Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 9 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, June 15, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:04 p.m. 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. Topic: Treasury Board: its annual report and the implementation of part VII of the Official Languages Act. Subject: consideration of a draft report.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am Senator Maria Chaput from Manitoba, chair of the committee.
I would like to start by introducing the committee members present today, beginning with the member to my far left.
[English]
Senator Duffy is from Prince Edward Island, and Senator Comeau is from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne from Quebec, deputy chair of the committee, and Senator Fortin-Duplessis from Quebec.
To my far right, we have Senator Robichaud from New Brunswick, Senator Losier-Cool, who is also from New Brunswick, and Senator Tardif from Alberta.
[English]
Senator Jaffer is from British Columbia.
The committee welcomes the Honourable Vic Toews, President of the Treasury Board, who accepted our invitation to appear before the committee this evening to provide an overview of the Annual Report on Official Languages 2006- 07, published in February of this year, and an update on the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality. Furthermore, the committee is currently studying the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act and will ask questions on the achievements and the initiatives of the secretariat in this regard.
On behalf of this committee, I thank and welcome the Honourable Vic Toews and the representatives of the secretariat who accompany him. We have Michelle d'Auray, Chief Human Resources Officer, and Marc O'Sullivan, Acting Senior Vice-President, Workforce and Workplace Renewal Sector. I now invite Mr. Toews to take the floor, and senators will follow with questions.
Hon. Vic Toews, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board: Members of the committee, Madame Chair, thank you for your invitation to come here today. I am here to talk to you about the progress we are making on official languages.
As you know, the Official Languages Act is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. We can certainly be proud of what we have accomplished and continue to accomplish. There is still work to be done, of course, and this is why the government announced last year the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality. The roadmap represents an unprecedented commitment of $1.1 billion over five years, involving 14 departments and agencies. This initiative is being led by my colleague, the Honourable James Moore, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages.
For my part, my department continues to operate as a centre of excellence for official languages. As such, it will continue to coordinate the Official Languages Program in federal institutions subject to Part IV, Part V and Part VI of the Official Languages Act. These three parts deal with services to the public, language of work and the equitable participation of anglophone and francophone Canadians in the public service.
As you know, the institutions covered by the act are responsible for its implementation. A big part of our job at the Treasury Board Secretariat is to support them in integrating official languages into the culture of their organizations, and we are. For example, my officials provide workshops and best practices, they manage networks of champions and functional specialists, and they provide advice and interpretations to clarify the requirements of official languages policy instruments.
There are many signs that our efforts are bearing fruit. We can see this in the level of leadership being demonstrated in federal organizations. For instance, the great majority of institutions give official languages objectives a central place in their strategic planning. This is an indication of the culture change that continues to take place in the public service.
Madame Chair, if we think back to 40 years ago, most communities across the country had to communicate with federal institutions in the language of the majority. Today, slightly over 90 per cent of official language minority communities have access to federal services in their language. This is incredible progress. In 40 years, we have gone from a practically unilingual public service to a bilingual public service. Before the act was in place, the percentage of bilingual positions was less than 10 per cent. Today, the number is more than 40 per cent. In the National Capital Region, the figure rises to 65 per cent.
Two important events coming up for us are the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. My department is working closely with Canadian Heritage to reinforce the obligation that federal institutions have to provide services in both official languages during the games.
Before I close, I would like to address recent comments made by the Commissioner of Official Languages. In his last report, he suggests that Treasury Board's responsibilities under Part VIII of the act are not being fully assumed. Part VIII of the act sets out a number of things that Treasury Board can do to give effect to Part IV, Part V and Part VI of the act, including, for example, establishing policies, monitoring the compliance of federal institutions, and evaluating the effectiveness and the efficiencies of policies and programs of federal institutions that relate to official languages. I can tell you that we have been very active on all of these fronts.
Let me mention just three initiatives that we have undertaken under Part VIII. We have established policy instruments for all parts of the Official Languages Act under Treasury Board responsibility. An official languages champions network has been established to promote the efficient and adequate use of both official languages in federal institutions, and there are now 75 such champions. We also hold a best practices event every year. It gives the Treasury Board Secretariat an excellent opportunity to share examples of good practices with all institutions.
I can also tell you that the new governance structure announced by the Prime Minister earlier this year, which includes the creation of a new Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer within the Treasury Board Secretariat, can only strengthen my department's ability to support and encourage institutions to fulfill their obligations under the Official Languages Act.
