Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 2 - Evidence - Meeting of January 28, 2008
OTTAWA, Monday, January 28, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m. to study and to report from time to time on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the Regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the act.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we will begin our meeting. It is a pleasure to resume the work we began before the holiday break. We are continuing to study the application of the Official Languages Act and of the Regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act.
I would like to introduce to you Senator Comeau, an active member of the committee, and on my right, Senators De Bané, Losier-Cool, Poulin and Tardif.
Today, our witnesses are, from the Canada Public Service Agency, Monique Boudrias, Executive Vice-President, and Kelly Collins, Director General, Research, Strategic Planning and Policy Development. Also with us today is François Nadeau.
Created in 2003, the Canada Public Service Agency, through its Official Languages Branch, assists the Treasury Board Secretariat in carrying out its responsibilities. Under the Official Languages Act, the Treasury Board of Canada is responsible for the overall coordination of Part IV, Communications with and Services to the Public, Part V, Language of Work and Part VI, Equitable Participation.
I thank you for having accepted our invitation to appear today before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. The floor is yours.
[English]
Monique Boudrias, Executive Vice-President, Canada Public Service Agency: Honourable senators, I am pleased to be here with my colleagues Kelly Collins and François Nadeau to discuss some of the key areas of interest to the committee and the important initiatives that flow from our responsibilities under the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
As you know, the Canada Public Service Agency leads the way in the use of official languages in the public service. While every institution is responsible for complying with the act, it is our responsibility to oversee the overall application of the act through various monitoring and audit activities. Specifically, we are responsible for Parts IV, V and VI of the act. Helping federal institutions meet their obligations under the act goes to the heart of what we do.
[English]
We are the government's centre of expertise for official languages. When a department or agency needs some help or advice, they can turn to us. If we do not have a ready-made answer or solution, we will make sure we get working on one. We do this by sharing best practices and providing tools and various communication products. We also support networks for official languages, as well as their many champions. All this happens in close collaboration with a number of partners, including our colleagues at Canadian Heritage.
[Translation]
This evening, I would like to give you a big picture of the progress federal institutions are making in implementing the act. I would like to do this by giving you a few highlights from our 2005-2006 annual report. Let us start with services to and communications with the public, or Part IV of the act. We find that, overall, they are available in both official languages at bilingual offices and service points. Indeed, the number of incumbents in bilingual positions who serve the public and who met the language requirements of their position has increased, reaching 89.9 per cent in 2006, compared with 88.6 per cent in 2005.
[English]
As for the language of work, or Part V of the act, we can note that, generally speaking, employees have access to the tools they need to work in the official language of their choice in regions designated as bilingual. This positive situation was reflected in the 2005 Public Service Employee Survey. It shows that a large majority of federal employees feel that their linguistic rights are respected at work. For example, 86 per cent of employees said they feel free to use the official language of their choice when they prepare written materials, and 90 per cent of employees said they feel free to use the official language of their choice when they communicate with their immediate supervisor.
Finally, I would like to underline the excellent improvements executives and supervisors in the core public administration are making in meeting the language requirements of their positions. As of March 31, 2006, nearly 93 per cent of them had met the language requirements of their position. This is a marked increase over the previous year, when about 85 per cent had met their language requirements. Back in 2002, it was 81 per cent.
[Translation]
We are buoyed by this positive trend. It tells us that the bilingual capacity in federal institutions has greatly improved. In addition, there is a spirit of renewal running through the public service right now. As you know, the clerk recently made public service renewal a top priority. He sees renewal not as a single event or initiative, but as a constant effort, requiring continuing attention from managers and staff at all levels. Since linguistic duality is a core value of the public service, the official languages program is also an integral part of our renewal process.
[English]
In this way, the current focus on renewing the public service has given us a wonderful opportunity to anchor bilingualism more solidly in the culture of the federal public service.
To that end, the agency has undertaken a number of initiatives to strengthen its role as a centre of excellence. This includes the official languages information campaign we launched this past fall in partnership with eight departments, agencies and Crown corporations. The information campaign is designed to give employees a better understanding of how the act applies to them. Another key objective is to motivate all employees to build fully bilingual working environments because they see its value, want it for themselves and want it for Canadians. The campaign comes with a number of dynamic and colourful products, such as posters, banners, bookmarks and key messages, all branded with a new, catchy logo.
[Translation]
Along with the campaign, the agency produced a number of fact sheets on official languages that institutions can use to remind their staff of their obligations under the act. These fact sheets touch on official languages rights in bilingual regions, how leaders can make it happen in both official languages, quick facts about official languages and support to official language minority communities. Last fall, we also held our third annual forum on best practices with our partners from Canadian Heritage and the Council of the Network of Official Language Champions. We had an excellent turnout. Over 300 people participated from across the country. And we are already planning for the next year.
We have also added to our inventory of tools to help institutions comply with all aspects of the act. This includes the popular official languages management dashboard. This web-based tool uses cutting-edge technology to give users a snapshot of the official languages program in their institution. It allows them to easily identify trends, their institution's compliance in key areas, and it even helps them to create tailored reports.
[English]
Another tool we are excited about is called the ABCs of linguistic profiles at your fingertips. It helps managers, as well as human resources and official languages specialists, identify the linguistic profiles of bilingual positions objectively and consistently. By using the tool, managers are able to better meet the requirements of the policies and directives on official languages.
We have received excellent feedback on these new initiatives, and we look forward to reporting back to Parliament in our next annual report, which will be published in the coming months.
This concludes my opening remarks. I would be pleased to take your questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Boudrias. Senator De Bané has the privilege of asking the first question.
Senator De Bané: You indicated that you formed a partnership with eight departments, agencies and crown corporations. Is that correct?
Ms. Boudrias: Yes.
Senator De Bané: Well then, could you give me an idea of the number of departments, agencies and crown corporations that did not participate in that partnership?
Ms. Boudrias: What I meant was that a number of departments or agencies were interested in organizing the event, but that does that mean that the other departments did not attend the event.
I am not saying that there are only eight departments out of 200 involved, but those departments most actively prepared the event. My colleague Kelly Collins could give you additional information.
