BILI Committee Meeting

---

THE STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Monday, June 19, 2023

The Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 11:08 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-13 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.

[English]

Shaila Anwar, Acting Joint Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators and members of Parliament, as the Senate Joint Clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the Senate joint chair.

[Translation]

I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.

Are there any nominations?

Honourable Senator Saint-Germain, go ahead.

Senator Saint-Germain: I nominate the Honourable Senator Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia.

The Acting Joint Clerk (Ms. Anwar): Are there any other nominations?

It has been moved by the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain that the Honourable Senator Ravalia be elected joint chair of this joint committee.

[English]

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt this motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Acting Joint Clerk (Ms. Anwar): I declare the motion carried, and I invite Senator Ravalia to take the chair.

Senator Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia (Joint Chair) in the chair.

David Chandonnet, Joint Clerk of the Committee: I must inform members that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of the chair. The clerk cannot receive other types of motions and cannot entertain points of order, nor participate in debate.

We can now proceed to the election of the chair. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair must be a member of the government party.

[Translation]

I am ready to receive motions for the chair.

[English]

Ms. Atwin: I would like to move that the Honourable Angelo Iacono be chair.

[Translation]

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Chandonnet): It has been moved by Ms. Atwin that Mr. Iacono be elected joint chair of the committee.

Are there any other nominations?

Seeing none, I declare the motion carried. Mr. Iacono is duly elected joint chair of the committee.

Angelo Iacono (Joint Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Chandonnet): Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the first vice-chair must be a member of the official opposition. I am now prepared to receive motions for the first vice-chair.

Mr. Warkentin: I’d like to nominate Eric Duncan.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Chandonnet): In absentia, Mr. Duncan.

Are there any other motions? Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Chandonnet): I declare Mr. Duncan elected in absentia.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the second vice-chair must be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition. I am now prepared to receive motions for the second vice-chair. Are there motions?

Mr. Melillo: I would nominate Mr. Plamondon.

[Translation]

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Chandonnet): It has been moved by Mr. Mellilo that Mr. Plamondon be elected second vice-chair of the committee.

Are there any other nominations?

Since there are none, is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

Mr. Plamondon is elected second vice-chair of the committee.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): Thank you, everybody. I’m delighted to have been elected co-chair of this committee, and I look forward to working with all of you. I’d like to express my gratitude to the clerks, support staff and staff of our MPs and senators.

I’d also like to welcome Ms. Heather Lank, our Parliamentary Librarian, who is here today. Thank you very much for being here.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): Good morning. Welcome to meeting number 1 of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to a House Order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person and remotely using the Zoom application.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Since there are no witnesses today, we will skip this section.

You may speak in the official language of your choice, and interpretation services are available for this meeting. For those participating by video conference, you have the choice of either the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use an earpiece and select the desired channel.

Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the use of headsets with a boom microphone provided by the House of Commons is mandatory for everyone participating remotely who wishes to speak.

I would like to remind all participants that screenshots and taking photos are not permitted.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me. We may need to suspend for a few minutes to ensure that everyone may participate fully in today’s proceedings.

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): We’ll commence with business, starting with Motion No. 5:

That the committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the joint chairs, the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament to assist it in its work.

I’ll introduce the analysts: Alexandra Savoie and Marion Ménard.

Is it agreed to adopt the motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): I declare the motion carried.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): Motion No. 6, powers of the joint chairs. It is moved:

That the joint chairs be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings and that the joint chairs report their decisions to the committee; and

That the joint chairs, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries, and draft reports.

Is it agreed to adopt the motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): I declare the motion carried.

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): Moving on to Motion No. 7, communications.

That the joint chairs be empowered to direct communications officer(s) assigned to the committee in the development of communications plans and products where appropriate and to request the services of the Senate Communications Directorate and of the House of Commons Social Media Team for the purposes of the promotion of their work.

Is it agreed, members, to adopt this motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): I declare the motion carried.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): We now move on to Motion No. 8:

(a) That its quorum be fixed at six members, provided that each House is represented, and a member from a non‑government party or recognized parliamentary group and a member from the government are present, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken; and

(b) That the joint chairs be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence published when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including a member from a non‑government party or recognized parliamentary group and a member from the government, provided that each House is represented.

Shall the motion carry?

Hon. Members: Agreed

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): I declare the motion carried.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): Moving on to Motion No. 9:

That the joint clerks of the committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the committee only documents that are available in both official languages; and

That all documents submitted for committee business that do not come from a federal department, members’ or senator’s offices, or that have not been translated by the Translation Bureau be sent for prior linguistic review by the Translation Bureau before being distributed to members.

Is it agreed to adopt the motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): I declare the motion carried.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): Now we move on to Motion No. 10.

That witnesses appearing before the committee be given ten (10) minutes to make their opening statement; and that during the questioning of witnesses the time allocated to each questioner be 5 minutes.

Shall the motion carry?

