LIPA Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, November 6, 2003

0940

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin (Lauzon, Lib.))

Mr. Richard Paré (Parliamentary Librarian, Library of Parliament)

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Mr. Richard Paré

0945

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Mr. Glenn O'Brien (Consultant, Library of Parliament)

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ)

0950

Mr. Richard Paré

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Richard Paré

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Richard Paré

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Richard Paré

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Richard Paré

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Richard Paré

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Richard Paré

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Richard Paré

0955

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.)

Mr. Richard Paré

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Richard Paré

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Richard Paré

1000

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Richard Paré

Ms. Dianne Brydon (Director, Parliamentary Public Programs, Library of Parliament)

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance)

1005

Mr. Richard Paré

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. Glenn O'Brien

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. Glenn O'Brien

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. Glenn O'Brien

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. Glenn O'Brien

1010

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. Richard Paré

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. Richard Paré

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. Richard Paré

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. Richard Paré

Miss Deborah Grey

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Senator Michael J. Forrestall (Dartmouth and the Eastern Shore, PC)

1015

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Senator Michael J. Forrestall

Miss Deborah Grey

Senator Michael J. Forrestall

Mr. Glenn O'Brien

Mr. Richard Paré

Senator Michael J. Forrestall

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)

Mr. Richard Paré

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Glenn O'Brien

1020

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Richard Paré

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Glenn O'Brien

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Glenn O'Brien

Mr. Richard Paré

Ms. Marlene Catterall

1025

Mr. Richard Paré

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Richard Paré

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Richard Paré

Mr. Glenn O'Brien

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Glenn O'Brien

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Glenn O'Brien

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Glenn O'Brien

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Glenn O'Brien

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Senator Michael J. Forrestall

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Senator Michael J. Forrestall

Mr. Glenn O'Brien

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.))

1030

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett)

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett)

Mr. Richard Paré

1035

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett)

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett)

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett)

Mr. Richard Paré

Mr. Hugh Finsten (Associate Parliamentary Librarian, Library of Parliament)

1040

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Mr. Hugh Finsten

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett)

Mr. Richard Paré

1045

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett)

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett)

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett)

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett)

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett)

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett)

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett)

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Mr. Richard Paré

Mr. Hugh Finsten

1050

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Mr. Richard Paré

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Senator Michael J. Forrestall

Mr. Richard Paré

Senator Michael J. Forrestall

Mr. Richard Paré

Senator Michael J. Forrestall

Mr. Richard Paré

1055

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett)

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett)

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin)

CANADA

Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament

NUMBER 009

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, November 6, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0940)

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin (Lauzon, Lib.)): The Library of Parliament administration received a request in writing and we will now hear pertinent testimony from Mr. Richard Paré, Mr. Finsten, Ms. Boutin, Ms. Brydon and Ms. Brodie. Welcome everyone.

Before we begin, I'd like to note that this appearance, far from reflecting any criticism, is tied to our interest in the Library. As we have stated on numerous occasions, we are staunch supporters of the Library of Parliament and of its accomplishments. Moreover, we appreciate the services that the Library provides.

We have asked Mr. Paré to testify before us today because we view our role as endeavouring, in so far as possible, to assist Library of Parliament managers.

You have the floor, Mr. Paré.

Mr. Richard Paré (Parliamentary Librarian, Library of Parliament): Thank you, Senator Morin. You mentioned letters. Let me quickly recall the following facts for you, to put things in context.

[English]

The first letter was dated June 16, from the committee co-chair, asking questions about communications with parliamentarians, staff professional development, and the long-term vision and strategic plan. They also indicated in that letter four areas of concern identified by the committee, notably, financial resources, electronic technology, the use of the Internet by parliamentary committees, and the copyright law.

In our letter of response on July 25, I gave an extensive response to the three questions raised and indicated that we would be pleased to address the areas of concern identified by the committee.

On September 25 we received another letter from the steering committee, raising additional questions to our response, notably with regard to the 2003-04 budget and 2002-03 financial statements, staff professional development opportunities, public outreach activities, the long-term vision and strategic plan of the library, the organizational structure, and the e-consultation activities.

In our letter of October 15, I answered the concerns about the resources. We added five appendices to our letter giving all the information that was requested related to the questions raised.

[Translation]

We'd be happy to answer any questions or discuss any ideas you may have.

Also here with me today is Mr. Glenn O'Brien from O'Brien Consultants.

[English]

If we have questions about modernization of the comptrollership, he is the consultant helping us to implement and pick out the plans. I also have with us Mr. Alain Guimont, director of corporate planning, Mr. Bonnaventure, director of human resources, and Mr. Daniel Brassard, director of the science and technology division.

We have a full team of management here to give you the answers. If we cannot answer one of the questions, we will take it in reserve and send you a written response shortly after the meeting. That's my introduction. We are ready.

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Paré.

Will there be any questions?

[Translation]

Do you have any questions for Mr. Paré or for any members of his team. I can start.

[English]

We'll give you time to go over the documents. I have a number of questions, and maybe my co-chair will have some.

I'd like first to deal with the matter of The Hill Times article this morning. I might say that we were somewhat surprised to read this while we were not informed of the existence of this study. I'm referring to the Deloitte and Touche study. According to the article--and we got the report afterwards--the ratings were low. The average rating was between 1 to 2.5 out of a possible score of 5.

If I understand correctly, my first question is, the library itself asked for that study, is that right? So it's all in your favour. I have to say that you've asked for the report. We shouldn't blame you too much. You are the ones who initiated this. That's certainly a good point, but The Hill Times and many people made much of the low scores.

Would you have comments on the low scores in that study? How does that compare with other small agencies? Is that unusual? Were you expecting this? Would you comment on that?

Mr. Richard Paré: Yes. This goes back to the fall of 2002. As you know, the library is a service delivery organization, so we put the majority of our resources on serving the clients. We have never put too much on the structures or the management. Over the years, we have always emphasized client service.

In the fall of 2002 my manager advised me that it would be worthwhile to have a study and look at the model the Treasury Board was implementing for the departments and agencies. I found that a good idea and said we'd go ahead with that. We asked Treasury Board. They came in and gave us some direction. Then we had this study done on the modernization of the functions of comptrollership at the library. This was done, I believe, in early 2003, in February or that area. We received the first report during the first three months of 2003.