Kelly Collins, Director General, Research, Strategic Planning and Policy Development, Canada Public Service Agency: The eight departments were partners in that they helped create products to visualize the messages. This was a joint campaign with those organizations. For example, they created a new official languages logo, which appears on the new products they distributed at large. All departments involved were invited to the launch, and those products are now widely used to promote official languages within departments and crown corporations.
The Official Languages Commissioner even congratulated us on the promotional campaign.
Senator De Bané: Ms. Boudrias, I have noted that in your remarks you often refer to the Official Languages Act, but the supreme law of Canada is the Constitution. That is why, since 1982, the landmark cases of the Supreme Court have been those intended to uphold or strike down pieces of legislation in light of the Constitution.
It is the Constitution of 1982 that for the first time established both French and English as our country's two official languages. They are equal in right, status and privilege. And yet, your remarks today did not contain a single reference to the Constitution.
In my opinion, one of the big problems we have is the fact that we still not realize the Constitution was amended in 1982 — this is the supreme act which none other must violate — and which stipulates that there are two official languages in this country, something which did not exist before. So I am concerned that you at no time referred to the Constitution.
Ms. Boudrias: I apologize for having forgotten that reference. In other documents we have published, we obviously referred to the Constitution and the Charter. And when people ask us where the primacy of both languages comes from, we of course always say that it comes from the Constitution and the Charter. I apologize for not having mentioned this.
Senator De Bané: Madam Vice-President, you have an overall view of the Canadian public service, so what new measures would you like institutions to adopt at every level of government so that this becomes a country where both languages and cultures can flourish as intended by our Constitution?
I am sure you have thought a lot about this. Why is there not more progress? I have been a Parliamentarian for 40 years and I see that there has been great improvement. In Israel, a dead language was brought back to life; nobody spoke it before, but today everyone does. In my country, which is the crucible of two of the most important languages of the western world, we still have not been able to turn Canada into a welcoming land for the two languages and cultures.
Ms. Boudrias: Honourable senators, I would limit my remarks to the federal jurisdiction since that is my area of expertise. I would like us to keep on working at creating a culture of openness between francophones and anglophones, but also on a culture of inclusiveness for new Canadians, who are immigrants and who will eventually become Canadians and probably public servants.
I also want our organizational culture to be positive and inclusive, that to make room for both languages, and I want people to understand why we have two official languages. We want them to respect our linguistic duality and we will also have to respect their various cultures, which are very diverse.
I think that the most important thing for us to work on is a change in culture, an open-mindedness on behalf of all public servants, regardless of where they come from, an open-mindedness towards other countries and towards our own beautiful land.
Senator Tardif: Madame Boudrias, you presented a very interesting report and you talked about success rates in certain areas. However, a few weeks ago, the commissioner strongly criticized the public service when he said that the Official Languages Act was being applied in a minimal way within the federal public service. In his view, the active provision of services in French fell from 25 per cent to 13 per cent in the 37 departments and agencies which were studied.
I would like to know what you think about what the Official Languages Commissioner said.
Ms. Boudrias: First, I would say that we were struck by the results concerning the active provision of services. I just want to make it clear that we are talking about the active provision of services in French by public servants. We are not referring to the French writing on signs, because these are plainly visible to people entering our offices.
The active provision of services in French by public servants was identified as being weak, whether it was over the phone or in person within governments. This situation concerns us and measures are currently being taking with the organizations at issue. We are trying to improve the situation in the various offices which provide services by public servants. On that point, we agree with the Official Languages Commissioner.
However, I take issue with the commissioner saying that, generally speaking, the Official Languages Act is not being applied as well as in the past. We noted positive results in certain organizations and departments. Our annual reports show that there has been improvement in certain areas, such as the representation of anglophones and francophones, the quality of French and English, and the number of bilingual positions filled by bilingual people.
Further, language training, which used to be mandatory for bilingual positions, has become an aspect of career development. Language training is also available for unilingual employees working in unilingual positions. We have a strong, active and vibrant network of champions within departments throughout the country.
So we do not agree with the Commissioner of Official Languages with regard to the application of the Official Languages Act.
Senator Tardif: Let me give you an example of a minimalist application of the act. In your report, you say the Department of National Defence's official languages program was a good model because it established a strategic vision over five years for the department in the area of language at work. However, this program has been criticized recently.
People have said that the francophone units and the anglophone units have been marginalized from each other. An example of this was the situation in Borden, Ontario, and I would certainly not say that this is a model for official languages.
Ms. Boudrias: At the Department of National Defence, you have to distinguish between the situation of civilian employees and that of the military personnel. On the civilian side, the situation is very different because the process is the same as that for other public servants in the area of language training, job classification, and access to information, as well as in the areas of service to the public and central services.
But the situation at Borden only involves military personnel. That does not fall under our jurisdiction, but rather that of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian armed forces. Surely they can show us the new model they have adopted and which is more adapted to the military structure than to the normal structure within a department.
I myself was assistant deputy minister for civilian human resources with the Department of National Defence for several years. I can say that the military deals very differently with training and promotions within their ranks; it is the same for officers.
However, I can tell you that a new strategy has been implemented; there is even talk of reopening the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean to train officers. But I believe it would be more appropriate for someone else to speak to what is happening in the military.
Senator Tardif: Does Air Canada fall under your jurisdiction?
Ms. Boudrias: It is a crown corporation.
Senator Tardif: Do you have to make sure that Parts IV, V and VI of the Official Languages Act are applied by Air Canada?
Ms. Boudrias: They are covered by our policies. I know that incidents occur in different places and that the Official Languages Commissioner receives complaints and launches investigations, but we have recently sat down with Air Canada to review its strategy. I could ask my colleague to speak to that issue; Air Canada has produced a revised strategy which was signed by its board of directors. The new strategy addresses the situation and is aiming for better results. I could ask Mr. Collins to say a few words.
Mr. Collins: I can add that Air Canada recently presented a new language training model. We have not audited Air Canada recently to see if its results are worse than those of the public service, but we know there are problems with Air Canada's French services. It is one of our objectives, especially within our information campaign within the official languages network. When we do audits, we ask departments and crown corporations for their plans of action to determine what they need to do to improve their services in French. It is one of our priorities.
Senator Tardif: I can tell you that the services in French are basically non-existent when I go to the airport each week to fly between Edmonton and Ottawa.