Mr. Plamondon: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. The English and French versions of Motion No. 10 don’t say the same thing.

In French, the motion states that each questioner will be given five minutes for each question, not a total of five minutes to ask their questions.

Look at the English version. Do you see what I mean?

The English version is right, but the French version says that the time allocated for each question is five minutes. It should say five minutes, but not for each question. Do you see what I mean? We would do well to make that clear.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): Very good, Mr. Plamondon.

Is there agreement on Mr. Plamondon’s motion to amend the French version?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): Very good.

Shall the motion carry?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): I declare the motion carried.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): Moving on to Motion No. 11, access to in camera meetings:

That, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meetings and that one additional person from each House officer’s office be allowed to be present and for the Senate, that the leader or facilitator of the Government and each recognized party or parliamentary group be entitled to one additional staff member at these meetings.

Is it agreed to adopt the motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): I declare the motion carried.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): That brings us to Motion No. 12.

That one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept with the joint clerks for consultation by members of the committee or by their staff, and that the transcript be destroyed by the joint clerks when authorized to do so by the joint chairs, but no later than at the end of this parliamentary session.

Mr. Plamondon: I have some reservations about that. Usually, committee consent is needed to destroy documents. Very seldom are the two joint chairs alone empowered to destroy documents. My preference is to keep the documents until the very last meeting of the session, like today’s, at which point, the joint clerks can advise the committee that there are documents to be destroyed, and we can authorize them to do so.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): Fellow committee members, these motions are standard for all committees. Ultimately, all the documents are destroyed at the end of each session. If you want to amend the motion, it’s possible to do that.

Mr. Plamondon: I have never seen that in other committees.

[English]

Ms. Idlout: It is my understanding that it is not a standard practice, and maybe the way to amend No. 12 is to put a period after “staff,” on the fifth line, put a period there, and just remove the remainder of the sentence so we both make sure that documents aren’t being destroyed until some other time.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): Are we in agreement with putting a period after the word “staff”? What was your second suggestion?

Ms. Idlout: Removing the remainder of the sentence.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): I propose we say that the first sentence — there will be a dot after the word “staff,” and after that it would read “that the transcripts be destroyed at the end of the parliamentary session.”

Ms. Idlout: I guess the perspective of my party is that documents are not destroyed at the end of the session, because that is not what the usual practice is, from our understanding.

Mr. Liepert: If I hear my friend correctly, what he’s asking is that this committee authorize the joint chairs, so why wouldn’t you just put “be destroyed by the joint clerks when authorized to do so by the committee, but no later than at the end of the parliamentary session”? We don’t care who destroys it. What we want is who gives approval to destroy it by saying, “authorized to do so by the committee but no later.”

[Translation]

Senator Saint-Germain: Before we vote, I would just like to hear the motion read out in full, as amended twice.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): Very good.

[English]

Ms. Idlout: I guess my understanding is that transcripts not be destroyed at all, because it’s part of keeping that knowledge within the committee.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): I just need to take note that all of these are in camera transcripts, so there is a record.

Mr. Long: Chair, I’m just looking for context. Are these motions not the same for every committee? Are these not the same routine motions that we read?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): Yes, they are. That’s what I was told by the clerk, that they’re standard motions.

Mr. Long: I believe I’ve seen this before at another committee, so I’m not quite sure why it’s that big of an issue now. That being said, I would suggest that, to Ron’s point, that we go, “that the transcript be destroyed by the joint clerks when authorized to do so by the joint chairs, authorized by the committee.”

Mr. Liepert: With all due respect, I think you’re putting a lot of words in there that aren’t necessary. As I said earlier, I don’t think we care who destroys the documents. It’s who’s authorizing to destroy the documents. If you say “authorized to do so by the committee” instead of “by the joint chairs,” it fixes it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): We’ll give the clerk a couple of seconds to fix up the paragraph and she can read it out to us.

The Acting Joint Clerk (Ms. Anwar): In English it would read:

That one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept with the joint clerks for consultation by members of the committee or by their staff, and that the transcript be destroyed by the joint clerks when authorized to do so by the committee, but no later than at the end of this parliamentary session.

[Translation]

Que les cogreffiers du comité conservent une copie de la transcription de chaque réunion à huis clos pour consultation par les membres du comité ou un membre de leur personnel de bureau; qu’elle soit détruite par les cogreffiers lorsque les coprésidents les autorisent à le faire, au plus tard à la fin de la session parlementaire.

Mr. Plamondon: I agree with that, except I don’t think it should be mandatory to destroy them. They can be destroyed when the committee decides to destroy them, plain and simple. It shouldn’t be mandatory to do so at the end of the session.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): It’s a long-held principle, something that is automatically done at the end of the session. According to the clerk, the committee’s permission is needed to use the transcripts. When the session is over, the committee isn’t sitting, so the transcripts have no value and must be destroyed.

However, as pointed out earlier, the meetings are recorded, so it’s always possible to retrieve or consult the recordings in order to find out what happened at a committee meeting.

