But once again, the number of interpreters on workplace accommodation and the number of departures mean that we still do not have enough newcomers to increase our capacity. However, we are now holding the exam twice a year rather than just once, in hopes of attracting more candidates, and the next exam will be at the end of June.
In addition, we are preparing a call for tenders for our next freelance interpreter contract. The current contract will expire on June 30, and we hope that the new one will stabilize the help that we receive from freelancers to supplement what our staff interpreters are able to provide.
Lastly, we are currently taking steps to hire a recruitment agency to encourage more interpreters to join the Translation Bureau.
[English]
Honourable senators, as you can see, the Translation Bureau is working tirelessly with all its partners, including the Senate Administration, to improve the services it offers you. I hope I have provided you with a good snapshot of the current situation. Matthew and I will now be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Boyer: I am very curious about the partnership you have with the University of Ottawa and how that might be enhanced a little by offering an internship program at the Senate. For instance, as a lawyer, I have an internship agreement with the University of Ottawa as an adjunct professor. I’m able to bring in students every semester, and I usually pick two or three that are in common law. They are able to get three credits, and they work for 115 hours for free in my office. The applications are numerous. It might be something to consider that would be attractive to more students wanting to work with the Senate.
Mr. Laporte: In terms of the collaboration with the University of Ottawa for the master’s interpretation program, currently we’re providing a lot of teaching, so our interpreters are teaching for this program with the University of Ottawa. We also provide internships for almost all the candidates for the second year with the Translation Bureau. We do already have that partnership in place. Honestly, we get very good and solid candidates from this program.
Senator Boyer: Are any of the students able to translate in any of our meetings?
Mr. Laporte: I’ll turn to Matthew for this specific question.
Matthew Ball, Vice-President, Service to Parliament and Interpretation, Translation Bureau, Public Services and Procurement Canada: Yes, actually, graduates from the University of Ottawa master’s program do an internship with the Translation Bureau. They are assigned to all sorts of events on the Hill, so it is very likely that they are also coming to the Senate.
Senator Boyer: Great. That’s wonderful.
Senator Moodie: I have a question about the protocol that you’re developing. I’m wondering if you can tell us a bit more about it. Is this what you’re seeing as an accountability mechanism? Are you building in some kind of process for critical or extraordinary incidents that would be examined further by reporting and by a feedback loop that could include senators in the form of the chairs of committees that might have been disrupted by an event that could have occurred?
Mr. Laporte: Thank you for the question, senator. Right now, what we’re doing is reviewing all the protocols that are in place. I was referring to a new committee that will be stood up. That will basically be with the Senate, the House of Commons and the Translation Bureau. The goal is to review all the protocols to provide clearer direction.
With what happened, for example, in terms of unforeseen events, we want to make sure we have protocols in place prior to the event appearing. Also, all the steps are being discussed in terms of a feedback loop. This is a very good point that you’ve raised, senator. We want to make sure we’re able to capture all these events and also see where we perhaps have some pattern of similarities to be able to prevent those events from happening again in the future. We’re working closely with Mr. Lafrenière and his team to make sure that this information is conveyed at the right level.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I would like to know where we are with translation technology. I understand that it is still not quite where it should be. I read on the government’s website that there are some places where you do not necessarily recommend using such technology. It depends on nuances and contexts, I understand, but I have never seen any. To my knowledge, I have never seen any committee where such technology was used, but there are sometimes more informal committees where it might be appropriate.
Secondly, I imagine you are the largest translation organization in Canada. I do not think that there is any other entity in Canada with such a large translation capacity. I imagine that you are the leaders.
Do you take part in research projects with private sector companies or internally on the progress of specific technologies?
Mr. Laporte: That is an excellent question, senator. I will begin with the second part.
With respect to translation, the bureau is taking part in research projects. A lot of automated translation tools have been tried. That can help us with certain types of texts.
For legal texts, a lot more research is required. Pilot projects are currently being developed. When there are long translations with a lot of repetitions, there will be a significant gain in efficiency in general texts.
Currently, no solution has been put in place across the Translation Bureau, but we are currently testing several systems and seeing how gains can be achieved. These tools have improved enormously in recent years.
We are really keeping abreast of developments and having many meetings with universities, as there is also the issue of education. Translators must be trained to use these new tools. So, we want to ensure that the translator of tomorrow has been trained and will be able to master those tools, and that they will be used wisely.
I am still concerned because I believe that human revision is essential to ensure that there is no loss of quality or quality control. So that is for the first part.
For the second part, in terms of technological tools, for committees more specifically, I will ask Mr. Ball to answer your question.
Mr. Ball: Thank you.
Indeed, you are right to say that translation technology has evolved a lot in recent years. The Translation Bureau already uses it in the Senate. Our interpreters in the booths behind you have access to automated translation. When we receive witnesses’ speaking notes, they can quickly be run through to have a quick initial translation that the interpreters can use.
In January 2023, a translation memory was implemented with a corpus of parliamentary texts that is now used by parliamentary committee services. They are thus used for all deliberations and reports you produce in the Senate.
Senator Carignan: I understand that, but I wanted to go a bit further with my question — when talking about replacing humans.