The Chair: I have a question in addition to those asked by Senator Tardif about the armed forces. You talked about a civilian structure and a military structure. Does one not influence the other? Are you saying that these are two separate entities?
Ms. Boudrias: From a human resources point of view, that is correct. The entire training and development system in the military is based on a military structure according to rank and various other elements, such as what your military rank is or whether you are an officer. In the military, promotions, appointments, advancement and training, in a person's area of expertise or with regard to language training, are independent of the human resource management structure of civilians, which is based on the Employment Act and the Labour Relations Act, under which most civilian employees are unionized. Their situation is similar to that of other federal public servants.
As for operations on a day-to-day basis, we are obviously dealing with a combined organisational structure where public servants sometimes report to military personnel, and vice versa. This is not the case in a theatre of war, because that only involves the Canadian armed forces. But as for headquarters here, in Ottawa, and military bases, those are combined operations.
Senator Poulin: Ms. Boudrias, before coming to this meeting, I did a bit of research and looked up your résumé. I noticed that for several years you were on a team which worked on modernizing the public service. I believe that team was headed by Ms. Robillard, who was the president of the Treasury Board at the time, but the Privy Council was also involved. This team worked in the very middle of the public service for several years.
If I asked you to compare the official languages situation in Canada's public service 15 years ago, when you were part of that important team, to today's situation — you are now the executive vice-president and the person responsible for applying the Official Languages Act in the public service — can you tell us what the key changes have been in the public service in relation to official languages?
Ms. Boudrias: Fifteen or 20 years ago, I was in Montreal, because that is where I began my career. I would say that one of the marks of progress is that most of the time, documents are sent to Quebec in both official languages.
Senator Poulin: Are you saying that ``translation to follow'' does not appear anymore?
Ms. Boudrias: There are still a few minor exceptions, but in the vast majority of cases, and this is wonderful for the people working in Quebec, the French version arrives at the same time as the English version, rather than the French translation arriving after the English version. This is a huge step forward. I would also say that there are many more bilingual anglophones than there were 15 years ago. Many more anglophones meet the language criteria; and young anglophones entering the public service are already bilingual or have a good understanding of French, thanks to immersion classes. These people show a marked interest in working in both official languages. They also have fairly high success rates regarding their ability to learn a second language, and they are interested in doing so.
The cultural side I referred to earlier improved; great strides were made in terms of the organizational culture. Meeting management has also changed. Even though it is not always easy to have bilingual meetings — what we call ``active participation'' — people speak in the language of their choice and respond in the language of their choice. There has been a lot of change in that regard. I just completed a cross-Canada trip which included 25 events and 344 workshops. When bilingual sessions were offered in some regions, they were well received.
Moreover, here in Ottawa, we had a completely bilingual session without simultaneous interpretation. Those whose language level was adequate to understand and debate the topic were invited to attend a bilingual workshop without simultaneous interpretation. So we did that. The facilitators and participants spoke in the language of their choice. And in my opinion, that is tremendous. And that is the next step; the more often we are able to hold that kind of session, the more inclusive and open the organizational culture will become.
Senator Poulin: When you travel as a parliamentarian on a mission abroad, you often hear an acknowledgment of the quality of our public service in Canada.
And you should know, as parliamentarians, that it is a great source of pride for us.
There is also the acknowledgment that we are a bilingual country with one province which is predominantly French- speaking, but that we also have an increasing number of francophones throughout the entire country, thanks, in part, to the positive impact of immersion schools.
I appreciated your answer to my question on the way things have developed over the past 15 years. In my opinion, globalization is one of the factors which has greatly influenced the perception people have of Canada and the work Canadians do. And this has especially been the case in the past 15 years.
Has globalization had an impact on the motivation of public service employees, has it encouraged them to learn the second language and to speak it well?
Ms. Boudrias: Well, it makes people realize that in some countries people speak several languages. That is particularly the case with Europeans. They often speak more than two languages. We are one of the rare countries where there are two official languages. And it makes us feel really good about ourselves to be able to tell our foreign counterparts that our employees can work in the language of their choice, be supervised in the language of their choice, get promoted based on the fact that they are bilingual and be able to supervise staff in both languages. The public servants from foreign countries are amazed by this.
You are often particularly proud to be able to speak and promote both official languages when you get home. We are recognized as a professional public service. And our public servants are proud of this, and rightly so. We have a merit-based, skills-based, non-partisan system, and a public service commission which promotes a well-honed merit- based system.
So the recognition I referred to extends to our skills and we are proud of this.
Senator Goldstein: To begin with, I would like to thank Ms. Boudrias for her excellent presentation. She gave the full overview we were needing in order to grasp the crux of the problem.
I have several questions which are not necessarily interrelated. Here is my first question. I have observed that the annual report is dated May 2007 when in fact it deals with the fiscal year ending May 30, 2006. Can you explain this delay? I presume that the delay is, to some extent, due to the fact that certain agencies and institutions did not produce their report on time?
Ms. Boudrias: There are a number of reasons explaining this delay. There were data entry delays. Unfortunately, some of the governance-based bureaucratic processes require several signatures. There are unfortunate delays in the publishing of our reports when there are changes to the organizational structure, governance changes, for example, and changes in agency heads and departmental directives, and ministers.
I would indeed hope, honourable senator, that the next report will be published in a more timely fashion.
Senator Goldstein: Is this kind of delay typical?
Ms. Boudrias: No, it is not typical. It was delayed a little longer than we would have hoped. Obviously, every organization needs to do its data entry, and then this data has to be analyzed. I think that we will be able to do better with 2006-2007.
Senator Goldstein: When you receive data from the various institutions subject to the act — and there are hundreds of them — how do you go about analyzing these figures?
Ms. Boudrias: I will ask my colleague Mr. Collins to answer your question since he has an operational focus to his work.
Mr. Collins: Every year, we ask for each institution's record. There are 200 institutions. The report is based on the Treasury Board's official languages policy requirements. We also require positive qualitative and quantitive data.
We examine each institution's results and use two reports. There is what you could call a sort of self-assessment on whether or not the requirements are met. In addition, we factor it in the audit-based data and the commissioner's reports. We provide the department with feedback based on this data.
Our records are sent to your official languages committee and the House of Commons by the departments. A rating is established based on this institutional analysis.
Ms. Boudrias: This rating is used as part of the performance measures management framework.