Based on that, we scored very low. The principle of the study was to interview all the managers in the library based on a framework established by Treasury Board. The study was conducted by Deloitte and Touche.

As you will see in one of the annexes I sent, we paid for the study but we were reimbursed by Treasury Board. I would like to commend the Treasury Board secretary, Mr. James Judd, for that, because small agencies like the library always have the same problem: we don't have the resources to start and implement something new. He helped us by doing that, and he helps other small agencies.

We were told that other agencies and even some departments are also scoring very low. The intention is to improve. When you have that situation, then you say, “We will improve”.

We scored well on the financial services and the accounting services at the library, so I was pleased with that, but we were very low in terms of leadership, human resources development, communications, and planning. We knew we were weak in those areas.

This is where we are starting a plan. We have a consultant who is helping us organize a plan for that. We have already identified the key sectors we will develop, the priorities, and we have champions for each group. We have task groups. We will be implementing this.

¿ (0945)

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): Thank you.

Have other agencies or any organizations within the House of Commons or the Senate been subjected to such a study, or are you the first ones as far as you know?

Mr. Richard Paré: I believe the House of Commons probably had some studies too, before, but--

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): But you don't know how your results compare to others? This is my question.

Mr. Richard Paré: No. I think I would refer that to the consultant because he has been involved with all of these and with the Treasury Board. Perhaps he could comment. Maybe he will be able to comment more in terms of comparisons with others.

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): Could you identify yourself, please?

Mr. Glenn O'Brien (Consultant, Library of Parliament): Yes, sir. Good morning. My name is Glenn O'Brien. I'm an independent consultant engaged with the Library of Parliament as well as a couple of other government agencies.

In this particular engagement I've been working with them and helping them through the modern management initiative. I will note a couple of things just to clarify. While Monsieur Paré is quite right in an absolute sense, I think, that the ratings for the Library of Parliament were low--and the scale was one to five--what one has to bear in mind is that it's a very rigorous scale. Even to achieve a level three on that scale, you must have fundamentally very sound management practices in place. The experience has been that when most government agencies and departments undertake this capacity assessment, the ratings are well below three. Again, it's a self-assessment,

I don't have a lot of statistics in front of me, but on the ones I am aware of, the Library of Parliament, for instance, on average was rating around 1.5. The average rating for Federal Judicial Affairs, which is a client of mine, was 1.8. Status of Women Canada is about 1.8. The Transportation Safety Board is about 1.9, on average. The Canadian Space Agency was about 2.2.

So while I think it's fair to say the library has work to do to improve its management practices over time to achieve the level that the independent panel on modern comptrollership suggested departments should achieve, it's very much in the same range as many organizations, particularly, I think, the small agencies.

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): Thank you.

[Translation]

I'll stop there. I'll have other questions later. I'll now turn the floor over to Mr. Gagnon who has some questions of his own.

[English]

If there are no other questions from the committee, I have a list here.

Monsieur Gagnon.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Thank you for recognizing me so quickly, particularly since I have to leave in five minutes.

The following is noted on page 2 of the briefing notes: “The Assessment provided ratings for 33 criteria that fell within seven major areas”. I'm wondering if I understand these areas clearly. Mention is made of “strategic leadership” and “motivated people”. Is the latter a reference to motivating staff?

¿ (0950)

Mr. Richard Paré: That's correct.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: What is meant by “mature risk management”?

Mr. Richard Paré: It's a reference to how risk is managed.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Were translation services rated?

Mr. Richard Paré: No, we didn't have time to do that.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: That would be a worthwhile exercise.

Earlier, you said it was hard to receive a top rating in many of these areas. One area that fascinates me is motivating staff. To my mind, if an organization cannot motivate its workers, it will have a hard time succeeding. As I see it, it's important to motivate staff from the outset in order to achieve stated objectives. How did the Library of Parliament rate in terms of motivating its employees?

Mr. Richard Paré: I don't have a figure for you, but I know that it was not rated very highly in this area. I blame this on a number of factors, one of which is the fact that ours is a rapidly changing field and many of our employees are concerned by the speed at which their work is changing. That may be one reason.

Another factor is our need to position ourselves to meet client needs in the 21st century. The needs of clients, MPs and senators are changing, primarily as a result of the arrival of the Internet a decade ago. Requirements have changed owing to the need to respond to the incoming flood of e-mails. That's another reason.

Another factor is the lack of a comprehensive personnel development and training program. We scored poorly in this area. Each manager is responsible for training and development, but the Library has never had an overall program for its staff. Once it does, I think staff motivation will improve.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: You're in the process of developing a program to motivate personnel.

Mr. Richard Paré: Yes, it's a priority for our organization.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Another area listed is “clear accountability”. One factor that may account for the lack of motivation is the absence of clear accountability. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Richard Paré: There is clear accountability, but in changing times, some uncertainty may prevail.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: That's where it gets a little muddy.

Mr. Richard Paré: Correct. The Library has also undergone management changes. Some managers have retired, and a few more are slated to retire in the next two years. Therefore, we're making some changes and that may contribute to a lack of clarity. That's one factor. In my view, it's not the main one, but it's a possible one.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: How was the Library rated in the area “shared values and ethics”?

Mr. Richard Paré: We were not rated very highly. I believe we received a rating of 1. However, we've always maintained certain intrinsic values, because our staff are mindful that they are serving Parliament. They are dedicated to serving Parliament and they are always neutral. They subscribe to certain widely understood core values. Now may be the time to try and impart a number of other values to staff.

However, we have never attempted to put our values in writing. We had a mission statement and once, we had a vision statement. However, all of this needs to be reviewed because this is what employees look to when developing their values. Fundamentally, that's what we are missing. It's not a question of our lacking values. It may well be that employees do not hear us speak often enough about the values we do have. We plan to focus on values and ethics. In fact, we've already struck a committee for this very purpose.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: These are important points. My final question concerns “rigorous stewardship”. In fact, everything here pertains to management. This is the starting point for improvements in all areas.

I was somewhat surprised by the rating you received. Personally, I would have given you a higher rating. On the few occasions I used the Library's services, I was left with a fairly good impression.

Before I leave, I want to thank you. I'd also like you to work toward improving the translation, because it's hard to figure out what your criteria actually mean in French.

Again, thank you very much.

Mr. Richard Paré: I'll take your comment under advisement.

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): Mr. Gagon should have been the party doing the assessment, instead of Deloitte & Touche. He would have given you a higher rating.