Mr. Ball: I think our CEO already said that human beings provide judgment and a service that a machine cannot provide at this time. For now, the Translation Bureau’s approach is that humans can use technological tools to improve efficiency, performance and quality. However, in our opinion, machines will not replace humans in the near future.
Senator Forest: First, I would like to thank all the translators, because I regularly use their excellent services.
I am trying to think outside the box. Canada has many francophone communities outside Quebec. Do you work with those communities to encourage youth to consider a career in translation?
Most such youth are already bilingual at the outset. That could represent an interesting future, given the job opportunities. Do you have any strategies or are you taking steps in francophone communities outside Quebec to attract new translators?
Mr. Laporte: Thank you for the question. We are already working with the Université de Moncton, which offers a translation program. That is one of my priorities as CEO of the Translation Bureau: to find students and encourage them to join translation and interpretation programs, and encourage universities to consider offering an interpretation program, as it is still a graduate program. Only two universities currently offer it.
In addition, the value of the translation and interpretation profession must be reasserted. It’s a profession in turmoil — it has been mentioned, and Senator Carignan spoke about technological changes. I would also like to say to translators that there is a future in their profession. Yes, it is changing. Tools may do all the tasks that were redundant, like technical tasks that are more in the background, but that is where strategy comes into play. There is a lot of talent potential in the different regions.
Senator Forest: You go to universities that offer the program, but I was thinking that, based on needs, it would be interesting to bring a translator who is from Saint-Boniface and have him or her meet with young undergraduate students. So it is about being more proactive, aggressive or positive, to have a larger pool than just partnerships with universities.
Mr. Laporte: Absolutely. There are discussions with the Ordre des traducteurs, terminologues et interprètes agréés du Québec. To give you an example, that is something that could be replicated in other provinces. Those people can be in touch with guidance counsellors, even in high school, to tell youth who are considering their future career that there are excellent job opportunities. Contrary to what people think, the number of opportunities is obviously increasing considerably. Beyond universities, work needs to be done to promote this profession very early, even in primary school, when children ask what translators and interpreters do. We need to tell them that, yes, there are career opportunities in this field, that it is a growing trade.
Senator Forest: Thank you. You translated my thoughts well.
[English]
Senator Bovey: I’d like to thank all the translators for the work they’ve done.
I’d like to pick up on what my colleague Senator Forest has said and move the conversation outside Quebec. In Manitoba we have L’Université de Saint-Boniface. When I was a new senator here, there was an inquiry on francophone universities across the country. What work are you doing with those universities? Saint-Boniface is a francophone university, as you know, drawing international students, francophone students from around the world. Many decide to stay in Manitoba. I wonder what work you’ve done with them, where they are in terms of translation programs and what work is being done with the provinces to try to encourage other provinces to develop such programs, especially given the job opportunities that you say are out there.
Mr. Laporte: I’m less familiar with the specifics of the University of Manitoba, but maybe Matthew has more information to share.
Senator Bovey: Excuse me. L’Université de Saint-Boniface, not the University of Manitoba.
Mr. Ball: It’s a happy coincidence. I am myself from Winnipeg and grew up and went to the University of Manitoba, not L’Université de Saint-Boniface. It was a college at the time.
To answer your question broadly, the Translation Bureau does a lot of work with universities. We meet regularly with the Canadian Association for Translation Studies. We’ve met on numerous occasions with the Ordre des traducteurs, terminologues et interprètes agréés du Québec and with the Association of Translators and Interpreters of Ontario, or ATIO, in Ontario.
We also do proactive activities. We send staff interpreters and translators to career fairs around the country when possible. There was a bit of a hiatus during COVID, but we expect those activities to resume. We also do smaller-scale things. We host a workshop we call “A Taste of Interpretation,” where we invite pages from the Senate and the other place to participate and to learn about the career of interpretation. There are lots of small‑scale projects that we do, as well as bigger discussions that we’re having at the same time.
We also have, in some sense, a limited role. The mandate of the bureau is to provide services to Parliament, not to go more broadly. But we try to do what we can to make sure that young Canadians understand and value the careers that are available in interpreting and translation.
I myself am a good example. When I joined the bureau in 1907, I didn’t think I would still be here now and here we are. It’s to say that the Translation Bureau is a great place to work, and we have staff who have been with the bureau for decades such as myself. It’s a message that we try to share every time we have the opportunity to do so.
Senator Bovey: Does L’Université de Saint-Boniface have a translation degree?
Mr. Ball: I’m not sure, to be honest. I know they offer translation courses. I’m not sure which degree it is, if it’s an undergrad.
Senator Bovey: I would suggest it might be a good idea to get translators across the country together to try to work with the Government of Manitoba and L’Université de Saint-Boniface to develop those programs.
[Translation]
The Chair: Could you tell me the status of the remote translator project, for those who would be working remotely? Tests were begun, but there has been no word since. Could you tell us about that?
Mr. Laporte: There is a pilot project that is in the early stages with the House of Commons. The first tests took place two weeks ago. We are currently compiling data to see how it works. We are happy to be working with the House of Commons multimedia services team and the Senate Administration, but all that is still at the pilot project stage. We are gathering data to see what lessons we have learned, what improvements are needed, how things work and the repercussions for interpreters. That is where we are at with the pilot project.