Mr. Collins: The rating is given to each respective deputy minister and institution. We look at one institution at a time. Then we make a horizontal list. And that is part of why the work takes so long.
Senator Goldstein: So you analyze the data given to you. Is there any procedure in place to verify the accuracy of the data submitted to you by these various institutions? Do you go to the institutions themselves and conduct an audit of sorts, or do you accept the data on face value?
Mr. Collins: We have a team which conducts horizontal audits. As a result, we are able to determine whether there are any discrepancies between the departments' results and our audits.
As I mentioned, we also review the results from the Official Language Commissioner's observations and recommendations, as well as our own. With 200 institutions, it is difficult to carry out an in-depth audit-based analysis. As far as skills assessment is concerned, and whether or not individuals meet the language requirements, we have a reliable database which guarantees the accuracy of the results. We are proud of the fact that 92 per cent of individuals meet the language requirements.
Senator Goldstein: I presume that the institutions want to prove they are meeting the act's requirements. And yet, that has not quite been our experience with certain institutions — as I imagine it has not been for you.
I wonder what kinds of procedures might be developed to make sure that the data you use to produce your annual report and your status reports, if there are any, are extrapolated on verifiable, accurate, and rigorously empirical data.
Ms. Boudrias: Senator, I would like to add, if I may, that the statistical data we receive, for example on language training, are backed up by data from other institutions. For example, if a department tells us that 50 per cent of its employees got language training this year, the public service school's registry will be able to confirm this.
The same is true with respect to staffing bilingual imperative positions. We look at the competition notice announcements posted on another system and are able to determine the number of positions staffed. We get this data from the Public Service Commission of Canada.
Different institutions receive different reports. I am referring to central agencies. You can actually cross-reference various data bases, which means that we can verify the data we are given, especially the quantitative statistics.
Senator Goldstein: On page 80 of your report, you provide a very interesting table on the participation of bilingual persons in the public service and this is broken down by profession. The data focus on three groups: English speakers, French speakers, and a group of individuals for whom the language is not specified. Do you have any data indicating to what extent English speakers and French speakers are bilingual? Because simply saying somebody is an anglophone or a francophone does not necessarily mean that these individuals only speak English or only speak French.
Ms. Boudrias: There are other statistics about the number of English speakers holding bilingual positions in comparison to the number of French speakers.
Senator Goldstein: There are certainly tables indicating the number of positions that are supposed to be bilingual, but there is no profession-by-profession breakdown.
Ms. Boudrias: If you do not mind, I will provide you with a written response in a few days because I do not have this information at hand and I do not want to waste your time.
Senator Goldstein: I would be very interested in that. Thank you. I have another question. You said that there are three types of annual records which can be filled in by federal institutions and they are the complete record, the quantitative record and the targeted record. Since I do not have a complete grasp of that terminology, could you explain to me firstly what the difference is between these three types of records and whether or not the institutions required under the act to produce reports give you complete records?
Ms. Boudrias: Over the years, there have been improvements made across the federal public service to the results- based accountability framework, and not only in the area of official languages. One aspect of the accountability framework is to determine specific official languages objectives and outcomes. We have come quite a long way when it comes to measuring outcomes, audits, oversight and reporting. And this means that we do not have to bother those institutions with the best results with all the fine print, because we know they have performed well. For these highly compliant departments, we target one or two indicators where a particular effort must still be made or where best practices and monitoring is required. Now, there is a second tier of departments and agencies which have a little more to do. We continue to target them across a greater number of outcomes and indicators. Obviously, those least compliant, where best practices have not been implemented, have no choice. They are still required to report across the full spectrum of indicators as far as official languages is concerned. And we place our heaviest focus on this last group in order to improve their outcomes.
Senator Goldstein: I am still on page 80. Table 13 — I am referring to the ``all categories'' section for now — shows an increase in the number of francophones holding positions in the public service from 1978 to 2000, and again from 2000 to 2005, but there is a slight decrease in 2006. I know you are not clairvoyant, but do you see the decrease in the participation of francophones within the public service as a trend?
Ms. Boudrias: I do not want to do any planning without good analysis, but I would not say that it represents a dangerous fact, a decrease in francophones. It is a variation based on the type of positions we had to fill in certain departments or in certain regions over a given period of time. We are not very concerned with this decrease. We will see next year, because we are in a period where demographics are such that many people are retiring. We are currently in a period of massive recruitment for the entire public service. All of the departments are now hard at work going to all the universities throughout the country, in all regions, to recruit francophones and anglophones from all regions and universities, both English-language and French-language universities.
Senator Goldstein: I am relieved to hear that. Thank you, Ms. Boudrias.
Senator Comeau: I would like to go back to a question senator Tardif asked about Air Canada. Your response was that Air Canada is, in fact, subject to the Official Languages Act.
Ms. Boudrias: That fact is recognized insofar as service to the public is concerned.
Senator Comeau: Last week, I was reading a report by the executive director of the Acadian Federation of Nova Scotia about an incident he experienced eight months earlier at the Air Canada counter in Halifax. He had a camera that he was using to film agents who refused to serve him in French. He was so insistent that the agent called the RCMP. That should not have happened, and they could have gone to get a francophone instead of ending up like that. The RCMP informed the agents that the director was doing nothing wrong and that he was entitled to film them. During that exercise, the executive director missed his plane. He was finally allowed to take a second plane. In the months that followed, the executive director of the federation worked with Air Canada in order to resolve the communication problem that he had had, but without success — according to what I read in the papers. That is when he asked the government to do something. Here is my first question. The executive director is extremely frustrated and has lost confidence in the negotiation process with Air Canada; whom can he turn to?
I read in the paper that he wanted Mr. Lawrence Cannon, the Minister of Transport, to take care of the problem.
If I understand correctly, you tried to help federal organizations. In your view, who should the executive director go and see? The Commissioner of Official Languages, the Minister of Transport, politicians?
Ms. Boudrias: I would say that he should go and see the Commissioner of Official Languages, because it is his mandate to investigate inappropriate behaviour as regards service to the public. As the organization responsible for the application of the policy, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages must work with Air Canada to ensure that services are offered in an appropriate way.
Obviously, since it is an independent organization and not a department, we cannot get involved in Air Canada's business, in the way employees are managed, or in discipline.
