Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Mr. Leader, this week, a Radio-Canada news report revealed that, even though 30.8% of public service employees are francophone, only 19% of deputy minister and associate deputy minister positions are occupied by francophones. Interestingly, these positions are Privy Council and PMO appointments.

When the RCMP Commissioner testified at the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency last week, she did not utter a word of French. I asked the Library of Parliament to look into whether she had ever given a speech or answered questions in French. According to their research, there was no evidence that the RCMP Commissioner had ever spoken French. However, when she was hired, the language requirement for the job identified mastery of both official languages as an asset. In the official languages and diversity section, it says that the Government of Canada considers bilingual proficiency and diversity in evaluating candidates’ suitability for the position.

I really don’t understand it when the PMO says one thing and does the opposite. Does the PCO really prefer to appoint unilingual people to these key positions?

Senator Carignan: Part of sound human resource succession planning involves making sure that the pool or pyramid is larger at the bottom and that those individuals can move up through the ranks. It involves ensuring that there is a large enough pool of candidates who have the skills needed to carry out the duties.

How do you explain the fact that the pool is 30% francophone, but that only 19% of them are left at the top of the pyramid? Why does the government think that the francophone pool is less qualified?

Senator Carignan: Leader, the job of the Senate and of senators is not to provide sober second thought to measures introduced by public servants, but to properly study bills passed in the House of Commons and to ensure that regional interests, including minority interests, are respected and taken into account in the context of a thorough study. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Senate in this regard is very clear. Why continue trying to have the Senate do the work of the House of Commons?

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is for the government leader. I think you are misunderstanding the Senate’s historic powers. The power of the Senate goes beyond simply passing government bills. The Senate must also hold the government to account, conduct studies and produce reports. Right now, because of the pandemic, the committees are sitting half as often as they did in the past. Committee time slots have been slashed by 50%. Bills are now being introduced in the Senate before they are passed by the House of Commons, and this undermines the work of committees, which are supposed to investigate and hold the government accountable. Do you really believe that the only role of the Senate is to pass government bills?

(1550)

Senator Carignan: Waiting is not the only role of the Senate, leader. When we are not busy with bills, the traditional role of the Senate is to conduct inquiries, to monitor, to audit, and to undertake substantive studies on all sorts of topics. The inquiries seek to hold the government to account because the only counterbalance chamber, the only check and balance that exists in Canada with respect to the content of a bill, is the Senate. We are the only ones who have this power; even judges do not have power over the content of a bill. They have power when a bill is inconsistent with the Canadian Constitution, but not within the jurisdiction of the federal government. That’s where you misunderstand the role of the Senate. You think that because we are not seized with government bills we have nothing to do. We have a lot of do. We have inquiries to do, leader.

Senator Carignan: Mr. Leader, I would like to quote paragraph 57 of the 2014 Reference re Senate Reform, in which the Supreme Court quotes itself in the Upper House Reference. Paragraph 57 reads as follows:

[i]n creating the Senate in the manner provided in the Act, it is clear that the intention was to make the Senate a thoroughly independent body which could canvass dispassionately the measures of the House of Commons

When we do pre-studies, we are studying measures drafted by public servants, not measures adopted by the House of Commons, but that is not our role. You are absolutely right when you say that, if we follow my logic, which is based on the fundamental reasons the Senate was created, we would not do pre-studies. I completely agree.