Mr. Plamondon: Who thinks they have no value? Shouldn’t the committee decide whether the documents have value or not?

I have confidence in our staff, but why would unelected staff members make the decision to destroy documents without committee members’ authorization? I find that surprising. All they need to do is tell us what they want to destroy, and we can say, “yes, there’s a resolution.” That would be the end of it. These are records that could be archived for consultation.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): The authorization to destroy them or use them comes from us — us being the committee — at the end of the session.

Mr. Plamondon: I’m fine if that’s how it works, but that’s not what you said a moment ago.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): I’m learning as I go. I pick things up quickly, and I’m listening to you.

Shall the motion as amended carry? Madam Clerk, could you please read it again?

The Acting Joint Clerk (Ms. Anwar): I’ll read it in English and, then, in French.

That one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept with the joint clerks for consultation by members of the committee or by their staff, and that the transcript be destroyed by the joint clerks when authorized to do so by the committee, but no later than at the end of this parliamentary session.

Senator Saint-Germain: I’d like us to vote by a show of hands, because, personally, I agree with Mr. Plamondon. I’m not in favour of a motion that, as I understand it, calls for documents to automatically be destroyed at the end of the session.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): As joint chair, I would make a point. The keyword is “authorization.” If authorization is not given, then we don’t destroy. I think it’s as simple as that. I don’t think we need to perpetuate this discussion any further, colleagues. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): Is everyone ready to vote, then? Would you like a recorded division or vote by a show of hands?

Senator Saint-Germain: A show of hands would be quicker.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): All those in favour? Against? It’s carried.

[Translation]

Motion No. 12 as amended is agreed to.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): Moving on to Motion No. 13:

That the committee publish its proceedings in both official languages.

Is it agreed to adopt this motion? I declare the motion carried.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): I declare the motion carried.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): That brings us to Motion No. 14:

That 48 hours’ notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, provided that (a) the notice be filed with the joint clerks of the committee no later than 4:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday; that (b) the motion be distributed to members and the offices of the whips and liaisons of each recognized party or recognized parliamentary group in both official languages by the joint clerks on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour; and, that (c) notices received after the deadline hour or on non-business days be deemed to have been received during the next business day.

Shall the motion carry? I declare the motion carried.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): Moving on to Motion No. 15:

That the joint clerks inform each witness who is to appear before the committee that the Senate or House Administration support team must conduct technical tests to check the connectivity and the equipment used to ensure the best possible sound quality; and that the joint chairs advise the committee, at the start of each meeting, of any witness who did not perform the required technical tests.

Is it agreed to adopt the motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): I declare the motion carried.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): Now we are on Motion No. 16, witness expenses:

That, at the discretion of the joint chairs, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses, or other expenses as authorized by the committee, for one witness from any one organization, and payment will take place upon application, but that the joint chairs be authorized to approve expenses for a second witness should there be exceptional circumstances.

Shall Motion No. 16 carry? I declare the motion carried.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): Moving on to Motion No. 17, access to the digital binder.

That the joint clerks of the committee be authorized to grant access to the committee’s digital binder to the offices of the whips and liaisons of each recognized party and recognized parliamentary group.

Is it agreed to adopt the motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): I declare the motion carried.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): We’re on Motion No. 18:

That the joint clerks of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide snacks and beverages for the committee and its subcommittees.

Shall the motion carry? I declare the motion carried.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): We are moving on to Item No. 19, other Business, No. 1, report on routine motions.

As mentioned earlier in Motion No. 8, it is customary for this committee to adopt the first report that includes the mandate, quorum and meetings, without quorum provisions, along with permissions for the committee to meet during adjournments and sittings of the Senate. This is done by a report to both chambers, as these provisions are not in our rules.

The mandate of the committee, which comes from the Parliament of Canada Act, is normally that the committee be authorized to assist the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons in directing and controlling the Library of Parliament, and that it be authorized to make recommendations to the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons regarding the governance of the library and the proper expenditure of monies voted by Parliament for the purchase of documents or other articles to be deposited therein.

Are there any comments or feedback from members?

I will proceed to the motion:

That the first report of the committee (committee mandate and powers) be adopted and that the joint chairs be instructed to present the report to their respective chamber as the earliest opportunity.

Is it agreed, members?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): Carried.

I will open the floor now for any other business that members wish to bring forward.

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon: With respect to item 2 under future committee business, I was wondering whether the committee shouldn’t meet with the librarian. She could tell us how the parliamentary libraries operate and speak to the renovation.

She could tell us whether the library will work the same way in the new Parliament Buildings. Will the libraries currently located in the various buildings continue to operate in the same way?