The Chair: Thank you. You spoke about new translators you have been able to hire. Could you give us a number, and how many you are lacking?
Mr. Laporte: As for new translators, we held our accreditation exam in January. Unfortunately, although over 10 people passed, 10 people joined the Translation Bureau, not as salaried employees, but as freelancers. When I look at our workforce, we currently have 54 active salaried interpreters. There are 13 who are on leave or have been assigned to other duties. There are also 63 freelancers. So, there is a total of about 117 active people who can offer their interpretation services to the House of Commons and Senate.
The Chair: How many do you lack? You normally have a pool.
Mr. Laporte: It is hard to have a precise number. Since we use freelancers, their schedules can vary. Some are available two days per week, and others, five days per week. At this time, we have the resources needed to offer the services we offered prior to the pandemic.
However, when I look at the demographic curve of our interpreters, I see that a lot of people will be retiring in the coming years. There is a major need for recruitment. We want to always be able to increase our service offer. Every extra interpreter that we can attract to work at the Translation Bureau is a huge bonus for us. Obviously, I would like to be able to increase our workforce by 15% to 20%. That would be reassuring. That would allow us to offer better coverage for events, both in the Senate and the House of Commons.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Are there other questions or comments? If not, I would like to thank Maxime for his report and Mr. Laporte and Mr. Ball for their questions, answers and comments. Thank you very much. Have a good day.
Colleagues, our next agenda item is the report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets concerning committee budgets.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk Assistant, Committees Directorate, will now join us as a witness. I believe I understand that Senator Forest will give some opening remarks and Shaila will help answer any questions.
As usual, this presentation will be followed by a question period. Senator Forest, the floor is yours.
Senator Forest: Thank you. Honourable senators, on behalf of the chair of the subcommittee, I have the honour to present the Fifteenth Report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, which includes recommended allocations for three committee budgets.
Before discussing these, I would like to give you some context. For the current 2023-24 fiscal year, the total funds available for committee expenses will be $2.2 million, less $320,820 for witness expenses, leaving $1.882 million for release for committee budgets.
This is the third allocation for committee budgets for the current fiscal year. You may recall that the Committee on Internal Economy has already approved three travel activities — for the Agriculture, Fisheries and Foreign Affairs committees — and one general expenses budget — for the Committee on Indigenous Peoples — for a total release to date of $406,527.
The subcommittee met last week to review three budget requests.
The subcommittee met with the Chair and deputy chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, who presented a budget request with proposed expenditures of $195,560 for two activities in relation to the committee’s study on the status of soil health in Canada.
Activity 1 is fact-finding in Western Canada for $128,262 and includes funds for 10 senators and 4 parliamentary staff to travel.
Activity 2 is fact-finding in Rome, Italy for $66,940, and includes funds for two senators and two parliamentary staff to travel.
Both activities are proposed for the summer adjournment.
The subcommittee felt that the Western Canada activity, which includes visits to various agricultural research centres, farms and irrigation facilities, aligns well with the committee’s study and appreciates the committee’s efforts to ensure that costs for this trip are reasonable.
With respect to the visit to Rome, the subcommittee was told that the purpose would be to meet with representatives of the UN Food and Agricultural Organization. We also heard that the committee’s intended travel dates would be only a few weeks after the annual plenary session of the Global Soil Partnership.
Your subcommittee reviewed the request and after careful consideration recommends the release of funds for Activity 1, in Western Canada, in the amount of $128,262.
With respect to Activity 2, we were surprised that the committee would not take advantage of the opportunity to attend the annual plenary session. After discussion, the subcommittee agreed to defer consideration of Activity 2, and encourages the committee to reconsider this activity so that it aligns with the plenary session dates, as they felt that attending the group meetings would give more added valued to this activity.
Your subcommittee also met with the Chair of the Fisheries and Oceans Committee, who presented two budget applications.
The first budget application contained a proposed expenditure of $11,003 for one travel activity in relation to the committee’s general mandate to study issues relating to the management of Canada’s fisheries and oceans.
These funds would be to permit one senator to attend the Aqua Nor aquaculture conference in Trondheim, Norway. We were informed that this is the world’s largest aquaculture technology exhibition and would offer an opportunity for the committee to update its knowledge in this area, since its last report on aquaculture in 2015.
Your subcommittee reviewed the request and after careful consideration recommends the release of funds in the amount of $11,003 for Activity 1.
The second budget from the Committee on Fisheries contains a proposed expenditure of $98,914 for one travel activity to Newfoundland for fact-finding and public hearings. This is in relation to the committee’s study on Canada’s seal populations and includes funds for eight senators, 2 senators’ staff and 10 parliamentary staff to travel.
Your subcommittee notes that the committee had submitted a similar budget this past February, which contained funds for 12 members to travel. At the time, the subcommittee felt that the economic situation required a more prudent approach to the use of public funds and encouraged the committee to consider reducing their delegation and looking at other measures to cut costs.