This represents an overview of what we do as part of our responsibility to develop the overall coordination of the Official Languages Program in federal institutions. I would now be happy to take questions. The specific technical questions will be handled by my officials.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Before moving on to questions, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the minister will be with us until 6:30 p.m. We must therefore time our questions carefully to ensure that all senators have time for at least one question.
The first question will be put by Senator Jaffer.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for joining us today. We appreciate your attendance. I am glad to hear that you will be reinforcing the obligation of federal institutions to provide both official languages during the Olympic Games. I appreciate your leadership.
Obviously, I am biased; I am from British Columbia. What role are you playing to ensure that our language duality is well represented at the games?
Mr. Toews: Thank you. It is wonderful that you come from British Columbia. My mother comes from British Columbia.
Senator Jaffer: I thought there was something good about you.
Mr. Toews: There is more that is good about me than only that.
Senator Jaffer: I could not resist.
Mr. Toews: I have a lot of family there. It is a wonderful place.
All Canadians are very proud of the role and responsibility we have in respect of hosting these particular games. I believe the games will be wonderful.
The games themselves are planned and organized by VANOC, the Vancouver Organizing Committee. It is a non- governmental organization. It recognizes that the official languages of the games are French and English. It has committed to complying with the language requirements set out in the multi-party agreement. My officials are working closely with the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat at Canadian Heritage that has the lead in that particular role to remind institutions of their obligation to provide services in both languages during the games.
A working group made up of representative institutions will be working closely with the public during the games to set up an exchange of ideas and carry out joint projects in connection with the 2010 Olympic Games. Our role in the Treasury Board is a supplementary and supportive role. It is not the lead role. That remains with VANOC and Canadian Heritage to the extent the Government of Canada is directly involved in those games.
Senator Jaffer: If I may ask respectfully, Mr. Minister — because your mother comes from B.C. — that you take an additional role in ensuring our official languages are well represented. I encourage you to play a greater leadership role.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Will the $1.1 billion roadmap stop the assimilation of francophones outside Quebec? Let me quote from excerpts from the roadmap:
This unprecedented government-wide investment of $1.1 billion over five years will encourage linguistic duality among Canadians, and offer support to official-language minority communities in five priority areas: health, justice, immigration, economic development, and arts and culture.
Personally, I am troubled by the fact that the Roadmap contains no mention of education among those five priority sectors. The Roadmap continues:
Our goal is to support the cultural vitality of communities by emphasizing the value of increased knowledge of both the English and French languages and access to services for official-language minority communities.
In your view, will emphasizing the value of increased knowledge of the English and French languages and access to services for official-language minority communities really make it possible to halt the assimilation of francophones outside Quebec?
[English]
Mr. Toews: I am very encouraged by the progress that has been made outside of the Province of Quebec with respect to francophones. If you look at my own riding of Provencher — the riding of Louis Riel — there is a vigorous and outspoken francophone community. It takes in somewhere in the range of 18 per cent of my riding depending on what figures you use. It is probably the largest francophone concentration in any riding of Western Canada. Some might argue that St. Boniface is bigger. I think mine is almost a larger percentage by this time. The chairperson is very familiar with my riding given that her roots come from Ste. Anne in my riding.
I have seen a consistent growth in the francophone community in that area. I have lived in Manitoba all of my life. The strength in the francophone community is demonstrated not only in the schools, but in cultural activities and various business developments. The Manitoba government and the federal government expend money directly into the educational system through the francophone school boards and similar initiatives.
We cannot simply look at that $1.1 billion as the only money being expended. There are other monies. For example, I can testify personally to my involvement in ensuring bilingual police services in my riding based in St. Pierre. That extends throughout a large part of my riding including the village of Ste. Anne.
I rely in large part on personal knowledge. However, if the success of what is happening in my area and province is any indication of what is happening generally with francophones outside of Manitoba and Quebec, I am very encouraged.
For example, my own daughter was in French immersion. She speaks French and English. She came from an area where people did not speak French.
French immersion is continuing and is seen as a real asset. It is not only money. It is the strength of the community where we see many developments being made on the issue of minority language rights outside Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: In your statement, you say that the great majority of institutions are giving official languages objectives a central place in their strategic planning. That is wonderful for the great majority of institutions, but does that mean that some will not make the efforts they should be making? Could you please talk to us about that?
[English]
Mr. Toews: Efforts are being made beyond the federal government and Treasury Board in support of departments primarily responsible for the delivery of French language services or development of minority language rights, whether in Quebec or the rest of Canada.