I would like an overview of what’s in store for the Library of Parliament and its branches. I propose we schedule a meeting with the librarian, so she can speak to the committee about all that.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): Thank you very much for that question. Dr. Lank is actually present here today, but we’ve not had this discussion with her. Before we do that, we will take questions from Senator Carignan and Senator Black.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: As an item for future business, I think committee members should get a presentation on the library and its services, to find out how many employees the library has, what their roles and achievements are, and so forth. An organizational chart would also be nice. That would really help us understand the group’s work.

I know that some of their work has to do with welcoming visitors, giving tours, and teaching people about the Senate and the House of Commons. I would like to have the fullest picture possible. That would give us an idea of what the library is doing now, and a good basis for what is coming next and how the organization is managed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): Thank you, Senator Carignan. The co-chairs will take that under advisement and report back to the wider group once we’ve received the appropriate advice. That’s an excellent suggestion.

Senator Black: Do we need a better understanding of what this committee does with respect to the new Welcome Centre? It is controlled by the Library of Parliament, as I understand it, and is currently under construction over the next many years. How much activity will this committee be involved in with respect to how that develops over time?

As well, may we have a set series of meeting dates at some point today or in the coming days so that we know meeting dates into the future? Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): Thank you, Senator Black. Again, those are two excellent points, which will also be discussed by the co-chairs and taken under advisement.

Dr. Lank has kindly agreed to give us a brief summary of the current activities. With respect to the very specific questions that were asked earlier, the co-chairs will take those under advisement, and we will report back to the larger group. Thank you.

Heather P. Lank, Parliamentary Librarian: Honourable co‑chairs, senators, members of the House of Commons, it is a great pleasure for me to be here today.

Last week, I wrote you a letter in which I outlined the Library of Parliament’s accomplishments during my tenure as Parliamentary Librarian. Today, I would like to provide you with an overview of these accomplishments and what we are planning for the future, assuming that I’m back as Parliamentary Librarian after my term ends tomorrow. I’m hoping that you will be supportive of my reappointment.

I took on this role in June of 2018. Throughout my five-year term, four key themes have emerged: focusing on client needs — your needs; adapting to change; outreach and collaboration; and building a workplace of choice.

Over the last five years, I’ve looked for opportunities for the library to engage actively with parliamentarians and to receive and act on your feedback. Providing an outstanding parliamentary client experience is one of the pillars of our Strategic Plan 2023-2028. We have increased our capacity to help us meet this objective. Much of the feedback I receive is through analysts, branch staff and other front-line employees who interact regularly with parliamentarians and your staff. We also actively seek feedback from parliamentary committees and parliamentary associations.

In addition, we have regular touch points with parliamentarians thanks to our Ambassador Program. Library ambassadors are employees who provide personalized information sessions to parliamentarians and staff on the library’s products and services. I should mention that these employees do this as volunteers. They say, “I want to do this,” and they do this in addition to their regular duties. These information sessions take place during the orientation program which follows every federal election, cyclically throughout the life of a Parliament, and also on request. So far, in the Forty‑fourth Parliament, library ambassadors have delivered 187 information sessions, reaching 945 people, including parliamentarians and many staff in constituency offices.

We have also sought feedback in a more structured way. In 2020, we conducted a Parliament-wide survey to determine how satisfied clients were with library products and services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little did we know in 2020 that we would be continuing to provide those services for some time still to come. I am pleased to report that the results from the 346 respondents were very positive. Of those who had used our products and services, 97% expressed satisfaction. I would be happy to provide more details should members of the committee be interested.

Following the survey, we held individual interviews with respondents to deepen our understanding of how we can better meet your needs.

[Translation]

Last fiscal year, when we began a significant renewal of our intranet site for parliamentary clients, which is called Dome, your user experience was top of mind. We sought feedback through a client testing activity to ensure that the changes would work for parliamentarians and their staff. The results of this feedback exercise helped inform the new structure of Dome, which launched last week.

Similarly, to better understand how visitors perceive guided tours of Parliament, we implemented a survey that is sent to visitors after each tour. So far, we have received over 3,000 responses, and results indicate a very high level of satisfaction with tours, including 98% who would recommend the tour to others.

Further, to ensure that the library is providing an outstanding parliamentary client experience, I have worked hard with my team to increase our research capacity, grow our collection, including our Indigenous languages resources, improve our catalogue, and offer a variety of learning opportunities for you and your staff.

When the pandemic hit, we found new ways of working to ensure continuity of our services, while also ensuring the health and safety of our employees. Most library employees shifted to telework during the pandemic, while others continued to work on site to fulfill tasks that required their physical presence.

[English]

We adapted our service delivery to the changing needs of our clients, whether that meant serving them in person, virtually or a combination of the two. For example, when parliamentary associations met virtually across various national and international time zones, our analysts were there, even if it meant our employees working at 3 a.m. I know you were working sometimes at those ridiculous hours too, and our staff were there to support you. Library support to committees continued without interruption, and as soon as public health conditions permitted, our analysts were once again on site fulfilling their important duties.