Your subcommittee therefore was pleased to receive the revised request, which reduced the delegation to eight senators and cut one day of public hearings. Your subcommittee notes that public hearings outside of Ottawa will nevertheless require the use of parliamentary resources to support interpretation and transcription.
Upon reflection, the subcommittee recommends the release of funds for Activity 1, in the amount of $98,914, on condition that the committee travel during a non-sitting week. The subcommittee includes this caveat so that already stretched support services are not further constrained.
Finally, we note that the funds previously approved by the Committee on Internal Economy in February, in the amount of $116,933 for the committee to conduct a similar activity in relation to their study will not be used by the committee and can therefore be returned to the pool of available funds for committee activities.
Thus, for the current fiscal year, today’s recommended release of $238,537 brings us to a total for the current fiscal year of $553,991 for four committee travel activities, one conference and one general expenses budget, leaving $1,328,009 for the remainder of the fiscal year. We note that two more budgets are expected, before the Senate rises for the summer.
Unless there are further questions, colleagues, I recommend the adoption of the report.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments for Senator Forest? For Ms. Anwar? Seeing none, I thank you, Senator Forest.
Moved by Senator Forest:
That the Fifteenth Report of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
The next agenda item is the report by the Subcommittee on Human Resources concerning the Annual Health and Safety Committee Report. This report is for information only.
Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, and Shannon Montgomery, Occupational Health, Safety and Wellness Officer, Human Resources Directorate, will join us as witnesses.
This presentation will be followed by a question period.
Senator Saint-Germain, I believe you will present your comments and we will then proceed with a question period.
Senator Saint-Germain: This report is provided to you for information purposes. It is the eighth report by the subcommittee. This is the 2022 annual report on occupational health and safety, which has been included in your documentation. The annual report summarizes occupational health and safety compliance activities undertaken at the Senate in accordance with legal obligations.
Given the relaxation of COVID-19 measures over the last year, the Senate’s occupational health, safety and wellness team has been able to focus on other key areas related to occupational health and safety.
Among the main activities you will find listed in the report, I would like to highlight the introduction of mandatory training, the launch of the LifeWorks Employee and Family Assistance Program platform, and the support from the Occupational Health and Safety Committee, who completed 100% of required workplace inspections. This proactive identification of workplace hazards contributed to correcting 107 potential near misses in the workplace.
Now that you have been apprised of this report, once you have asked your questions and we have been informed, we will make the report public on IntraSen, under the same tab as the previous reports.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain.
[English]
Ms. Francis, do you have any comments on the report or anything to add?
Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, Human Resources Directorate: Good morning, senators. I will just say that I’m really proud of the work the team is doing. We have very dedicated committee members on the health and safety committees and the policy committee.
This year, 250 locations were inspected. We’re seeing a great continuation of reports of near misses. We’re excited to be launching our revised ergonomic website next week. In 2021, we mentioned that we would include ergonomic issues in our near misses, so we are enabling employees to be able to access information to make sure that they are working safely and comfortably. Also, my colleagues Shannon and Linda will provide virtual coaching sessions to ensure we’re sitting and working properly, and using our tools. She walked into my office the other day and said, I needed an ergonomic assessment. So we’re very happy to be able to do that.
In the context of employees who may be working from home, that we can ensure additional safeties to make sure that they can virtually have access to services and support to be coached on how to work safely and ensure that all Senate workplaces are managed effectively.
We’re seeing great use of our EFAP programs. We held 12 sessions this year, some highly attended by our employees across the entire organization. We’re happy to see that. We will be focused next year on the hazard prevention program, which is part of our compliance obligations with the Canada Labour Code. Everything else has been met.
We’ll continue with psychological safety and focus on wellness in the next year, and we are excited to report on that in our next report. Thank you so much.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for the presentations. Ms. Francis, thank you for being here this morning. I’m reading that you completed 100% of the required workplace inspections in your 2022 highlights, and this proactive identification contributed to the correction of 107 workplace hazards. It seems like a high number, and I would like to have some comments on your part. Is that a trend? Are the workplace hazards increasing, and what are we doing with respect to prevention? Because in preventing the workplace hazards, obviously we will have fewer incidents.
Ms. Francis: I think we’re seeing a report of increased reportings, which certainly helps with identifying issues. The deficiencies — I think that’s what maybe the trend is. We’re getting more reporting. We also have more presence on site in the last year, so maybe some things weren’t noticed because of COVID. If we have more things that are being noticed, then we definitely saw a report of more incidents in light of the fact that we’re present and physically here.
We included ergonomics because we said in the last year that we would be including that, because we find that if we are able to identify ergonomic issues and address them through coaching and the services that we have for employees or replacing equipment, then we’re avoiding the long-term injuries, WSIB claims and things like that. Wrapping those in has helped to mitigate risk on the other end of WSIB claims, but it does increase our reporting on the deficiencies or near misses.
The Chair: Any other questions or comments for Ms. Francis or for Senator Saint-Germain? If not, thank you very much.
Colleagues, the next item concerns an amendment to the Senate Administrative Rules to streamline the Senate’s processing of requests to use its intellectual property for commercial purposes. Mélisa Leclerc, Director, Communications Directorate; and David Groves, Legal Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel will now join us as witnesses.