I am quite encouraged by the role that the provinces have played in Western Canada. In 1997, when Judge Chartier, who now sits on the Manitoba Court of Appeal, sat on the provincial court, he wrote a report entitled, Above All, Common Sense. He talked about the delivery of justice services in the Province of Manitoba. The blueprint set out by the province at the time has been followed not only by the prior Conservative government, but now also by the New Democratic government. There seems to be a consensus in Manitoba that this is a good thing. The federal government and the province are working together in order to enhance those services.
Speaking of Justice Chartier, for the first time in Manitoba's history, we had a panel of three francophone judges who were fluently bilingual. Unfortunately, Justice Joyal decided he would rather be in the trial division of the Queen's Bench in the Court of Appeal and moved in that direction. In my view, he should have stayed, but that was not my choice; it was his choice.
I was very proud of our government moving in that direction such that a litigant did not have to rely on translation in order to be heard in the official language of his or her choice. I look forward to the day when we have that three- person panel again, as we had for a brief time, in the province of Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: So, you would agree that judges must have the capability of hearing cases in both official languages?
[English]
Mr. Toews: I believe that the first criterion for a judge should be legal competence — without question. Whether a judge should be required to know both official languages, I do not believe that is a requirement. I believe it would be nice always to have a panel or a judge who, at any time, could hear a case in a particular official language.
However, I would be very concerned to compel a Supreme Court of Canada justice to be bilingual and lose the legal abilities the individual might have. For example, Justice Rothstein, who was recently appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, speaks some French but he would not be considered bilingual. I would hate to think that we would have bypassed an opportunity to appoint a man or woman of that calibre to sit on the court simply he or she did not speak one of the official languages. In fact, it raises the question about a case being heard in a language where the judge claims to be bilingual. The concern is: Who determines whether that judge is bilingual? The nuances of law can be very tricky even when speaking the same language. We must always have robust translation services to buttress our abilities to speak in the language of our choice before the court.
Senator Robichaud: I agree that people should be able to express themselves in the language with which they feel more ease.
Senator Comeau: Recently, there was a private member's bill in the House of Commons that, if I understand correctly, would have made federal ministries and federally regulated institutions in Quebec subject to the French language only.
Mr. Toews: Yes.
Senator Comeau: The bill did not come before the Senate but it received serious review in the House of Commons.
May I have your take on this bill? It is my understanding that if a bill like this were to become law, the French language would be the language of work in federal departments and federally regulated institutions.
Could this not be applied to the provinces as well such that if Quebec can do it, why not Nova Scotia, for example?
Mr. Toews: I would have serious concerns about that, specifically for the harm it would cause to minority language rights in a province like Nova Scotia or Manitoba or Saskatchewan.
Senator Comeau: If it is good for Quebec, it is good for elsewhere, is it not?
Mr. Toews: Yes. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. We should continue to strive to provide service in the official language of the person's choice, whether French or English. I believe that is the real strength of the Official Languages Act. The intent of the OLA was never to compel people to speak both official languages. It was intended to compel government to listen to people and to provide services in the language of their choice. That is the strength of the Official Languages Act.
I note that even in the vote in the House of Commons, numerous Liberals from Quebec opposed the bill.
Senator Comeau: Good for them.
Mr. Toews: They understood that the bill amounts to a destruction of official languages and the right to communicate in the language of your choice.
Senator Comeau: I congratulate you and your colleagues for stopping it dead in its tracks. Just the fact that it reached the point of being a private member's bill and being voted on is kind of scary. Thank you.
Senator Tardif: If I understand correctly, the Bloc Québécois brought the private member's bill brought forward. Is that right?
Mr. Toews: That is correct. It had support from a number of Liberals and New Democrats, as I recall the vote.
Senator Tardif: However, the majority in the House of Commons opposed the bill.
Mr. Toews: Certainly, the Conservative Party opposed that bill and a sufficient number of Liberals did so as well to defeat that bill.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Minister.
[Translation]
I would like to come back to the Roadmap for Linguistic Duality. If I understand correctly, the roadmap contains no new measures for official languages in the public service. There is no funding set aside for official languages. Yet we know that the public service has not reached the level it should have, even though you said there have been improvements. We know full well that, when it comes to finding employees, or to providing service to the public face- to-face or on the telephone, there are major problems still. What is your plan to ensure that there are more resources and more follow-up for official language training? Is there also some way of ensuring that our government plays a leadership role in order to meet the requirements of Parts IV, V and VI of the Official Languages Act?
[English]
Mr. Toews: That is a good question. Undoubtedly, every department requests resources. There are never enough resources for every department and in each department, the concerns are the same; whether it is running a surplus or a significant deficit.
I am pleased with the progress that we are making with the money that we have allocated to the department in order to ensure that we continue to see a growth in the civil service in terms of language training and language proficiency.