When it was safe to do so, all library employees returned to the physical workplace, and we adopted a hybrid work approach, recognizing that on-site work supports client experience, collaboration, creation, celebration and connection — what we at the library call the five Cs. I am pleased to report that the implementation of this model at the library has gone very smoothly.

We began offering many services online during the pandemic, and while in-person services have resumed, we have continued to offer these online services, allowing us to reach a broader client base, including parliamentary staff in constituencies.

During the pandemic, guided tours of Parliament were suspended. In May 2022, we were thrilled to resume tours, welcoming, once again, your visitors and the public to the Senate of Canada Building and West Block. In 2022-23, we welcomed over 125,000 visitors on tours, and we anticipate these numbers will be considerably higher this year with the rebound in tourism as well as the resumption of tours of East Block.

During my term, I have looked to find new ways of connecting Canadians to Parliament. We developed a user-friendly online ticketing system for guided tours, and we launched an online store for the Parliamentary Boutique. Since then, online purchases have been made from across Canada and 95 other countries. Last year, we introduced 44 new products in the boutique, which now has over 400 offerings. In 2022-23, boutique sales amounted to over $550,000 — a significant rebound since the pandemic years, as you can imagine.

[Translation]

To connect with those who may not have the opportunity to come to Parliament, we have found ways to bring Parliament to them. We have developed educational resources that are designed to help individuals of all ages learn about the role, history, art and architecture of Parliament. These include articles, videos and interactive games.

I am especially proud of Parliament: The Virtual Experience, which is an award-winning virtual reality experience of Centre Block that combines photorealism with vivid sound, colour and light. It is also available in 360-degree video. In 2020, it received the Prix Gémeaux for the best interactive experience in Canada.

[English]

Earlier this year, the library launched Parliament: The Classroom Experience, which allows students to experience Parliament through classroom kits with VR gear that the library ships to schools across Canada. The feedback from teachers so far has been overwhelmingly positive.

Coming this summer is Parliament: The Immersive Experience. This on-site multimedia experience just steps away from Parliament Hill brings Centre Block to life while the building is closed for renovations. I believe this attraction will be the hottest ticket in town. I might add that it’s free, so it really will be the hottest ticket in town. I look forward to welcoming all of you to that experience as soon as it opens or when you return in the fall. We’ll make sure there’s time for you to come. It is awesome, and I can’t wait to share it with you.

Speaking of Centre Block, we know that the LTVP is of great importance to Parliament, and I know Senator Black made reference to it in terms of the Parliament Welcome Centre. The library has been actively engaged in the project to advance the design of the Parliament Welcome Centre.

I should perhaps correct the record slightly, though, that the library is not by itself responsible for the Parliament Welcome Centre. We have a portion for visitors who will be coming to the Hill, but, of course, our parliamentary partners — the Senate, the House, Parliamentary Protective Service and Public Services and Procurement Canada — are the big players. The library is not the big player, but we’re an important player because we represent the interests of visitors, and we want to bring as many people to that space for an outstanding experience. I wouldn’t want to pretend that the Parliament Welcome Centre is something we are responsible for. There are probably many questions to be asked that I would not have any knowledge of because it’s for our parliamentary partners. We certainly have a keen interest in that space in order to provide Canadians and visitors with an outstanding experience when they come to the Hill.

I will be briefing the new Speaker of the Senate, Senator Gagné, on the library’s involvement in this very important file in the coming weeks. I look forward to updating parliamentarians as progress is made.

[Translation]

All of these developments are thanks to the library’s skilled and dedicated employees. Knowing that our employees are our most important asset, we have programs and tools in place to support them, from learning and development opportunities to mental health and wellness supports. Diversity, equity and inclusion are priorities at the library, and we are working hard to identify systemic barriers, to make our workplace more inclusive, and to deepen our knowledge in these areas in order to better serve Parliament and the public.

I should also point out that there have been significant legislative changes in the past five years that have affected the library and other parliamentary institutions as employers. The library has implemented programs to ensure that we comply with these statutes, including the Canada Labour Code, the Pay Equity Act, and the Accessible Canada Act.

[English]

I am pleased to report that, in February this year, the library was named one of the National Capital Region’s top employers for the second consecutive year. I am extremely proud of this accomplishment. Together with my management team, I’m committed to ensuring that the library is a workplace of choice that attracts and retains highly qualified people from diverse backgrounds.

Over the coming years, should I have the great privilege of being reappointed as Parliamentary Librarian, you have my strong commitment to build upon the library’s past successes to maintain its privileged place as Parliament’s preferred and trusted source of information, research and knowledge. I’m confident that our new strategic plan charts a path forward in which the library will provide an outstanding parliamentary client experience, offer expanded public access, foster an inclusive, healthy and safe workplace, and demonstrate organizational excellence. In doing so, I will be guided by the principles of impartiality, agility, collaboration, inclusion and excellence.

I am very proud of the library’s many accomplishments during my term, and I look forward to all that is on the horizon for this exceptional organization. I am very excited at the prospect of continuing as Parliamentary Librarian, and I very much hope I will have your support. If I don’t, all those questions will have to go to my successor, and I wish them the very best of luck.