As usual, this presentation will be followed by questions for Mélisa and David.
David Groves, Legal Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: Thank you, senators. We are before you today with a proposal to amend one section of the Senate Administrative Rules. The provision in question, section 11 of chapter 303 — it’s in the briefing note, but I can read it for you later if you would like — currently states that the permission of steering is required for any commercial use of Senate intellectual property unless that use amounts to fair dealing, and we can talk about that later if you would like. We are asking that the provision be expanded so that steering’s permission is only required when the commercial use is significant or where any exception to the scope of intellectual property contained in the statute applies.
The Senate creates and owns a growing amount of IP. For example, recordings of debates, the recording of this committee meeting happening right now, photographs and videos including portraits of senators, and materials made available on the website produced by the Communications Directorate and so on. Over the last few years, we have observed a steady increase in requests from members of the public to use that intellectual property in a wide range of contexts — biographies, academic publications, documentaries, promotional materials.
Per the Senate Administrative Rules, the administration is tasked with answering these requests and to address them, the Communications Directorate and our office developed a permission process over the last couple of years to ensure that the right parties in the administration are contacted to seek the necessary approval. Because of the wording of the provision at issue before you, we must come to steering with every request that has a commercial element, no matter how significant or insignificant. As an example, we often receive requests from academics publishing biographies of former senators. They will make clear to us when asked that they would like one photograph, they intend to put it on one page in the book, and they intend to print an extremely small run, maybe 500 to 1,000 copies.
They will sell some number of those books, and so it’s a commercial request. But the possibility of profit, as those senators who were in academia probably know, is not significant. Perhaps there will be no profit at all. The commercial value of the item that we have given them is negligible to non-existent.
However, because of the wording of the rule, we have to go to steering and seek their permission. Whenever we get something like this, we come to steering and, frankly, steering has far more important things to worry about than these very small uses of Senate IP. The purpose of this change is to simplify the process and speed it up so that we can handle insignificant uses ourselves and to reduce the work load before steering. It will allow us to consider address insignificant uses and to seek direction when the economic value or the nature of the use is significant.
To ensure that we are interpreting the word “significant,” which I acknowledge is subjective, in a manner that senators are comfortable with, there will be an annual report of decisions taken under this power that will be provided to the Subcommittee on Communications.
As a final note, the provision currently makes mention of fair dealing. Fair dealing is a statutory exception to the scope of copyright. I can explain it a bit more if you want, but it’s just one statutory exception. There are dozens of other exceptions in the Copyright Act. An example I can think of right now is that a person with a perceptual disability is allowed to convert a work into a format that they can consume or read without having to seek the permission of the owner. So by expanding this provision to refer to statutory exceptions generally, we are simply reflecting the law as it is, and there are far more exceptions to the scope of intellectual property that exist in Canadian law. I would be happy to take any questions, as would Ms. Leclerc. Thank you.
Senator Bovey: Thank you very much. As you know, in my other life, I have been one of those people asking for copyright permission of works of art in the Senate collection. It’s a long process, and so if this will shorten the process, I know you’ll be helping many publications. The most recent one was for two works. One was a third of a page and the other was half a page in a 472-page book, so they are insignificant in size and scope. One was for the work over Senator Seidman’s head and was one for the portrait of Speaker Molgat, a Manitoba Speaker.
On behalf of anybody who is wanting to use the collection, this is an amazing way of getting the presence of the Senate out into the public — to a public that doesn’t really know what the Senate does, a public that is not only national but international, so I really applaud this. As much as I don’t think these works are insignificant, I can think of their use in that particular book as insignificant, and I think we do need to look at it as a public relations tool for the Senate of Canada.
However, I do have a question. In those two cases, the copyright isn’t held by the Senate. The copyright in some of the instances in our collection is held by the artist, or in the case of the passing of the artist, it is held in their successors’ hands for 70 years after death. How do you work with those cases where, yes, you own the rights to the photograph of the work, yes, you own the work, but somebody else actually owns the copyright?
Mr. Groves: It’s a good question. The vast majority of the requests we get actually don’t relate to intellectual property that belongs to someone else in the heritage collection; it would be stuff that was generated by the Senate. Therefore, it’s a much easier process, as you noted.
Our position has always been — and I know Tamara and the heritage team are excellent at this — that the artist needs to be given, at a bare minimum, information about it. In some cases — with portraits, for example — I believe we owned the copyright as part of acquiring the portrait.
This is neither here nor there, but there are interesting quirks around portraits and copyright in the act. But yes, we would always go and ensure that if there were a question that involved intellectual property that did not belong to us, it’s not our place to say; it’s not a request that is directed to us. I know Tamara has always been very good at that.
Senator Bovey: I just flag it, because it’s another reason for the insignificant requests that it be fast-tracked rather than added to the heavy agenda of steering.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you very much. I understand very well the need for a less bureaucratic approach and more flexibility in your case.
My question is related to the authorization that you need — or do not need — to seek, when the person is living, from the senator in question to authorize the publication of their picture or biography, particularly in the case of university research. Senators are not always associated with university research or are not informed that there is research and that they will be quoted.