As regards the way Canadians are served, I believe that we certainly have something to examine in terms of quality of service.
Senator Comeau: I understand that the quality of service at Air Canada is not your responsibility. However, you are responsible for the application of Parts IV, V and VII of the act. If Air Canada decides to call the RCMP when someone demands to be served in one of the two official languages of the country, imagine how Air Canada treats its employees who insist on using one of the two official languages.
Ms. Boudrias: I think that our involvement must be limited to the context of the Official Languages Act. We cannot get involved in anything dealing with behaviour or discipline, anything concerning the way they do things and in these specific cases. We can get involved in defining what a service is. If it were a department — because at Treasury Board, as an employer we have responsibility over discipline — it would be different. We would have more influence over the behaviour of this individual and over the action that was taken. But at this stage, if we intervene, it would be interfering in Air Canada's business.
Senator Comeau: Seeing how Air Canada treats its customers gives us the impression that its employees are not all that well treated. If it is not up to you to do so, who can ensure that Air Canada treats its employees humanely? There must be a way of doing that.
Ms. Boudrias: Air Canada must ensure that the CEO enforces the organization's internal policies.
Senator Comeau: So they are not subject to Parts IV, V and VI of the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Boudrias: They are covered. Official languages is not the issue, because they must provide the services. But if the services are provided in a way in which the behaviour is in question, we cannot intervene in the corporation's business in terms of discipline. We are not the employer.
Senator Comeau: You say that you are not the employer. But who can we turn to?
Ms. Boudrias: The president of Air Canada and its board of directors.
Senator Comeau: So you are saying that the president of Air Canada and its board of directors take care of Parts IV, V and VI of the Official Languages Act and determine if they meet the requirements of the Official Languages Act.
Ms. Boudrias: Perhaps Mr. Nadeau can provide you with a clear answer.
François Nadeau, Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice Canada: In this regard, allow me to draw your attention to the Air Canada Public Participation Act which stipulates, in section 10, that: ``The Official Languages Act applies to the Corporation.''
Of course, it is a crown corporation that reports to Parliament through the Minister of Transport. And as with each crown corporation, the government does not get involved in the daily business of the corporation. That is why there is a board of directors. And of course, since the capital stock is held by the government, the Minister of Transport would be in a better position to explain to us the governance structure at Air Canada.
Also, the company has obligations under the act, which simply means that a person may file a complaint before the commissioner and bring it before the Federal Court to obtain redress. The role of the agency is limited to one of monitoring.
Senator Comeau: There is one thing that I would like to be made clear. I see a difference between Parts IV, V and VI which concern the employees, and Part VII, which concerns the public. In the case of a complaint concerning Part VII, would the commissioner be responsible, and concerning the employees, would the Minister of Transportation be responsible?
Ms. Boudrias: I would say that as concerns a complaint about official languages, the Official Languages Commissioner would be responsible.
Senator Comeau: Regardless?
Ms. Boudrias: Regardless. It would be the Official Languages Commissioner. But as concerns the company's internal administration, my colleague, Mr. Nadeau, gave an answer concerning the Minister of Transportation and the board of directors.
The Chair: I would like to clarify something with regard to Senator Comeau's question. I want to make sure that I understand clearly because it is fairly complex. What strikes me is that the agency can do the best work in the world, but when there are entities that do not necessarily respect the rights of official language minorities, there is nothing you can do, and that seems to have an impact on your otherwise excellent work.
If I understood clearly, in the case of Air Canada and the employee who did not provide the service, it would be considered interference on your part to take action because it is not your responsibility?
Ms. Boudrias: In the case of Air Canada, it must be ensured that the company provides services. We have no say in how the services are provided because the Treasury Board is not the employer of this company's employees, and this applies to all crown corporations.
The Chair: In the case of a military structure within the Canadian armed forces, you cannot intervene either?
Ms. Boudrias: In that case, it is the Chief of National Defence who has jurisdiction over members of the military and the military structure.
The Chair: What about in the case of the RCMP?
Ms. Boudrias: The same thing applies. The RCMP Commissioner is responsible for the police officers, whereas we are responsible for the members of the public service who work for the RCMP.
Senator Losier-Cool: There is an African proverb that says, ``We can hear the sound of a tree falling, but we cannot hear the forest growing.'' I think that the entire issue of language skills in Canada is like the forest growing. The public service can play the role of sunlight and rain to help the forest grow. I would like to discuss the report.
As concerns skill levels, you state that over 60 per cent of positions that are designated bilingual require skill level B, but that only 31 per cent require skill level C, which is higher. Does your agency have the power to ensure this skill level?
Ms. Boudrias: It is very complex, but yes, we are responsible for determining levels A, B and C. We have a language designation and language skill policy.
How are the levels determined in the government departments? First, the manager must have a description of the positions held by each employee. Based on these job descriptions, the manager must determine the number of bilingual positions needed in the organization and the number of unilingual French or English positions.
Once he has determined that the positions are bilingual, the manager must determine the employee's level of language competency, and this exercise is based on the duties to be carried out by the incumbent. The list of duties determines what constitutes a basic level; for example the ability to say ``Hello,'' or ``you are welcome,'' in French, which will be level A. Level B denotes a level of more elaborate conversation, but does not require the public servant to participate in an intellectual debate, and level C will mean that the incumbent must be able to debate policy in both languages, discuss trade issues, preside over meetings, and so on.
A guide has been developed on line, which makes the process even more objective. This is the guide used within departments. Managers simply have to read the guide, answer yes or no, and judging from the answers would be able to determine the level of written communication, oral communication, reading capabilities, thereby setting the level for a given position.
Not all public servants need to obtain level C, which is a high competency, much-sought-after level, to provide services to Canadians or to provide central services to their employees. All duties are well defined using the agency's instruments, under the authority of Treasury Board.
Senator Losier-Cool: You were saying that if a level inferior to level C is required, this does not denote less proficiency?
Ms. Boudrias: Level C is the highest level of proficiency.
Senator Losier-Cool: Yes, but only 31 per cent of bilingual positions require Level C.
Ms. Boudrias: That is correct.
Senator Losier-Cool: Is it not because only 31 per cent of available staff have level C?
Ms. Boudrias: Absolutely not.
Senator Losier-Cool: Just because of the nature of the position.