Go ahead, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): First off, I want to thank you for coming here, as well as for reassuring Mr. Gagnon. It isn't so much the translation that is wanting, but rather the expressions that are used, even in the English text. If we're assessing motivated persons, it means we've already achieved the objective. Consequently, no assessment is necessary. What we're in fact assessing is the degree of motivation. That's quite another matter, and we could go on discussing this at great length.

My question is quite straightforward. You talk about public awareness and I see this as an extremely important objective. Am I correct in assuming that the fist group that we should be targeting, in terms of increasing awareness, is students? Has a program been developed for this express purpose? If so, how does it work?

Mr. Richard Paré: Are you talking about increasing student awareness?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, because in your letter, you mentioned a public awareness campaign. I believe you spoke of a program to be implemented over a three-year period. However, I don't know which group your program will be targeting. Clearly, every group cannot be targeted in the same manner. Do you have anything special planned for young persons? If so, what might that be?

Mr. Richard Paré: I'll have to refer you to parliamentary programs for the public. Obviously, we target certain groups, one of which is young persons, particularly those nearing completion of their secondary or CEGEP studies.

For example, we host the Teachers Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy, which happens to be taking place this very week. Seventy teachers from across the country are chosen by their peers to spend one week here in Ottawa. They learn all about the workings of Parliament, meet with MPs and senators, attend committee meetings, and so forth. This development opportunity goes a long way to helping youth learn about how Parliament works.

We also put out a number of publications about Parliament for the general public. We target different client groups. These publications are available for distribution by MPs to their constituents. That's the kind of initiative with which we are involved.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you. I'd like to take this opportunity to make a recommendation, or at least a suggestion.

Every year, many schools send their students to visit Parliament. This is a tradition in many schools. Would you have, for example, an interactive program where students could spend a half hour or forty-five minutes doing something interactive? They may find your publications interesting, but perhaps they would prefer an interactive program or some type of computer program to learn about government. Perhaps this approach could systematically be taken. Once a school has announced its plans to visit Parliament, it could avail itself of this programming option. Is a program like this already available, and if not, would it be feasible to offer it?

Mr. Richard Paré: This type of programming is available on a very limited basis. At the visitors centre, people can use an interactive computer screen to ask questions and obtain a considerable amount of information. Young persons can use this service while they are waiting.

Your suggestion that this programming option be extended to groups is an excellent one. I don't think our plans called for this activity, but I will certainly suggest it because it's an excellent idea, particularly for young people.

À (1000)

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): We could also combine this programming option with video games.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Absolutely.

Mr. Richard Paré: Let's see if Dianne Brydon has anything to add, since this is her area of responsibility.

Ms. Dianne Brydon (Director, Parliamentary Public Programs, Library of Parliament): To answer your first question, the Library does offer at this time some programs for young people. The Forum of Young Canadians is one such program.

[English]

For example, there is the Forum for Young Canadians, Encounters with Canada, Adventure in Citizenship, where students can come to Ottawa on a regular basis and have an experience with Parliament. As Mr. Paré mentioned, we have the Teachers' Institute.

[Translation]

the Teachers Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy, which is currently taking place.

[English]

We made the decision when we started that program not to recreate another youth program. If we bring in teachers, immediately those teachers will have an impact on 30 or 100 students, and as they teach they'll have an impact on more.

We didn't want to compete with those other programs with which we work to help organize their programs on the Hill. We wanted to set up something for teachers because they have more of an elongated impact on their students. As well, many teachers are very involved in their communities, and citizenship engagement is something we really work toward.

With regard to bringing students to the Hill and having a place where they can interact with Parliament, there isn't one. We have a very small visitor welcome centre, where we can greet one tour group at a time to give them an orientation to the Hill before they leave on their tour. We don't have a place where we can bring students to even have members of Parliament and senators meet with them. We don't have a room for that. We don't have what many museums call a discovery room, where they can do role playing and other activities. It's something we're looking at.

It ties into the impact on security now. We're having a hard time getting as many school groups that want to come through security because of the clampdown on security. There is that reason as well as needing a place. Real estate in Centre Block is very valuable. There's not that much space for it. With Public Works and Government Services Canada and the National Capital Commission we are looking at the feasibility of creating a visitor centre for the Hill, where we could have places for students to interact, to role play, and where we could properly screen them away from Centre Block, which is a security issue, and I don't want to get into that. We are looking at a place where we could greet the 1.5 million people who come to the Hill and want to get into the buildings. A big part of that is school groups.

It's a major concern. We are looking at it and we're working on it right now.

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): I want to be specific about Mr. Saada's recommendation here.

I think we should make a distinction between the tourists who come just to take a 10-minute tour and the students who come here on an organized tour. What Mr. Saada is suggesting is a number of terminals that could be accessible to students for a period of time, and that would be part of the tour.

As I say, c'est cela, je pense, que tu recommandais.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, Mr. Chair.

I do appreciate your answer, by the way, and I have no intent to diminish the importance of the programs you mentioned. Of course, I do value them very much.

My concern is that, yes, indeed, there is a domino effect when teachers come to the Hill. You have an effect also, an impact, when students come to the Hill with the various programs.

My suggestion was a bit more than that. I think members of Parliament should have a role, and I don't know exactly how it works in the Senate, but all senators should also have a role to inform the Library of Parliament when they have a group coming. They should be offered in return the possibility for that class, with a teacher, to have some location where they can interact. I understand the physical constraints and security problems, but I do feel you are on the right track in trying to pursue that.

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): Miss Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): I know the teachers are here this week, Diane, and it's great. As a teacher myself, if everyone is scoring 1.5 out of 5, that ain't good. So I don't know if you want to change a bell curve, or whatever, but...

À (1005)

Mr. Richard Paré: I agree with you.

Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. O'Brien, could I just ask you a question or two? You mentioned the various government departments. Did you call them small? I forget the word you used.

Mr. Glenn O'Brien: Well, there are departments and small agencies. Most of our clients are small agencies.

Miss Deborah Grey: Okay. The numbers you rattled off were 1, 1.5, 1.8, 1.9. I'm not sure. Is that good, bad, lousy?

Mr. Glenn O'Brien: It's on a scale from 1 to 5.

Miss Deborah Grey: I understand it's on a scale of 1 to 5. I'm still asking, is 1.8 good, bad, or lousy? Would you pass or fail it in the classroom? Let's put it that way.