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): Thank you, Ms. Lank, for that very informative presentation. I also want to thank you for your accomplishments and the incredible work you’ve done in recent years, especially given all the challenges you’ve no doubt had to overcome to ensure that Parliament and the Senate have a strong presence throughout Canada and the world. Thank you very much.

[English]

Are there any questions from members?

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon: You said that members were well served, and you’re right. We receive outstanding service, but I do recall a virtual meeting the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament had a few years ago with parliamentary librarians in London, the European Union, Washington and France. They explained how they worked with their parliamentarians, and there was some valuable take-away, not to diminish the fact that we receive very good service.

My question is for both you and the joint chairs. Do you think it would be possible to set up meetings — say an hour or so long — to hear what those important experts have to say? I think that would be informative not only for members of the committee, but also for other members and senators, perhaps. That might be something to consider for future committee business, if you think it’s doable.

Ms. Lank: Whom you wish to invite is up to you and the other committee members, not me. However, Mr. Plamondon, it may reassure you to know that we are in regular contact with our counterparts around the world. That is one of my responsibilities, so that we and our colleagues can learn from one another. We share ideas, suggestions and innovative approaches in order to better serve parliamentarians.

There are differences from country to country and Parliament to Parliament. Some things we can do, they can’t, and vice versa. As a member of the parliamentary library community, we draw lessons, and we are always on the lookout for new learning opportunities and better ways to do our work.

Certainly, our domestic and international relationships are very important. That’s definitely something we would be very interested in as well. If you do meet with them, we could follow up on what you learn so that we can learn from it as well.

[English]

Mr. Long: Good afternoon to my colleagues.

Dr. Lank, thank you for coming in. It’s very interesting. Thank you for the job you’ve done.

You’ve had challenges. Your term started in June 2018. Obviously, COVID hit all of us in March 2020. Not only did you have those challenges, but there was also the move from Centre Block to other locations. Can you just briefly tell us the challenges you’ve faced throughout your term? Give us your opinion of whether you received the proper support that you needed from us.

Ms. Lank: Thank you very much for the question.

Without a doubt, COVID was an enormous challenge, but we also had the great advantage that, because our analysts have served committees and associations for a long time and they travel, we had to be agile before the pandemic hit. Even though our corporate services and others didn’t necessarily have all the technology for the work to be done easily remotely, our analysts and those who serve you directly were well equipped before the pandemic hit. Literally, over the course of a weekend, we were able to transition so that there would be uninterrupted service.

That being said, you can imagine shutting down the branches right away and making sure that you had access to our collection even though we couldn’t be on site most of the time and you couldn’t be on site. You still needed to be able to get everything you asked for in as timely a manner as before. With that, how do we organize ourselves? Who comes on site when and with what schedules to keep them safe and you served? That was an enormous challenge as well.

We have just over 400 full-time equivalents at the library. That’s a lot of people. Our budget is around $57 million. Over the last number of years, because we didn’t know when the pandemic was going to end, we were always having to plan for what could happen. The level of uncertainty was huge.

You need to keep people engaged all that time. I’m sure you all experienced it too. You want to keep people informed about what’s going on, fully engaged in their work and knowing what you needed. We spent an enormous amount of time connecting and getting the technological support so we could support you. Doing that was a huge challenge, as was offering services remotely across the country, because we wanted to make sure that you had continuous excellence.

Mr. Long: Thanks for that answer. Can I ask another question?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): If it is a short question, because I have two other people.

Mr. Long: It’s short.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): Go ahead.

Mr. Long: You referenced the Parliament-wide survey. I was in business previously, and sometimes you do surveys not only to hear the good but to hear the bad. What did you learn from feedback on the survey as to where you and your group could improve?

Ms. Lank: Thank you very much for that question.

Where we are weakest, where we continue to need to hammer away, is in terms of getting known for what we do and how we do it and the services that we can offer. We have awesome capacity of extraordinary people who are here to help you do your jobs better. We’re here to help you and your staff. I know just from my own experience that parliamentarians don’t always realize that the library has expertise in policy in all areas of federal jurisdiction. We can help you fact-check. We can help you get data on things that you would never be able to find by going on Google. We have a collection. We have a budget to give you access to data that you can only get because we pay for it on your behalf.

We don’t do a great job of getting the word out about how much we can do for you. That’s one of the reasons we reworked our website, which we call Dome. We made it more accessible so you can see what we do and what you can access. That’s why the ambassador program was put in place, to tell you about what we can do. Of all our weaknesses, that’s the biggest one. We’re not as well known as we need to be. I want us to be bolder in our presence and visible to you so that when you think, “Oh, I need something,” you think, “I need the library.”

Mr. Long: Dr. Lank, thank you very much.

Mr. Ali: Dr. Lank, thank you for coming here. I love your passion. It’s amazing to see how you are into it and how you have that passion for the Library of Parliament.