Ms. Boudrias: Exactly.
[English]
Senator Murray: I am confident that the person to whom Senator Comeau referred, the one who had the problems at Halifax international airport, would have been happy to have had at his disposal someone with B level competence in French.
I was at Halifax airport, Stanfield International Airport, as it is now known — all the more reason why they should be careful about bilingualism in view of his support of that policy for many years. I was in a line-up at Halifax airport sometime last fall, and I observed an elderly couple who spoke only French and who had some difficulties with their tickets or their itinerary. Someone was recruited to come and conduct a consecutive interpretation. The passenger would ask the question in French, and the interpreter would put the question in English to the clerk at the wicket. She would reply in English, and the interpreter would then explain in French to the passenger.
I do not believe for a moment that it is necessary for everyone who works for Air Canada or at the Halifax airport to be fluently bilingual. However, that experience and the one referred to by Senator Comeau say to me that they do not have a mechanism in place and it was not possible for them, on the occasion I observed, to go and get someone conversant in French to deal directly with those passengers.
No one likes bad publicity. In the case Senator Comeau mentioned, Air Canada got at least $1 million of bad publicity. When we privatized Air Canada, we made them subject to the Official Languages Act. They have protested this, from time to time, as imposing an undue burden on them for competitive reasons. I think they have pretty well stopped that. I think they know they cannot get out of it.
Whether they are also subject to the policy is another question. However, they do not like bad publicity. We lack a mechanism, too. It is obvious from the discussion here that we, the federal authority, lack a mechanism to ensure that the law is being respected by Air Canada, and they lack a mechanism to ensure that incidents such as we referred to do not happen.
Air Canada is a good airline. We all complain about it, but any of us who have travelled on airlines in other countries, notably our neighbours to the south, have a pretty good idea about how good Air Canada is. However, some of the top management are not Canadians and could not be expected, perhaps, to have the same understanding and sensitivity to these issues that those of us who have lived with Air Canada forever have.
There has got to be a heart-to-heart discussion between Air Canada and the government about the mechanism they need to put in place to ensure that the law and the policy are respected. We need to have a mechanism here. Frankly, I do not think it is a Treasury Board issue. The government and the Commissioner of Official Languages must stay on top of the situation with respect to organizations like Air Canada that we have privatized but yet are still subject to the law. You may wish to comment or not.
I also want to engage you for a few minutes on the question of the language training of federal public servants. I continue to be troubled by the anecdotal evidence — and it is always anecdotal evidence because I doubt we would ever get a public servant to come here and tell us in public — that the availability of language training for federal public servants is quite uneven. The farther away from Ottawa you are, we are told, the less your chances of being able to avail yourself of language training.
Cases have been described to me — and I have raised this matter here before — where supervisors of a relatively small unit are told, ``If you want to send Mr. or Ms. X to language training, your existing budget swallows it, including the cost of replacing that person while he or she is on language training.''
I accept, and I think we all do, that for someone who aspires to the senior ranks of the federal public service, bilingualism is absolutely necessary. However, we are doing a terrible disservice to people who are in the far-flung regions if we do not give them the same opportunity that people in the capital have to learn another language.
A public servant in Vancouver or St. John's, Newfoundland should not be disadvantaged in that respect. I would like you to comment. If there are inequities, I would like to know that they are being stamped out vigorously by the appropriate authorities. When I raised this subject with the President of the Public Service Commission, her explanation was that the managers, for example, have ongoing questions like this.
Finally, there is the question of the designation of bilingual positions. I am harking back to complaints I heard a long time ago that may not still be valid. I would like to be assured that the designation of bilingual positions is being conducted with real rigour. Senator Losier-Cool mentioned the fact that of the 60 per cent, more or less, of positions designated bilingual, only 31 per cent require level C competency. I do not know whether that is good or bad. I do not know whether we need more positions designated at the top level or whether we should have more positions designated as level B. I would like to think that while managers must «manage,» their management of this issue is being supervised very closely in the interests of the overall policy.
Ms. Boudrias: I agree with the first part of your question regarding Air Canada and the boards and Crown corporations. Recently, I was asked to present at a training session attended by board members of Crown corporations. My part of the presentation was about their accountability regarding official languages and how, as board members, they have a responsibility to ensure that they look at their annual report, our reaction to their annual report and the indicators we provide them in terms of improvement. Through those means, we are sending the message that board members, CEOs and chairs have a responsibility, especially when cases occur such as the one you described at the Halifax airport. A case such as that should ring a bell or raise a red flag for the board and the CEO. It is their responsibility. We are starting to have that kind of conversation with them through the training sessions we offer.
In an effort to offer adequate training across the country, I agree that for many decades we have had difficulties reaching out to our employees who speak only English or French. However, we have improved with the new model. We are moving away from the concept of training people when it is time to train them just because there is a bilingual position to be staffed, they want to compete for the job and they are not bilingual. This type of training is very demanding and costly.
Instead, the new model is designed to provide support for training within the concept of continuous learning in terms of professional development. In 2006-07, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Kevin Lynch, launched the Public Service Renewal Action Plan. He requested that deputy ministers ensure that there is a conversation between each and every one of our employees with their line managers about training and development. Obviously, they have to focus on all kinds of training needs for those employees. In many instances, those employees may need access to language training locally so that they do not have to come to Ottawa to attend a training school. How can these employees be offered training locally?
The Canada School of Public Service is looking into partnerships with universities and community colleges across the country to ensure that access is being given locally, in addition to the private sector. We are also looking at certifying contractors across the country to teach English or French to our employees. This will ensure that the quality will be there so that if there is an opportunity for employees to apply and win a position, they will already have the knowledge and skill to do so.
We are making progress. I cannot say it is perfect, but the new training concept has only been in place for about two years. Again, the Public Service Renewal Action Plan was launched in 2006-07. We will start seeing the results next year and really be able to evaluate whether we are doing the right thing and whether we are correctly oriented in terms of action. If not, we will have to make a course correction.
In terms of access, we are also looking at technology. How can we reach out to our employees who work far away from a main city such as Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver? We are studying how we can access those people through electronic means. The Canada School of Public Service has established an electronic campus, the e-campus. There are 350 French and English courses available to employees. They are not necessarily courses to learn a language, but if employees wish to improve their language capacity, they can decide to take an e-training course in their second language. They can improve their understanding by registering for a course that is not in their mother tongue. We will see how that improves capacity.