Mr. Glenn O'Brien: I don't want this response to appear flippant, but....

Miss Deborah Grey: Or my question.

Mr. Glenn O'Brien: No, not at all.

In my view, there is no pass or fail in a test like this. If we go back, we'll see that what happened around 1996 or 1997 was that the government and particularly the President of the Treasury Board or the Treasury Board Secretariat--I'm not sure which--decided that what they characterized at the time as comptrollership practices in the federal government, across the government, likely were not strong. They commissioned a blue ribbon panel in 1996 or 1997 to review the government's practices. That took about a year. In late 1997, I think, they issued a report and said essentially, “You're correct. Government generally does not have good management practices in place.”

They were still calling it comptrollership at the time, but what they were saying was that it goes beyond the debits and credits, and it goes beyond stewardship and controlling budgets. They were saying, “We don't manage well. We need to do a better job.” They had an initial five departments and then fifteen do a pilot phase over three years, which I think ended in 2001. Those pilots did their diagnostic tests using this capacity check tool. The tool is 33 pages long. In those 33 pages, each page describes an element of management. There is a grid from 1 to 5 describing what would be in place to achieve the plateau of the 5 scale. It gets progressively more rigorous, which is not surprising. As I said earlier, even to achieve a level 3, that's far and away more sophisticated; it implies better management practices than exist in probably any department in the government.

I don't believe you would find one department that scored a 3 in all 33 criteria. I don't have the numbers in front of me. I could probably do some analysis and take an undertaking if you like, but the sense I have is that many of the departments are in this 1 to 2.5 range by element. Typically what we've found is that all departments do much better on the areas that have been traditionally sound in the government, and that's the stewardship stuff, like making sure people sign in accordance with the delegation of authorities. They're also strong in internal control. They also do a good job of producing financial statements.

What they don't do a good job of is the capabilities around things like risk management and resource management models, having a values and ethics statement in place, and giving people a say in how they do their work, all that type of what as an accountant I would characterize as the softer science stuff, although that's just where I'm coming from.

The long and the short of it is that there's no pass or fail. In 2002 the government, through the President of the Treasury Board, said all departments need to undertake this new initiative, and the first step is that everyone needs to do this capacity assessment, this self-assessment of current management practices.

Now, one thing about the tool that isn't clear, unless you've drilled down and have been working on this for a while, is that the tool doesn't measure how effective you are as a manager. It measures more the processes you have in place and your capability. So larger departments can tend to score a little higher because they might have five or six people working in an organization that is called “corporate services” or “strategic planning”. Also, they may have a values and ethics champion who actually has staff to initiate some of this.

As for small agencies, with 60 FTEs in the case of FJA, about 280 in the case of the Library of Parliament, and probably something like 130 or 140 in the case of Status of Women Canada, they need to have people wearing several hats. They don't have that sophistication of capability, and values and ethics is probably the best example.

What the tool measures is not whether your staff and the management have values and work ethically; it measures whether you have a values and ethics statement in place. Is there a champion for values and ethics? It measures whether there is a booklet you can distribute to your staff that talks about ethical dilemmas. It's that type of thing.

So an organization like the Library of Parliament...actually, I think the staff have acknowledged in their self-assessment that they do have two overwhelming values they go by: they're neutral and they're non-partisan. That is across the organization. So they have strong values and they have a very good ethic, but they don't have the sophisticated procedures in place.

With that as a backdrop--and if this answer is too long, stop me--what the tool measures is processes and procedures in place, which will allow you to achieve a higher score, essentially, on this diagnostic scale. The whole purpose of the test is like when you go to language training for the first time. They don't know what kind of curriculum to prepare for you because they don't know where you are, so you go in and do a diagnostic. You may find that you have a good capability in reading and you have a good understanding of some of the rules and regulations, but you can't speak it, so you're very low on the scale. They'll then develop a curriculum around you, based on your strengths and weaknesses.

À (1010)

That's what this is about. The diagnostic tool is about finding out where you have strong practices, where you have weak practices, and setting out over the long term to develop a plan of action for improvement.

Miss Deborah Grey: Which, boiled right down, says this is always a work in progress, right? It says you need to be working on things. In this place, where we live by communications and how you communicate such things, it seems to me that on your bell-less curve, for instance, in the work in progress, you get headlines like “Library of Parliament years away from modern management”, “Library of Parliament lacks 'commitment...”, “Report creates shock waves in renowned Library of Parliament”. That doesn't do a whole heck of a lot for the morale, I wouldn't think, of staff or management. Then, one of the paragraphs says, “It found that a 'we-they' relationship exists between managers and staff and that a 'rivalry exists between the service delivery branches'”.

Somehow, in every human relationship, we need to get over that. I don't know what the benefit of this is. If I worked in the library or were on the management team, I'd probably just burst into tears and say, “What the...?” I don't know how much help this is. It's nice, but in a communications aspect, I just think this is pure pain. I don't know where you go from here.

Mr. Richard Paré: If I may, Madam Grey, of course, we were all very disappointed when we saw this article in the newspaper, in The Hill Times. But I invited--

Miss Deborah Grey: Yes, but I mean you're great because it's 1.5 and 1.8.

Mr. Richard Paré: Yes, but I invited the staff to read the answer Mr. Finsten wrote the week after. It was under the title “Library has 'winning formula'”. We have made some adjustments to the answer. Just to complete, perhaps, or to indicate to the committee, I mentioned this study at the April 10 meeting we had with the committee: that it was going on, that we had already received results, and that we were looking at the results.

We did consultations with the staff and then the study was put on the Intranet site of the library. Maybe from there, although I don't know, that is how that it ended up in the hands of the newsmen.

Miss Deborah Grey: Yes, but we should--

Mr. Richard Paré: No, I know, but you know--

Miss Deborah Grey: That's just what happens on Parliament Hill. That's probably a caution, I suppose. This doesn't have to be secretive or anything like that, but if we're average and moving toward something better, then do what you need to do with the numbers, so it's not necessarily pass or fail, but it doesn't look like a disaster. I think for any one of us, or any news agency, or any person, or any kid here on tour, 1.8 out of 5 sucks. That's what they will tell you, the teachers who are here right now.

Mr. Richard Paré: But after a few years of implementation, which we want to do, we will review that. Then we will compare the scores and we will see how we have improved--

Miss Deborah Grey: Okay.