Do you contact former senators, or sitting senators, in those situations? In addition to the issue of copyright law as such, do you ensure that you have authorization from the senator in question or that the university, the researcher or the applicant has that permission?
[English]
Mr. Groves: To start with materials that are made available on the website, which includes portraits of sitting senators, we have a public permission on the website. Provided someone follows the terms of that permission, they can use intellectual property on the website. So you might find a situation where someone has taken a picture of a senator off the website and included it in, let’s say, lecture materials in a presentation. Per the terms of the public permission, we are not involved in that. It has already been sorted out.
We do, however, get requests not infrequently to use pictures of senators that have not been published. So someone will contact us and say, “We’re looking for a picture of Senator X. We’re wondering if you have any pictures of them from this time in their life or when this particular event happened.” Mélisa’s team will look into it, and they may have one. Because it’s not published, we can’t rely on that public permission. So we do have to prepare a permission letter.
In that case, we will reach out to the senator. It is required in section 12 that, “A senator shall be advised forthwith of any request for using IP in which they are identifiable.”
[Translation]
Mélisa Leclerc, Director, Communications Directorate: And if it is related to the House, the Office of the Speaker is also consulted, just to ensure that there are no problems.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you for your presentation. Senator Saint-Germain asked the question I was going to ask you, but I have a follow-up.
Is there any oversight of unauthorized use of Senate IP? Because I’m sure there is lots. That would be my follow-up question.
Mr. Groves: That is a fascinating question — perhaps fascinating just to me, but I find it very interesting.
It is true that there are often uses. Like I said, if someone is using our public permissions, we have no idea. Frankly, as a public institution that releases huge sums of intellectual property every day, we don’t know what people are doing with it.
Every once in a while, something comes to our attention. If any of you see anything that looks unusual, I would encourage you to write to us to in the office or to Communications. We prepare a cease-and-desist letter. We have been successful so far in addressing unauthorized requests. Sometimes, you have individuals who believed what they were doing was permitted under Canadian copyright law; sometimes, you have people who were obviously just hoping that we wouldn’t see them.
From the perspective of the administration, we don’t really have the resources to follow our material. There is no way to know who is copying and pasting work off our website. But I will assure you that when we see things, we act as quickly as possible, and we have been quite good at that process over the last few years. Maybe someone would disagree, but I think we have been.
Senator Boyer: I have a question about the definition of the term “significant.” You also said that you are going to report in the first annual report how it was determined over that past year, but there is somebody’s discretion that is going to be used in that first year in determining what “significant” is.
I say this because of the possibility of Indigenous intellectual cultural property being tagged in there somewhere and somebody not being aware of it as it being significant or not, because there is not an Indigenous lens on it.
That’s a flag; it’s a heads-up. Can you please respond to how the term “significant” is determined for that first year? Who is making that determination and how?
Mr. Groves: It’s a great question. When we talked about making this amendment, we went back and forth with different formulations, thinking that it could maybe be a threshold of economic value, for example, if it’s $100 worth of use, that’s fine; if it’s $10 or $15 — the reality is that you can’t really know in advance what the value of a particular use will be. You make a movie; maybe it flops, but maybe it makes $300 million.
Ultimately, after a lot of conversations, we felt comfortable moving forward with a subjective term, as you acknowledged, which is “significant” or “insignificant.”
The position that the administration tries to follow — and if you disagree with me, let me know — is that the work of the Senate should be made available to as many people as possible. What senators want is for Canadians to know about their work. However, it should not be made available for individuals to profit, personally or privately. That’s the general framework that we approach it with.
For example, with a book about a senator, it’s hard to say that what we would be seeing would be a significant profit being generated. That person is not going to go home and build a new garage because of what we gave them.
You also raised an interesting question about intellectual property that belongs to other people that is incorporated into Senate materials. We haven’t really had an issue with that yet. In the context of committee reports, parliamentary privilege limits the scope of intellectual property rights of third parties in those reports. That’s not the case for other materials. In the administration, we take very seriously the intellectual property rights of persons whose materials are on our website or the art that is on the walls. This is all Indigenous art. We take it very seriously.
Unfortunately, you just have to trust us for the first year. That’s — yes, sorry.
Senator Boyer: Okay, there’s a red flag.
Mr. Groves: I can update you; I can keep the committee informed for the first year on what we consider to be “significant.” It’s a fair point that the oversight will come after a year. However, we have done it 11 times now, and it’s always been agreed to by steering.
Ms. Leclerc: A lot of time, the request is not very sensitive in nature. I will give an example. Air Canada’s in-flight magazine enRoute wanted a photo of the Senate of Canada Building just to encourage people landing in Ottawa to come visit the building. I would pay to have advertisement like that.
So these are requests that are not sensitive in nature; the photo is already pretty much everywhere. We’re actually lucky that they asked permission. It is things like this where it’s fairly obvious that there are no sensitivities.
Obviously, if it was a photo of a retired senator, we contact them ahead of time. We make sure. Often, senators are also behind the project. For example, former Senator Fraser is writing an autobiography. She needed permission to use her own photos. I knew senators would agree to this because the request was coming from a former senator. But if there was a doubt about the nature of this project, what are they going to do with these images, I would definitely come to steering or the Subcommittee on Communications to make sure we have a discussion on this.