Your third question had to do with designation of bilingual positions. I have been in human resources for many years. The fact that we were manually identifying the volume of bilingual positions and eventually the level, there may have been gaps in terms of them being designated level B or level C. We may not have been sure about the level. With the development of that electronic tool, which is more focused on identifying the proper functions, level and skill sets, we will improve the quality of identifying our positions.
We must also take into account that the mandates of the departments are moving and changing. We are talking about globalization, so it is important that we promote the utilization of such a tool when managers have to decide what kind of mandates and results they need to achieve. Do they have the right job description? Have they updated the job description of their employees? If new skills are required because the mandate has changed, there must be a review of the designation and the level in terms of official languages.
We are currently reviewing all those pieces in terms of public service renewal. It will give us a better appreciation of the quality of what we are doing.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: I understand that the Canada Public Service Agency is responsible for the application of Parts IV, V, and VI of the Official Languages Act. Nonetheless, your institution also has responsibilities concerning Part VII of the Official Languages Act. In 2005, amendments were made to Part VII of the Official Languages Act. These amendments provided for the government's commitment to enhancing the vitality of francophone and anglophone minorities in Canada, promoting linguistic duality, and taking positive measures to this effect.
Can you tell me how your institution interprets its obligations with respect to Part VII, and in light of this obligation, how it intends to take positive measures?
Ms. Boudrias: Our organization offers services to departments and agencies. We are responsible for internal services. Our work does not involve providing direct services to Canadians, even though we provide a few. I am referring to recruitment programs.
When we recruit interns who work in the area of management or policy development, we publish announcements in our recruitment zones and make sure that the members of all communities are given the possibility of applying for these positions.
In another connection, when we work with official languages champions, we make sure to promote that component, as their departments have access and provide direct services to the public.
Our role, therefore, is more so one of indirect influence on the application of the act. The same applies when we work with our colleagues from the Treasury Board Secretariat which is responsible for reviewing submissions to the Treasury Board. In their analysis of these submissions, we make sure that they have criteria to weed out bias or barriers that might be in the submissions from the departments and interfere with access on the part of francophone or anglophone communities. Once again, our work is one of influence. We ask the Treasury Board to comply with these criteria, since we do not have direct access.
Senator Tardif: In playing an influential role with official languages champions, do you suggest that agencies carry out consultations with official languages communities?
Ms. Boudrias: I will ask my colleague Mr. Collins to answer your question, since he works very closely with official languages champions. He will therefore be able to give much more detailed information.
Mr. Collins: Each year, we hold a conference with official languages champions from all departments and crown corporations. This conference is held in the regions. Last year, the conference was held in Summerside, Prince Edward Island, at the francophone community centre. The local community was invited to make presentations on various issues.
We open our networks, alongside Heritage Canada, which is also a member, to open the gateways to communities. We have two networks, one consisting of those who are responsible for official languages within crown corporations, and another for departments. Every year, we hold a conference in the regions, for communities, with partners from Heritage Canada, as a way of allowing our networks to develop, and maintaining a relationship with minority communities in the regions. This is the type of work we carry out.
In addition, our awareness campaign includes a component on Part VII. We are always trying to create opportunities to promote all parts of the act with stakeholders in activities with our partners.
Senator Tardif: Could you define the expression ``positive measures''?
Ms. Boudrias: I would ask Mr. Nadeau to answer your question, because there is a legal component to its definition, and I do not want to venture into that territory without the support of my advisor.
Mr. Nadeau: Subsection 3 of section 41 of the act provides for the governor in council to define what is meant by ``positive measure.'' For now, there is no definition of the concept of ``positive measure.'' To my mind, Heritage Canada is a better position to answer that question, because they oversee the coordination of Part VII of the act.
Senator Tardif: You are subject to Part VII. You are also responsible for implementing an action plan to promote positive measures. Consequently, you must nonetheless have a definition, or an understanding of what that means. This notion must be properly understood before you can encourage others. I am interested in hearing what you think of all that.
Ms. Boudrias: Given that there is no clear definition that has been set out by the government or by authorities, we try to decide, within our own mandate, how we can take positive measures for our communities.
When we received the letter from our colleagues at Heritage Canada, in the absence of a working definition — and representatives of Heritage Canada should be able to update you on this point — we reviewed the term ``positive measure'' that is, what we can do to help, influence, and improve the situation. We reviewed our mandate and asked ourselves what this means for each of our vice-presidents in their daily work lives.
Of course, the vice-president in charge of recruitment programs said that we must ensure we provide access to everyone in all communities so that they are familiar with our programs.
For people who work in the official languages in the public service and for those who have no outside service, we asked ourselves how we could be of assistance. For example, we help our colleagues at the Treasury Board Secretariat review submissions to ensure that they are not biased and rather present a positive vision. We encourage them to give departments advice to help promote positive measures. These individuals have access to new programs and to new departmental approaches through Treasury Board submissions.
That is how we define this provision in our mandate.
Senator Tardif: What we need is not necessarily a legal definition. I would like you to tell us what you are doing to introduce positive measures for the agencies and the communities.
I would add that it is important to consult the communities. Not only should there be meetings with champions, not only should there be activities such as the one held in Summerside and elsewhere, but there must be genuine consultation of the Summerside and other communities when these meetings of official language champions are held. That is a possible example of positive measures.
Mr. Nadeau: Since we are lawyers, we tend to restrict our responses to a purely legal context. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that the most important consideration for the government is the Official Languages Accountability and Coordination Framework.
Let us look briefly at what each of the institutions is doing — and perhaps this may meet your expectations — in the context of their strategic planning. Each institution must follow the steps set out in the accountability framework. In some cases, that specifically involves consulting the minority communities. So there is a very specific framework that sets out the role of each institution and the government's expectations with respect to the initiatives introduced by each federal institution.
Senator Tardif: I would like to talk about cases where the head offices of federal institutions are moved. We did a study of this issue and submitted a report to the government. In it, we recommended regulations under Part V of the act in order to guarantee federal employees working in the head office of a federal institution the right to work in the official language of their choice.
I would like to know whether you intend to act on our recommendation.