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): Miss Grey, I think your point is extremely well taken. You're expressing what I was hoping to get at. It was a communications disaster, there's no doubt about that. The perception is what I'm referring to, and this is what you're saying.

Senator Michael J. Forrestall (Dartmouth and the Eastern Shore, PC): I have a supplementary.

À (1015)

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): Sure. Go ahead, Senator.

Senator Michael J. Forrestall: I read that article last summer. What immediately occurred to me was that there were two things. First of all, how does that compare your management practices with the private sector? Of course, there was nothing in the story with respect to that. Was there anything in the study that even attempted to relate your levels with levels in the private sector? At the same time--the second thing that went through my mind--I wonder what we are today. Are we a good employer? Are we a better employer? Or are we the best employer? Are our practices good? Are they better? Or are they best, much better, for example, than those in the private sector?

That's what struck me. I didn't cry--

Miss Deborah Grey: I haven't yet either.

Senator Michael J. Forrestall: However, I might have wondered about it. I wonder if those comparisons were made.

Mr. Glenn O'Brien: I can speak to the first question.

No, there was no comparison done during the conducting of the capacity assessment to see how the Library of Parliament compared with other organizations, because again, that's not the purpose of the exercise at all. It's to be a self-assessment done by an organization's own managers on the capability of their practices. So how you relate to other agencies doesn't matter. Treasury Board, in their literature, will tell you this is not an audit. It's not a report card. It's a diagnostic to tell you where to start out to improve.

Of course, I think it's fair to say that management at the library was kind of curious after they saw this tabulated, because it doesn't strike you until you see it in a table, and then it's “How do we stack up?” The response is “Very well”. All these organizations, particularly the small ones, have a lot of challenges. The government has earmarked $30 million for this initiative over three years, and they wouldn't be spending $30 million if the departments and agencies all had fundamentally sound management practices at this time.

On the one hand, you could suggest that it's perhaps discouraging to the staff to see this, but on the other hand I think it's very encouraging that there was a frank assessment done by the managers of their own capabilities. They said “We have improvements to make.” They have a plan in place, and over a number of years they intend to achieve very solid management practices in all 33 criteria.

Mr. Richard Paré: If I may add some comments about good employers and best employers, I would say that we are a good employer, and maybe a very good employer. I'm not sure we are the best. We are not necessarily the best if we compare, but I think the library is a good employer.

Senator Michael J. Forrestall: My question, of course, was where should we be? Should we be a fair or a good employer? Should we be better than average? Or should we be leaders? From that come some tests with respect to the lessons you can draw from an unasked for and unwanted incursion into your private affairs. I would have told them to go to hell and sued them. That would have happened in the private sector.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): Thank you.

Mrs. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): When was this review actually completed?

Mr. Richard Paré: February 25, 2003.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm a little surprised to hear you say that in a couple of years we'll go back and see how we've improved. I would have thought you'd want to do it much sooner than that, on at least an annual basis.

Mr. Glenn O'Brien: Well, if I may, maybe I should go back.

What the library has done is immediately after the completion of the report, individual interviews were held with senior management in November, and in December we had workshops. It took Deloitte Touche until about the end of January to consolidate the results into a report, and it was validated. They took a subset of senior managers, who had individual capacity, to check interviews, as well as about half of the middle managers, who were participating in the workshops, to review the results to say, yes, that's what we said, that's what we think. It wasn't until about February 19 that the report was ready. It was released to all managers on February 25 and a debriefing exercise was held. In March we briefed the remaining managers on the results of the report.

At that time, we started to put together an action plan for improvement. My recommendation was that the library have three phases to the action plan. In the first phase, key priority areas would be picked that would help it essentially move the yardsticks. The priorities I recommended and that the library chose were: leadership, organization, and people and planning. In my view, if you do those things right, then a lot of the other management practices will fall into place.

So the plan in the first two years of the action plan is to focus on those three priority areas. We had a workshop in January, with all managers participating, including the parliamentary librarian and the associate. We developed a key theme that would help us achieve those priority areas.

There have been eight projects identified. We have team leaders in place for each of the eight projects. We met last week. They're now building their own teams who will develop desired outcome success criteria and all that project management stuff that goes around it. The idea is to do those first eight projects in the two years starting now essentially.

When those eight projects are complete and in place, then we'll do a very brief internal capacity assessment and look at these criteria again and see how much improvement we've made based on these eight projects. The idea is that the work you do in terms of improving your practices not only depends on where you want to go, but it depends on currently where you are.

That's the beauty of the capacity assessment, because it gives you that baseline. But because we're going to be doing work on eight projects over two years, the baseline is going to move up. We'll do another very brief capacity assessment, see where we are in relation to the 33 criteria, and then develop our plan for improvement over the next two years based on that new baseline.

The idea is that in the second two-year period we will go and target in all 33 elements of good management, a kind of level 3. I hate to use a number because a number really does not mean anything. It's the capacity to manage that you have to have in place under the description of the number. That's the important thing.

Then we'll do another diagnostic two years hence and develop an action plan for selected elements that will achieve a very good level of management.

I would like to add one last point. One other important thing to bear in mind when you're looking at this capacity assessment is that not all the criteria will apply equally to each department. It depends very much on your size and on the nature of the business you do.

If you are an organization like the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, where you have case processing centres and you generate thousands of documents every month, work standards are very important to you. It's important that you generate x number of documents each and every month, and if you don't, your productivity is going to slide. So you can use that as a service standard.

In a place like the library, where you're providing professional advice, you can't have that kind of numerical work standard. So you may have to place more emphasis on another element. What you need to do is set your objectives based on the nature of the work you do and the clients you serve.

À (1020)

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Well, that is very interesting.

My question was, why wait two years to see how much progress you're making, or whether you're making any progress, or whether you're on totally the wrong road, frankly? That would take you to three years after the initial study. The question is, why wait two years? I think that's too long.

Second, in doing your three priorities, are you addressing how you do those things? Some of the other key problems I saw were identified as communication and involvement of staff. So far, all you've mentioned are workshops and meetings of managers. It doesn't seem to me that there was a problem in that area.

Mr. Richard Paré: When I mentioned two or three years, Madam Catterall, I was referring more to the diagnostics, where we were and where we are. We can report on, in the first and second year, how we are moving on and what we have done.

You mentioned the priorities: communication, employee development, training--

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I don't think that was in the first three priorities that were mentioned.