I have had experience as a member of SCIM, the Subcommittee on Agenda and procedure of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We see there the work of analysts from the Library of Parliament who provide very capable support to our work in committee. Can you expand on the analyst program and on the various experts who work at the library? Thank you.

Ms. Lank: We are very fortunate to be able to attract some of Canada’s best and brightest analysts, usually people with masters or doctorates in a wide variety of fields, to provide support to all parliamentarians in all of their various parliamentary duties. We have a progression in our professional development process. We bring people in at different levels. As they develop experience, they then can move up in that analyst community.

One of the things we’ve realized over the years is, as Parliament and the questions you look at become increasingly complex, we need people who can be agile. They should not be so specialized that they can only look at one subject. If the discussion goes out of that lane, they won’t have the knowledge. We need people who are always wanting to learn and to develop new expertise.

We’ve built our teams to be multidisciplinary teams. Questions that might have been on foreign affairs before are now about foreign affairs, immigration and the environment. Things are very intertwined and complex. Our staff need the capacity to wrap their heads around those things, work with each other and give you the analysis that you need. We’ve got this cohort of expertise that works collaboratively with research, librarians and other analysts. We move people around in those teams so that, in your committees and in your associations, you have the support that you need.

The key thing we need people to know — and this goes to being more visible — is that this is the place you want to work if you want to be engaged in supporting Parliament and parliamentary democracy. I mentioned in my notes the importance of recruitment and retention. We need to get the word out about what we do and the huge honour we have in serving both the Senate and the House and being part of the parliamentary process. We’re here to support Canadian democracy. It doesn’t get any better than that. We want the best and brightest from across the country, in all of its diversity, to come here to serve you. Our analysts are front and centre in that role. I’m so fortunate to have them around me.

Senator Black: Thanks very much, Dr. Lank, for being here.

My comments come from the Canadian Senators Group. We met a few weeks ago and talked about the Library of Parliament. These are comments I’d like to share with you.

For Senate committees, the work performed by the assigned Library of Parliament analysts is vital. They provide important briefing notes for meetings and first-draft versions of committee reports on special studies and observations for bills. The women and men who assist parliamentarians are true professionals. We could not conduct our work without them.

However, there has been a noticeable decline in the work. My colleagues have told me that the analyses have been less in depth than in the past. Briefing notes have become more generic for studies. Reports are more superficial, with just summaries of testimony.

In addition, they note that — as we go on to say — in the past, the Library of Parliament analysts have worked with specific Senate committees for many years. They have become familiar with the work of the committee and have developed an excellent working relationship with the senators. A great level of trust is built over time. There now seems to be lots of rotation in library staff in committees. Is this a recruitment issue?

Can you please respond to those comments? Thank you.

Ms. Lank: Thank you, Senator Black.

We always appreciate getting feedback on our work. One of the things that we value is specific feedback from parliamentarians, from committees and associations on specific products. It’s very difficult to respond broadly.

We’re deeply committed to excellence. We want to provide you with what you need, and if there is ever a product that you find is not meeting what you need, then I invite you, encourage you, to speak to the analysts and say, “This isn’t what we were looking for,” or, “This is too broad. It’s not succinct enough,” or whatever it might be. We can only get better if we hear from you. I hope that the experience of some of your colleagues is an exception as opposed to anything more common, but as I said, outreach, feedback and communication are priorities for me. I would ask you to share that with the analysts. If you don’t get satisfaction from that, please, reach out to me or any of my senior team and say, “Hey, we’re not getting what we want. We need something to be done differently.”

In terms of the movement of staff, we fully appreciate the importance of continuity where possible, to have that corporate knowledge, the knowledge of the history of the committee and relationships. You know the people around the table. You know the chairs. But you can probably appreciate that, for sure, there are challenges in terms not so much of recruitment and retention but high levels of absences for things like parental leave. COVID did have its impact there as well. We’ve had a number of people who have had to take leave for a number of different reasons.

We try to allocate our resources in the best possible way. Sometimes that does mean we have to move people around. We appreciate that parliamentarians like to have continuity, but when you’re serving 60-plus parliamentary bodies and you don’t have thousands of staff, you’re still limited. We have under 100 analysts, and we try to put them in the right places. That means we must occasionally move people. Sometimes it’s not ideal for one committee, but it might mean a newly struck special committee can be served or another association with a key priority can have it addressed.

It’s a big puzzle. We do the very best we can. It’s not perfect. I’m sure we occasionally make mistakes, and for that I apologize. But I can assure you that we do the very best we can to meet all your needs to the very best of our ability.

Senator Black: Thank you. I’ll pass along your comments.

Mr. Melillo: Thank you for being here and sharing your thoughts with us. It seems that there’s a lot of exciting work under way, and we really appreciate the update on that.