Ms. Boudrias: Let me start by explaining how things work at the moment. As you know, we have an implementation principle that was approved by Treasury Board and that we used when Tourism Canada moved to Vancouver.
In that case, we did follow-up to ensure that the policy was implemented. It is one thing to have a principle, and it is another to implement it. For the moment, nine francophone employees have moved to Vancouver, and we have checked with them to ensure that they have retained the same rights that they would have if they were working here in the national capital region. After looking into this, we found that everything is working very well.
This principle is continuing to be enforced and is in effect at the moment. The principle could be used in future for moves involving other federal employees. It worked the first time, and it worked well and it did not violate the rights of any employee as regards language rights.
To answer your question, we have in fact taken your suggestion into account. At the moment, we have no clear direction from our minister to change everything. We will be having discussions about this in the months ahead. For the time being, however, we have not worked on any other options.
Senator Tardif: If other situations pop up, you will deal with it on a case-by-case basis. So there is nothing to ensure that this right will be respected when a head office moves from a bilingual region to a unilingual region. It goes without saying that a case-by-case approach does not guarantee compliance with Part V on language of work. I hope you will recommend that the minister move in this direction.
Senator Goldstein: A number of press releases were issued at the time the annual report came out, and they were released more or less across the country. However, since these press releases came out, we have seen nothing in the current media about the activities of the agency and official languages. However, in the last two or three weeks particularly, I have noticed that there is an active campaign on the part of the Ottawa Citizen to denigrate the bilingualism policy.
For example, I am referring to an article published last week, on the 17th, another on the 26th and another on the 21st of January; there is also an article, or rather a letter from quite a well-known commentator, George Pappas, on November 28. They allege that the fact that senior public servants have to have a reasonable knowledge of the two languages means that some public servants cannot get promotions, and others cannot even get into the public service. For example, the last sentence reads as follows:
[English]
The current push is to hire visible minorities to reflect the population balance. Is it going to work? Not as long as bilingualism trumps the ability to do the job.
[Translation]
The job, specifically, is to be bilingual in the first place. Who communicates such a message to the public? The press is not doing it. Do your publicists issue press releases or give interviews, or do you have some people who could write to newspapers like the Ottawa Citizen and others — but particularly to the Ottawa Citizen — to say that there is another side of the coin and that they are showing a lack of regard for the very essence of Canada?
Ms. Boudrias: We do not necessarily have any publicists, because that is not the nature of the public service, but we can write letters to newspapers to set the record straight. We have done it in the past to ensure that facts were accurate and to say that there is another side to the story contained in the articles, which are often inflammatory and cause further tension among public service employees. Articles of this type do nothing to promote understanding and mutual respect in the departments. So there are things we can do and there are times when we should do them.
For the moment, we are waiting for other reports on official languages. The government is waiting for some reports, including Mr. Lord's report, and we are waiting to see what the government's position on the report will be. The government, our minister and Ms. Verner, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, will definitely be taking a public stand on the report.
Senator De Bané: In our committee's report on the Federal Court decision in Doucet v. Canada, our committee asked that the requirement to prove that demand for RCMP services be at least 5 per cent be removed from the draft regulations. We asked that this requirement be removed, because the court recognized that there was significant demand. That recommendation was ignored. Can you tell us why? I would like to know why this recommendation made by the committee was ignored.
The Chair: Our committee recommended that the Treasury Board policy be changed to take into account what the Federal Court of Canada has said. The judge had left the door open to the need to provide service to the travelling public. Treasury Board changed the policy and did not take into account the recommendation made by the Official Languages Committee; rather, it decided to make a very minor amendment, when there was an opportunity to broaden the services provided by the RCMP, and to think in term of providing services throughout Canada along the Trans- Canada Highway.
Ms. Boudrias: I will ask Mr. Nadeau to answer you question.
Mr. Nadeau: You have read the Doucet judgement as have I. We were supposed to follow up on a court ruling, and the timeline was very tight. We got an extension until October 19, 2007. We had to deal with the problem identified in the ruling. I would draw your attention particularly to what was stated in the judgment, namely:
Accordingly, the Court declares that the subparagraph in question does not comply with paragraph 20(1) (a) of the Charter in that it conditions the obligation of the RCMP to provide services in French at the Amherst detachment showing on the percentage of the French-speaking population determined by census and fails to take into account the number of francophone travellers using the Trans-Canada Highway in the area served by the Amherst detachment.
At the time, only the census information was used — that is, the number of francophones living in the geographic area. Of course, the new regulation takes into account the dynamic demand, that is the number of vehicles on this section of the Trans-Canada Highway. I understand from your question that there was a broader recommendation, namely to go beyond what was proposed and what was published in the Canada Gazette at the time and discussed at Mr. Baird's last appearance before the committee.
In order to meet the deadline set by the court, the government chose to proceed in this way in order to deal with an imminent problem. It chose to proceed by means of a cabinet decision and a Governor-in-Council regulation.
Of course, it is up to the government and cabinet to decide whether the regulation should be reviewed in full or whether further action should be taken to make changes regarding the RCMP.
The Chair: If I understand correctly, the regulation could be changed again, if someone requests it or approaches the government? I am going to mention another example, the case involving Justin Bell in Saskatchewan, who had the same experience, that is, no service in French from the RCMP. He had some difficulties and now wants to go to court, but he cannot afford to do so. So this is another case involving RCMP services and our approach was to ask why the RCMP services along the entire Trans-Canada Highway should not be treated in the same way as those provided by Air Canada and VIA Rail?
Mr. Nadeau: I understand the concern expressed by senators and the objective of your recommendation. I would, however, just like to give you the context of the Justin Bell case, where the RCMP detachment in question was not required under the federal regulations to offer bilingual service.
In this case, the RCMP was acting as the provincial police service and had no obligation to provide bilingual service. That is why the Commissioner of Official Languages did not hold an investigation under Part IV of the Official Languages Act. This also raises the whole issue of the RCMP when it is acting as the provincial police force.
The Chair: Thank you. There are no further questions. I sincerely want to thank all three of you for appearing before this committee. Ms. Boudrias made an excellent presentation, and the answers to the questions were very clear and accurate.
Honourable senators, we will suspend the meeting for a few moments and we will be going in camera for a few minutes, please.
The committee continued in camera.