Senator Boyer: What about, for instance, somebody doing a smudging ceremony? Would you bring that forward?
Ms. Leclerc: When there are smudging ceremonies — for example, we have one coming up for Voices of Youth Indigenous Leaders — we do seek permission from the elders. For example, some are not comfortable with this. Usually there are senators involved, like the steering committee of APPA, for example, recommended that the photo stays internal only. So we also defer to senators for how we approach the distribution of those photos.
Senator Boyer: Thank you.
Mr. Groves: If I can add to that point, setting conditions in advance of the creation of the intellectual property — saying we will or we will not do X — is a good way to ensure coming down the road when it comes to us and we consider the request; we have made clear already, as a condition of recording that ceremony, for example, we would not use it in X or Y fashion.
Senator Boyer: Thank you.
The Chair: If we can limit the conversation to the subject.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for your presentation. Actually, Senator Boyer covered it well. I had highlighted the insignificant commercial uses. In my career, I was lucky enough to see a lot of “insignificant” commercial uses that ended up being very profitable. I’m wondering if you have given any consideration to expanding that. You did mention the threshold, but looking forward, maybe eventually we could put a threshold in there.
Any additional comments as to would you reference any expertise if you were unsure or uncertain as to the commercial usage, and how would you go about determining if it was significant or insignificant? Because I’m certain you will have many requests that will be questionable.
Mr. Groves: We have a process by which when a request is made, it’s submitted on a form. In that form, the person is asked to describe in some level of detail what the request is. We will follow up with them to say, just to be clear, what’s the print run for this book, what’s your intention with this documentary, how much Senate footage will be in this documentary?
I’m acutely aware of how little I know about things, so we would always try to reach out to someone in the administration who could help us if possible to make sure we have the fullest set of information before us when the decision is made.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator Bovey: I have two quick questions. First of all, let’s talk about the Allen Sapp painting that we own. My publisher did go and get permission from Sapp’s estate. Was the publisher required to send you the fact that we got the family copyright permission before you released the photograph? I don’t know that. That’s just one question.
More importantly, are you part of the discussions going on now for the revisions of the Copyright Act? Because I’ve been having a number of meetings with regard to copyright and Indigenous issues in the Copyright Act and the need to strengthen some of that. Are you part of the discussion so that when that act is put on the table, we’re ready as the Senate, as CIBA, to deal with it?
Mr. Groves: On the specifics of that request, I apologize; I don’t know. It may have happened when I was on parental leave. Tamara may know.
Senator Bovey: It’s okay. It’s just a step but it’s there if you need it.
Mr. Groves: In terms of the amendments to the Copyright Act, prior to coming here I was a library analyst, and I worked with one of the two committees that did the review of the Copyright Act. I would be happy to speak with you at length about that act. I know that everyone is very busy, but I’d be delighted to talk to you.
Senator Bovey: I would be happy to. I have met with both Minister Miller and —
Mr. Groves: It’s one of my favourite subjects, particularly the relationship between Indigenous intellectual property. Very interesting. Thank you, senator.
The Chair: I’m glad it’s a favourite subject of yours.
Senator Plett: I’ll be the first to admit that I know very little about the subject matter, so I was not going to ask a question. But when somebody gives an answer “just trust me,” then my flags go up. That’s one of the most dangerous things in the world, “Just trust me; I will do the right thing.”
I think we need more parameters around what “insignificant in nature” is. I certainly support what Senator Boyer was talking about. For us to just say, well, in a year from now we will set the parameters around insignificance, I think before we approve a recommendation like this, we need to have the parameters of “insignificant” set ahead of time, not after the fact.
I want to know who’s going to give permission. We have two good witnesses here in front of us today. Will you be the ones or is somebody in your office going to be the one to make a determination as to significance or insignificance?
I’m sorry, Madam Chair and colleagues. I cannot support this recommendation until we have further discussion around the “insignificant in nature” comment. It seems to be working well. To me, this seems to be trying to fix something that isn’t broken, that we just simply have people who don’t want to go and bother asking for permission and waiting because it might take steering — I think steering is meeting fairly regularly and this would not seem to me to be an issue that would take steering very long to make a determination on whether they would approve this or not.
Chair, I’m hoping that we can table this and get more information before we approve it.
Mr. Groves: In terms of who would be making the decision, it remains the case that there are, within the permissions process, several people who would have to give permission.
Ms. Leclerc: The process is also approved by steering. We went to steering with a new IP approval process. I think you’re involved and I’m involved. Definitely we don’t delegate these responsibilities.
Mr. Groves: We consult on what are the legal considerations that have to be followed, whose approval should be sought in the administration, if it is something that can be determined by the administration. The administration has been directed in the SARs to be the one to do this.
Then in terms of establishing criteria around “insignificant,” we are making assessments based on whether or not the request is likely to generate an even quantifiable volume of profit for the individual involved.
There’s always going to be a speculative element to that. I take your point, senator. We are going to make sure that every decision we make under this provision will be communicated at the end of the year, but we can certainly provide it more frequently to steering if that would satisfy you. I understand your concern about oversight.