I indicated in my opening remarks, for example, is that we have seen a significant growth in the bilingual abilities of the public service over the last 40 years. The money allocated to that is obviously important to move that trend along.
However, we know that anglophones and francophones are represented in the public service to a degree that is generally reflective of their presence in the general population. However, as my original comments today indicated, before the OLA was in place, the bilingual positions in Canada were 10 per cent. Today, that number is more than 40 per cent. Again, here in the National Capital Region, it is 65 per cent.
Clearly, we have been making progress in terms of the number of bilingual individuals in the public service available to take requests and perform services in either official language.
From time to time, obviously, money is requested by departments. We review those requests and make determinations on the basis of what is necessary given all of the relevant circumstances.
Michelle d'Auray, Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board of Canada: The elements for departments to cover their expenses or their expenditure or the costs, whether for language training or for other activities, rests within each organization to do so, because each institution is responsible for achieving the objectives for which it is responsible under the Official Languages Act. It is very much incumbent upon the organizations themselves to fund, support and meet their obligations.
Senator Tardif: Do they get extra monies for that or do they have to take that out of their operating budget in order to provide the linguistic training?
Is there an incentive for departments to offer linguistic training if they have to take it off the line item of something else in order to cover that linguistic training or are additional funds supplied to enable them to meet their linguistic obligations under the Official Languages Act?
Ms. d'Auray: The funds are already built into their training and operating budgets, so it is already embedded in the reference level of each department of each organization. For example, in terms of expenditures on training, as a whole, federal institutions in the core public administration would have expended around $53 million on training, but that comes from their own reference levels, their own obligations to do so.
Senator Tardif: Would they get more money than the institutions that are not under the Official Languages Act?
Ms. d'Auray: No. They have funds within their own reference levels. Whatever the votes that are attributed to each department or agency that Parliament provides them is built into the reference levels. There are no special funds. There are no particular attributions, but it is within their obligations to provide training and support for those officials who require the training.
There is a time limitation for officials to achieve their proficiency, as required by the positions they occupy. The obligation is with the department to provide the training for those officials at all levels who have to meet the requirements, but they have to do so within a set time frame.
[Translation]
The Chair: My question follows on Senator Tardif's question on official languages training. In the past, the School of Public Service was responsible for providing such training, and a budget was allocated to that end. Now, individual departments are responsible for providing language training. If I understand correctly, funding for the training is provided for in each departmental budget. In other words, departments do not receive additional funding to provide the training. Is that correct?
Ms. d'Auray: That is correct.
The Chair: Are you responsible for following up on the training? Is it possible to assess the training and ensure it is adequate, in spite of the fact that no additional funding is provided? Is someone there to see that training is provided?
Ms. d'Auray: We receive information from individual departments, which gives us an idea of their spending on training. We must also take into account the fact that, at present, over 90 per cent of senior managers meet their language-related obligations. When it comes to training, we must take into account the ability of all senior managers and officials to fulfil their language-related obligations, as they already do. It is not always a question of providing more funding, or determining whether departments should provide more funding. We must also look at the ability, and the exceptionally high percentage of people who can already meet the language criteria for their positions.
The Chair: So what you are saying is that, on the whole, the capacity is there?
Ms. d'Auray: To a considerable extent, the capacity is indeed there. Departments provide training, and at the same time provide capacity maintenance sessions. The sessions can be offered at very low cost, and make it possible for employees to practise and engage in dialogue. There are various kinds of workshops, each of which has a different cost, depending on the capacity present and the level of activity required both by the individuals involved and by the federal institution in question.
Senator Champagne: In an ideal world, all our young Canadians would be bilingual on graduating from secondary school. They are as intelligent, and have as good an ear, as a young Swiss, for example, who speaks four languages — French, English, Italian and German — by the time he or she graduates from high school. The ideal would be to have all Canadians speaking both languages, and learning a third.
[English]
Learning a third or fourth language would be the best. Someone brilliant said that the more languages you speak, the more lives you live. I think that is quite true.
We have been discussing language training once you have hired someone in the public service. Are you doing anything to attract bilingual people to enter the service, so that wherever you are in Canada, if someone needs help, from whatever department, there is always someone who speaks two languages? In that way, a francophone could get help in French even if he or she was in Vancouver or an anglophone in Quebec City could get help in English.
What are you doing especially to try to attract those young bilingual people to work for the public service? There are more and more of them who are now bilingual. Think of all the immersion schools in English Canada, and it is being done in Quebec as well. Premier Charest is trying to have English taught early in school.
Instead of hiring them and then training them, what can you do to pick and choose those who are bilingual?