I have one question on the process of Order Paper questions and, more specifically, the responses. As I understand, there’s not much of an opportunity for folks in the public to view those answers unless the member who posed that question would take that and advertise it on social media or wherever. Has there been any discussion or work to modernize that process through an online portal or something of that nature so that there is more transparency and accessibility there?

Ms. Lank: Thank you for that question.

I’m so pleased that you asked that because this spring, I’m so happy to be able to tell you that we have made those documents available to the public through our catalogue, so they are absolutely available. We took note of the interest of parliamentarians in increasing access to those sessional papers and tabled documents, and they are now available to the public without going through parliamentarians’ offices. It’s through our catalogue. It’s one of our big accomplishments. Our team did a fantastic job in making that possible. I’m very pleased to be able to answer that we did innovate. We’ve done it. It’s available.

Ms. Idlout: [Indigenous language spoken] Thank you to the co-chairs, and I just wanted to thank you as well. I’ve used the Library of Parliament services, and I absolutely want to give feedback that everything that comes back to me is excellent. I do get that mandate of giving your work to us. The excellence is absolutely there, so I do appreciate that very much.

When you were speaking about recruiting people, you’re recruiting people who have that excellence, masters and PhDs. I think we all know that currently the education system is still a very colonial education system where there’s still a lot of work that needs to be put into ensuring that Indigenous histories are being incorporated into academia, recognizing that the people you are recruiting still don’t have enough experience or education receiving that Indigenous side of history. In the Library of Parliament and the mandate that you have to help us get our information, what kind of work do you do to make sure that a bigger portion of that incorporates that hidden part of Canada where we’re all striving to make Indigenous histories more prominent, including maybe what you do to recruit Indigenous staff so they can be part of the team in helping make sure that at the Library of Parliament we’re starting to see more Indigenous peoples, First Nations, Métis or Inuit, especially with the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee? I always appreciate the great work that comes back to us. Just as part of your mandate, could you share what your future plans are for that?

Ms. Lank: Thank you very much for the question.

This is an area where we have thought long and hard and still have an enormous amount of work to do to figure out the best way forward. We know that, as an organization and as individuals within it, we have a lot to learn. We have pushed very hard over the course of my mandate to increase our own Indigenous awareness. Many of us at all levels of the organization, including at the most senior levels, have taken time to take courses online, to have training and to develop our own knowledge, because we don’t know what we don’t know. We realize that there is a huge gap in our own knowledge.

We have very much focused on educating ourselves over the last number of years and started to think about what we can do as an organization to create an environment not only that is welcoming to all and inclusive, but one that is known as a place that Indigenous peoples would want to work. Are there systemic barriers that we are not aware of that we need to bring down? Who can we partner with at universities or elsewhere in order to build ties of trust? Because you don’t want to work in an organization that you don’t trust. You mentioned the colonial history. Well, what is it that we can do at the Library of Parliament that makes it a place where Indigenous peoples, First Nations, Inuit would want to work, and, once they came here, would want to stay?

We’re wrapping our heads around it, and we’ve been consulting with Indigenous leaders and Indigenous peoples to say: What can we do better? We’ve thought about it in terms of building our collection. We’ve increased our collection’s content with respect to Indigenous titles and languages. We’re just beginning.

I welcome this opportunity to connect because you have ideas and colleagues have ideas of conduits and ways to connect with our various communities so that we can bring people in from the diversity of Canada. It’s a journey that we are advancing through education, outreach and expertise. We still have a long way to go, and I welcome any input that you might have to offer to us. We will continue to move ahead and learn, grow and get better and bring people in who have that richness that can be shared with committees, associations and individual parliamentarians. I hope that helps.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): Thank you, Dr. Lank, for all your time and passion in answering the members’ questions. It was a pleasure to hear from you, and looking forward to hopefully be working with you.

Mr. Long: Chair, I have a motion that I’d like to read:

That the committee recommends the reappointment of Dr. Heather Lank as Parliamentary Librarian and that the joint chairs inform their respective chambers of the committee’s recommendation at the earliest opportunity.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): Thank you, MP Long. I will ask the clerk to read it in French and then take questions.

[Translation]

The Acting Joint Clerk (Ms. Anwar): That the committee recommends the reappointment of Dr. Heather Lank as Parliamentary Librarian and that the joint chairs inform their respective chambers of the committee’s recommendation at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Plamondon: Today, the Prime Minister announced her appointment for another five years. You have it right there, in front of you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): That is the nomination certificate, but it has to be tabled in both houses.

It was done in the Senate last week, and the Prime Minister announced it today, but it hasn’t been done in the House of Commons yet.

Mr. Plamondon: Regardless — very well.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): It’s a procedural matter.

Are there any other questions?

Shall the motion carry, then?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Iacono): Dr. Lank, you’re back. Congratulations.

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): Is there any other business today?

Mr. Long: I move to adjourn.

The Joint Chair (Senator Ravalia): Seeing no further business, on behalf of my co-chair, I declare the meeting adjourned. Thank you.

(The committee adjourned.)