Senator Plett: Senator Loffreda made a comment about how often there had been items of insignificance that turned into a great deal of commercial value. Again, my concern is still there. If this is what you’re going to do, if you are saying you and/or Mélisa will be in charge, I would suggest you come back with more of a proper plan of this is how we’re going to do it; this is the process we’re going to use; quarterly, we will go to steering and tell them what we’ve done, something more. I think this is far too open.
I’m not sure whether it was Senator Bovey but somebody at the very beginning, or maybe Senator Saint-Germain talked about the bureaucracy. I’m not a big one to support having more bureaucracy, let me assure you of that. But I am not comfortable with this the way it is worded. I think that we need to have better criteria around this proposal as to who will be able to make the decisions, on what basis they are made.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. I didn’t hear a question there, just a comment. I think it’s duly noted.
Senator Quinn: Thanks for the presentation and thank you for all the discussion.
I’m comfortable with what you’re proposing because you’ve said that you’re the two people who are the key people involved. Picking up a bit on what my colleague Senator Plett said, I’d be fine with a report back to a committee in six months or a year, what are that base is, so we have an understanding of what’s there. At some point, we have to let people do their job and hold them to account. I’m comfortable with the presentation.
Senator Boyer: I am also comfortable with it, but I’m also comfortable with the quarterly reporting rather than a yearly reporting. Then if there are any changes to be made, they could be made. But I’m comfortable going ahead with the provision, as Senator Plett suggested, of quarterly reporting.
The Chair: Are we comfortable with the change that is being proposed, colleagues? No?
There’s a process here and we will have to bring this to the Senate. There is another step, because changes to the Rules need to be approved by the Senate. I will get a mover for this and we’ll see where it goes from there.
Senator Quinn: I’ll move.
The Chair: Senator Quinn moves the following motion:
That the chair be authorized to seek, by way of a report in the Senate, approval to amend section 11 of chapter 3:03 of the Senate Administrative Rules as follows:
No person may make commercial use of intellectual property referred to in Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure except
(a) by way of fair dealing or any other statutory exception to the scope of intellectual property protection;
(b) if the commercial use is insignificant in nature;
(c) with the consent of the steering committee.
I would add to the motion that a quarterly report would be presented to steering.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division. Thank you, Mélisa and David, for an excellent presentation.
We are moving on to other matters. Colleagues, are there any other matters you would like to discuss before we go in camera?
Senators, before we proceed in camera, I would like to take a moment to thank our colleague the Honourable Senator Bovey for her contribution here at CIBA and on the different committees where she held an important position.
In 2021, CIBA approved the updated Policy on Senate Artwork and Heritage Assets. Senator Bovey led the policy review to ensure the Senate has the necessary framework to prudently manage the collection of artwork and artifacts on behalf of Canadians.
During her time as chair of the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group, Senator Bovey established programs such as Cultivating Perspectives, Museums at the Senate, Honouring Canada’s Black Artists and Visual Voices. The objective of these programs is to increase the representation of Canadians in the artwork on display at the Senate. Senator Bovey brought the works of important Canadian artists such as Edward Burtynsky, Tim Whiten, Denyse Thomasos and many others to the Senate. In 2022, Dr. Roberta Bondar donated one of her photographs — and I think it’s one my favourites, by the way — to the Senate in honour of Senator Bovey’s contributions to arts and culture in Canada.
Senator Bovey also oversaw the Senate’s annual artwork and heritage furniture conservation program. Highlights of the conservation treatment completed to date include the portrait of King Edward VII, the portrait of the Honourable Joseph Édouard Cauchon, the first Speaker of the Senate, and the desks in the Senate Chamber.
Senator Bovey, we have greatly appreciated your involvement and your ideas. On behalf of the committee, we wish you all the best in your future endeavours. We’re not done with you yet, senator.
On this, I would like to hand the floor to you, Senator Bovey.
Senator Bovey: Madam Chair and colleagues, I’m overwhelmed. It has been a real honour working with CIBA, with all of you in many committees and all the subcommittees. In some of them we were charting new territory, weren’t we, Senator Saint-Germain? It was wonderful.
With the Artwork and Heritage committee, I leave knowing that the policies are good. The previous discussion on copyright relate to that work, which I appreciate. Without further ado, I want to say that I had the pleasure on Sunday of coming back here hand-carrying the two Elvis Antoine paintings that former MP Jon Gerrard and his artist wife, Naomi Gerrard, are giving to the Senate to hang in this room, which will help Manitoba Indigenous representation.
If I may say one other things, there are a few loose ends that I will be tying up in the next few days, but I want you to know, Senator Tannas, the work on deaccessioning is continuing and the next report given to this committee will have more items on it. I took your challenge to heart and I want to thank you all. That’s the end of what I have to say to this committee.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Bovey.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I would like to move that Senator Bovey’s evidence be officially included in the minutes of this meeting of the Committee on Internal Economy.
[English]
The Chair: Are we all in agreement? Thank you.
[Translation]
Colleagues, if there are no further questions that we need to address in the public session, we will now go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)