Mr. Glenn O'Brien: No, I'm sorry. I guess I didn't give you a complete response.

One of the eight projects we were establishing initially was communication. It's a project that overlaps both the leadership priority area and what I would characterize as the organization of people priority area.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, and that's what I'm saying. Is the way in which you do things like your organizational realignment taking into consideration these other concerns about communication among staff?

Mr. Glenn O'Brien: Absolutely.

Mr. Richard Paré: Yes, it's part of the eight priorities we established.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No. I'm asking, is it going to be integrated in what you're doing? If communication is a problem, then that has to be part of everything you do, not something that's dealt with separately. You can't be developing a new organizational structure for the library and leaving the communication element out of how that's developed, and then go off and say you will treat communication in this little box.

À (1025)

Mr. Richard Paré: Yes, I understand what you mean.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I wanted to ask about the other study that was done. Perhaps you're not prepared to discuss this with the committee yet, on the management of information technology. When are you ready to share that with the committee?

Mr. Richard Paré: I think you're referring to--

Ms. Marlene Catterall: That is an issue that's been before the committee previously.

Mr. Richard Paré: We can try to answer your question. If we cannot, we will certainly provide an answer to the committee. Do you have a question in that area?

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): How would you prefer to deal with it? Do you want this discussed at the next meeting?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think it's obviously something that's fundamental to how we move forward with the library. I think we might want it discussed in a separate meeting.

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): Okay. Perhaps we will put it on the agenda for the next meeting.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I guess it always disturbs me when we say we're not doing that great but neither is anybody else. That sort of justifies we're not doing that great. To me it doesn't, frankly.

Where does the library fall on the median? What's the median performance here, and are you above or below it?

Mr. Richard Paré: That's a good question. I'm not sure.

Mr. Glenn O'Brien: I don't have those numbers. Probably 85--

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It's really just one number.

Mr. Glenn O'Brien: I don't have that number.

I think there are probably 85 government agencies and departments that have undertaken this capacity assessment to date, and there's nowhere you can go to on a website that will show you the results. So I don't know. My sense is--

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The people who did the study should be able to tell you.

Mr. Glenn O'Brien: They should. I did put the question to Treasury Board at one time, and they didn't have a table of statistics they could give me.

I was able to come up with the ones I provided this morning just because some organizations have them on their website. They're publicly available, so I could access them. But it's a number that with a lot of work--

Ms. Marlene Catterall: You mean they're all trying to keep it secret? Is that the story?

Mr. Glenn O'Brien: Well, I don't know. That would not be my implication, but I--

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But the people who did the study, can they tell you what the median was without telling you specifically the numbers for each and every agency or department?

Mr. Glenn O'Brien: You mean the four firms that were commissioned to do that. They may tell you. I don't know whether they would tell me, but someone can get that information.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: You paid them to do the study. Of course, they would tell you. It's not secret information about anybody.

Senator Michael J. Forrestall: You're more likely to get it than we are.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think I beat that one to death, Mr. Chair. But that's the first thing I'd want to know. Am I in the top 50%, 25%, 10%, or the bottom 10%?

Senator Michael J. Forrestall: Are you good, better, or the best?

Mr. Glenn O'Brien: But I think--

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I know everything you said about the numbers doesn't mean anything.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)): I'd like to just dive in.

When I was at university, getting the most improved award acknowledged that you were really bad once. If we are going to go for the most improved award as opposed to where we sit right now, I guess what my co-chair and I are most interested in is in regard to the people working there. How are they doing? Is there employee satisfaction? What's the recruitment ratio? What's the retention ratio? Why do people leave? But mainly, what happens while they're there?

Particularly, I think in terms of the research bureau, we've been very concerned that the people who are there should have the ability to stay current in their field, have the capacity for sabbaticals, and get to their society meetings so that they really are the best in whatever it is. I guess there are some concerns around old-fashioned, top-down management, or what some of the criticisms were in terms of what the consultants called the soft things.

How do we get more bottom-up satisfaction and a more modern view to turning the library into a learning culture where the staff are always learning, where they feel like they're learning, and where we end up, the next time those things are evaluated, just as good as we can be? What's the plan at the library to actually improve the decision-making of the staff and the kinds of things that are now part of a more modern leadership style?

The Hill is filled with pyramids and top-down management. The library is the learning place, and we have this opportunity to show everybody else how to do it. Is there a plan?

À (1030)

Mr. Richard Paré: In the plans we have, following that study, training, development, and learning are a priority. We will certainly try to put more resources and energy in those areas. Certainly, that will help the staff in getting some opportunity to improve and put more effort into their own learning.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett): Only this week did I understand the difference between a priority and a precondition. I think learning in the library should be a precondition. You can't actually have it as a priority because priorities fall away. Learning has to be a precondition in the library. Unless everybody is learning all the time, we aren't doing our job.

Mr. Richard Paré: You're right. In the time sheets we have for the research analysts, there's a percentage, between 1% and 5%, which allows them to learn more in their capacity on their own. They spend some of their time on that.

There's also, as indicated in the annex, the fact that we allow them to attend conferences.

There is also another point when we had this analysis. The research analysts attend many committee meetings where they have access to the experts coming before the committee. This is another way for them to pursue and develop their learning capacity. It's a mix.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett): Let's go now to the budget.

I think everything is just words unless there are resources allocated to them. How are we doing on the resource side? What resources would you need to do the learning part better and for people to get the things they need for sabbaticals? How do we, as the committee, back you up in what you want to do in terms of the resources you would need for that?

I guess I sound like a broken record. There are critical issues surrounding the recruitment and retention of resources in public administration, the scrutiny role of Parliament, e-consultation, or the kinds of things we think a modern library should be able to do. What can we do to help you in terms of resources?

Mr. Richard Paré: Specifically, for the training program, development and learning, in the next estimates we have put in a request that is in the range of $70,000 to develop a program for our staff to develop their learning. This is just one part.

If you refer to all the needs we have, we have put in a request that is about a 21% increase of the budget if we want to provide all the additional services to the members and senators and Parliament. This percentage will probably be perceived as too high. We don't know to what extent we will have.... But as priorities...we know that with committee websites we will certainly have a role, and we will need additional resources there. We know that in addressing the programs of the government we need more expertise in that area to support the committees--

À (1035)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett): Around estimates.

Mr. Richard Paré: --in the House and also in the Senate. Those are priorities.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett): In the documentary that the underground royal commission on democracy did, the Stornoway production, Does Your Vote Count?, Donald Savoie has a very important clip where he says, how can you expect 80 researchers at the Library of Parliament to counterbalance thousands and thousands of public servants?

We have this opportunity in terms of the coming transition. The incoming Prime Minister's wish is to rebalance government and Parliament and even explain to Canadians that there's a difference between government and Parliament.

The sum of $70,000 doesn't sound like a lot of money if we're rebalancing. Are we thinking big enough in terms of what rebalancing would actually look like if Parliament had the resources it needs to scrutinize government? Our job is to scrutinize the role of government. Do we have the resources we need to do our job properly as parliamentarians?

Mr. Richard Paré: I'm sorry, I was not specific enough when I talked about the $70,000. That was just for the learning program, to implement a learning program for the staff in the library.

No, the total request we have for the estimates is in the range of $25 million.

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): That would be $25 million for what?

Mr. Richard Paré: For new resources, for support to the committees.

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): For professional development.

Mr. Richard Paré: I am sorry, $5 million.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett): My second part of the question was on everything we would need as a library. With learning as a precondition, that shouldn't be extra any more. I think it's a precondition.

If the library was going to support parliamentarians in their role of scrutinizing government, what would we be asking for?

Mr. Richard Paré: I will ask Mr. Finsten to answer, but first I want to mention that we're having discussions and consultation at the moment. If the government decides to give more to Parliament to support the role of the members more, the whole picture would be $25 million over three years. This year we have put in a request for $5 million to help. I will ask Mr. Finsten to give more details on that.

Mr. Hugh Finsten (Associate Parliamentary Librarian, Library of Parliament): In terms of Professor Savoie's comment, we only have 70 analysts, not 80. When you consider the number of committees and also the fact that we work for individual parliamentarians, for parliamentary associations, etc., the average full-time equivalent serving a committee is basically one.

This also relates to your question about training. How can we send people off to training? The committees then lose their staff person and it makes it very difficult.

In terms of some of our proposals, as the parliamentary librarian was indicating, we're looking at a large scheme in terms of what Parliament really needs from the point of view of, as you mentioned, scrutiny. Parliament is responsible for reviewing government estimates, for reviewing departmental programs, for developing policies and making recommendations, for reviewing government legislation. One FTE per committee doesn't quite cut it when you consider all the staff, all the policy advisers, and all the people in the departments working in these areas. How can we possibly do all these things?

Right now, our staff, to keep up with the committee--a full-time employee can just do their current work, some briefing notes, and prepare material for the committee members and their ongoing studies. They have no time to do a lot of perspective work for committees, for suggesting areas for background work before a committee study. During a committee study we can't even keep track of showing discrepancies in testimony, giving members current information on what's happening, keeping up to date with it. Then after a committee reports, is there anybody really looking at how those reports and recommendations are being treated by the departments?

When there's an election, when there are new committee chairs and new committee members, there needs to be this evaluation and information going to the committees as to what has happened in the past. We just don't have the staff to do that sort of thing.

À (1040)

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): What you've just said should be put in writing, Mr. Finsten. I think that's very important. These are very specific and important issues.

Mr. Hugh Finsten: We are looking at that area, and that's one aspect, the work for committees. Also, in terms of individual parliamentarians, especially with the discussion going on in terms of electronic communications, in terms of the number of e-mails that parliamentarians are getting.... We've talked about e-consultations on committees, the committee websites.

Another aspect that has come up, and a recommendation by the government operations committee, was in terms of the estimates process. Something that's being discussed by Parliament is how does Parliament get a handle on the estimates currently. Again, we don't have the staff to do these sorts of things.

We also do international work. There are a lot of demands in terms of when you're representing the Canadian Parliament in the various associations, the types of background work you can get to make sure you're representing Parliament and Canada well in these associations.

We are looking at a proposal that is larger, to provide parliamentarians with a real learning organization, an organization they can come to in order to help them with regard to their oversight functions and the other functions they have.

Richard mentioned that there was this proposal for about $25 million. That would be a proposal in terms of the total package. We would offer different building blocks, depending on what you as parliamentarians want. Do we want to increase the staff by adding an extra full-time equivalent on a committee or two full-time equivalents on a committee? Do we want to increase our role in terms of parliamentary associations and our international work, in terms of our e-consultations? All of those things require staff.

We think the library is the best place for this and the most cost efficient. We're a centralized service serving the two Houses of Parliament, and we're also working on committees, we're working with individual members, and we're working for the associations. All of that knowledge is retained in one organization, and there's a cross-filtering process, so the knowledge stays with the organization. When you're working on committees, you also bring your knowledge from your work with parliamentarians on associations.

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): I would just add that at our end we do all the many studies. What I think is important when we do these studies is to have a number of options, but the consequences of each option require time and effort. I think that's an additional thing.

Do you have any other questions? Do you, Carolyn?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett): Yes. I want to know what the next steps look like in terms of planning for all of these things. How can we help as a committee?

Mr. Richard Paré: In the short term we will present our estimates. We are discussing our estimates and we will submit them to the two Speakers within the next week or two. Then we will see the results of that.

One question that is raised is the comparison of the percentages. The House and the Senate always have lower percentages in terms of increases in the library, the reason being that we are a small organization. Even when we compare just the increase for salary, we don't know to what extent this will play this year.

À (1045)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett): Who makes those decisions?

Mr. Richard Paré: The decisions are made by the two Speakers, but in consultation with the clerks and the three administrations, and their comparisons....

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett): The three administrations, meaning the House of Commons administration, the Senate administration, and the library administration.

Mr. Richard Paré: Yes, Madame Boutin met with her counterpart in the House and the Senate.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett): Are you telling me that those budgets are viewed to be competitive?

Mr. Richard Paré: No, not competitive, but the two Speakers must be comfortable with the percentage of the increase that is submitted to them.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett): But traditionally they've gone up in percentage for these three the same way.

Mr. Richard Paré: We always had a little bit more than the two others in terms of percentage because we are so small. If we come with very major discrepancies between the percentages, that becomes a matter for discussion.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett): After 9/11 surely there were some security concerns and the House and Senate budgets jumped because of that need.

Mr. Richard Paré: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett): Then we would have to make a similar case to jump up your budget compared to the other two.

Mr. Richard Paré: Yes, we would have to have an issue like security.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett): I think we have an issue--learning. As Irwin Cotler says, this pincer movement in which Parliament is now perceived as very weak, compared to the government and the judiciary.... We want Parliament to regain its heft.

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin):

Could I just close on two very specific issues? I realize this was very general.

On the amalgamation of the research and reference branch within the Library of Parliament, I have two questions. Why are we doing this? Have staff been consulted on this, and are they in favour of it?

Mr. Richard Paré: First, we are doing this because we want our best experts to deal with the analysis of the information. The best experts we have in the library are the research analysts and reference librarians. We have realized that other major parliamentary libraries do that. There's a good symbiosis between the two, and then you have better results. A year ago, when we had some departures from management--people retired--we took the opportunity to do that.

As to the other question, the staff are happy. The staff had some resistance, but we discussed it with them. We will continue to discuss and to find the solutions. They have concerns, but we addressed those concerns, and we will discuss it. I know the group has made some representations of their concerns. I plan to meet with them next week and to explain and have a good discussion on that.

We believe this will eliminate those questions that could be sent one place or the other. We will have just one inquiry unit, a central inquiry unit. Also, we will ask our librarians to work more in an area. What we are moving on is that we will need information analysts and information managers in the future. This will be part of the vision document that I have indicated will be coming. This is what we are moving on.

Mr. Hugh Finsten: Could I just add a few words? Over the years, in terms of information on the Internet, all of us have seen that it has changed the way we work. In terms of a lot of the actual information questions that were coming in previously, the numbers have gone down. We're not the only library; all libraries are experiencing this, but also, of course, the parliamentary libraries.

In terms of the requests that we see coming in, there's often an analytical part and an information part. Often either the reference service or the research service has been handling them. There hasn't been enough communication and working together in the past. It's been like two silos.

We tried to work it out, to break down the silos in terms of trying to get the two working together, but it's very difficult unless they're located together and working together, so the information work and the research work can be done together. By coming together, by locating the information specialists with the research specialists, we think our clients will be better served.

À (1050)

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): I don't want to get into the substance of the decision. I think it's yours, and it's not our role. I wanted to make sure the staff are behind this, because they are the ones who will be involved in this decision.

My final question is very specific. You know my interest in professional development. I think it's very important. Out of the $90,000, which is approximately the budget you had on this, according to your letter of July 25, if my figures are right, only approximately $20,000 out of the $90,000 went to researchers and librarians. The rest went I don't know where. They are the people who need professional development.

Maybe you can't answer the question now, but maybe you could check it out and either send the answer in writing or provide it at the next meeting. I was a bit surprised at those numbers. I'm not expecting an answer today, but it would indicate that the great majority of it doesn't go to the people who need it.

Mr. Richard Paré: We certainly will take that question in reserve.

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): Are there any other questions? Senator Forrestall, would you have a question?

Senator Michael J. Forrestall: I was quite shocked by these numbers on professional development, attendance at professional seminars, expert conferences, including international travel and what not. I spend more money on my senior researcher, Joe Varner, and making sure he attends and stays abreast of thought in the field of security and national defence. I can't afford to pay him very much. I wish I could have one of your people. Then I wouldn't have a guilty conscience about the pay level. But I do not skimp on this. I think this is just scandalous.

On our committee, the researcher, God rest his soul, Grant, travelled with us. He attended everything. That's the way it should be. If we are not to worry about being blindsided, somebody has to be in touch.

This figure does not include the amount of money it cost us to send Grant.

Mr. Richard Paré: No.

Senator Michael J. Forrestall: So this is a false--

Mr. Richard Paré: I just want to--

Senator Michael J. Forrestall: I don't want an answer today. I want you to go back and rethink this, and then take a look at the money the committees are spending in sending their professional staff to learning conferences and so forth. It's imperative that the transport standing committees of both Houses have somebody to go down to the United States and attend some of the world conferences. There are some excellent safety conferences that are light-years ahead of where we are.

When you prepare your report, I would be very anxious to see you cast your eye in that direction so we might have a better picture of how you are nurturing their growth.

Mr. Richard Paré: We will certainly look into that.

I just want to make a short comment to say that of course the figures we gave you do not include when the research officers are travelling with their committees. That is part of their learning too. Also not included is the 5% of their time that they allow to develop their own learning capacity. That's not in there.

À (1055)

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): Thank you.

Ms. Catterall, you had a question?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes. I think I had mentioned at a previous committee, speaking to the point the chair raised about accountability, in preparation for the estimates we should be having a good session on the plans and priorities report and the performance report--as background to doing the estimates. Those three documents are linked. Virtually no parliamentary committee actually looks at what they said they would do and how that compares with what they actually did and how that compares with how much money they're asking for next year to do what they say they're going to do.

It would be very good for us if we could have a chart of what the plans and priorities report said we would do in that year, what the performance report said we did, and what this year's plans and priorities says we are doing. Then we can look at the estimates and see if it matches with what is in the plans and priorities, and do we agree with those plans and priorities in terms of that much money.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett): I think that's something we had talked to the research bureau about, as to whether there would even be a unit within the research bureau that could analyse this work on plans and priorities and estimates. As for experts within, it may not be just one per committee, but a group that looks at this.

Also, there is our ability to look at whole government accountability on certain topics. People could compare, as Treasury Board has been trying to do, what's happening in each department on certain topics, and what is value added and what is duplication. I don't think we've done a very good job, department by department. Again, if there was a unit within the library that did this, I think we would be much better off.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm quite happy to look at that right across government, Madam Chair, but right now I'll worry about my responsibilities on this committee. If we can set a good example, perhaps other committees might take it up in their review of the estimates.

Could I raise one small administrative detail? Could we please stop wasting paper and have things printed double-sided?

A voice: That was sent out electronically. That was printed in your office.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, I didn't; I picked it up here. Sorry.

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): Wrong answer.

There are no other points, so I would like to thank you very much. Merci beaucoup, monsieur Paré, Mr. Finsten, Madame Brydon, Madame Boutin, Ms. Brodie, and Mr. O'Brien. You were extremely helpful.

As I said earlier, this is all done in a positive way. We're all here to help, you realize. We're strongly supportive of the work, and we thank you and your staff for the help you're giving us.

We don't know when the next meeting will be held.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett): No, we don't.

The Joint Chair (Senator Yves Morin): I thought I'd have a hint from Ms. Catterall when the next meeting would be held.

We are adjourned.