Mr. Toews: I will let Ms. d'Auray answer that question.
I want to stress the importance of equal participation of unilingual anglophones and unilingual francophones in our public service. We cannot close the door to those people. It will never be a case of saying we will just hire bilingual people, and if you did not learn it both official languages in your youth, that is too bad.
That would be unfortunate. It will always be the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that there are facilities to increase the capacity and training of these individuals.
You mentioned the European experience. Many of us come from that background. Often it was necessity that taught those individuals to learn three, four or five languages. It was not uncommon. My own grandfather spoke four or five languages fluently, because he had to.
Senator Champagne: Where did it go? You do not speak the two languages.
Mr. Toews: He did not speak French either, but he spoke other languages.
Senator Champagne: I am sure.
Mr. Toews: Again, it was important at that time to speak a number of languages. One of the problems we face, if I might be direct, is that the last time that many MPs will use the other official language is the day they leave Ottawa. There is not the same compelling necessity to speak it in those other areas of the country, whether it is the regions of Quebec or certain areas of British Columbia. There might be a demand, for example, to speak Mandarin or Cantonese, but the same requirement, the necessity to speak French in that area, or English in another area, is not there.
That limits your ability, in some respects, to have ready-made French and English bilingual people. I say we cannot let up on our responsibility as a federal government to ensure that there are adequate training facilities and supports in the federal public service. However, we do take certain measures to attract those individuals because it does save us some time and money.
[Translation]
Ms. d'Auray: Allow me to give you an example. Last year, we recruited just over 4,000 university graduates into the public service. A little less than half were already perfectly bilingual. A further recruitment drive will probably yield the same percentages. We are already seeing the fruits of language training in universities, colleges, secondary schools, CEGEPs and other institutions but I will say — and this is something the Official Languages Commissioner highlighted in his report — that in universities and colleges, to some extent, there has been no sustained effort to provide education in the other language. This means that training in the second language — or immersion — often ends after secondary school or CEGEP, and sometimes even before entering CEGEP in Quebec. We have begun working with universities to ensure that graduates can maintain their language capacity, particularly those who have spent several years in immersion programs.
As is indicated in the roadmap, the School of Public Service has just undertaken an initiative with some universities to ensure that part of the curriculum — be it in public administration or some scientific disciplines — can be taught in the other language so that graduates, particularly graduates in specialized fields, can enter the federal public service with a sufficient level of bilingualism.
To come back to the minister's comments, there are specialized areas where we do need to look for expertise in the specialty. In the sciences, environmental sciences and sometimes in finance, we need to find people that would have the required expertise, and language training will become an unavoidable step as well.
Senator Champagne: It might be useful to inform our young people in the process of learning a second language that, once you speak two languages, you will find the third much easier to learn.
[English]
Senator Duffy: It has been a fascinating afternoon. Forty years ago, there were supplementary estimates when the programs began. It has now become such an integral part of the public service that there does not need to be a separate training line. Everyone accepts that it is part of day-to-day business.
In Prince Edward Island, every September, there were stories in the paper about parents who camp out for two days to get their kids into French immersion. There are only so many spaces, and they park in a gymnasium, camp out in a sleeping bag to ensure their kids get in at the very earliest levels.
Is that reflected across the country, and how are the provinces picking up on what I believe is still a very strong desire on the part of many parents? Both of my kids are fluently bilingual, and that was because the federal government funded it here in Ottawa 35 years or 40 years ago.
What are the other provinces doing? It is the most amazing positive experience that anyone can have.
Mr. Toews: The requirement to provide those minority-language services is found in our Charter of Rights. I believe it is section 23. I mix it up sometimes with Manitoba's obligations under the Manitoba Act for the provision of those services as well.
We have seen some litigation in places like Manitoba to define the right. To what extent is that right constitutionally defined?
Most of those battles, I would say, are over, and the extent of the constitutional right to learn that minority language — the other official language — has been settled.
There are, however, some individuals who simply do not fall within the protected areas, and it is much more difficult. You run into the kind of situations that you have there.
In the province of Manitoba, for example, in the community of St. Pierre, we not only have French immersion; we also have the French school board that is a very different board than the immersion, which is under the regular public school system. In fact, in the community of St. Pierre, English students have to take a school bus to Morris to take English instruction. It is strange, but that is the way the community and the rights have been worked out.
There are some difficulties, even in a place like Manitoba, for someone who wants to take his or her training in English as opposed to French. There will always be those kinds of difficulties.
The government not only has to respect its constitutional rights, but sometimes the governments have to go beyond those rights and look at the situation practically and ask how do we encourage this movement and how can this best be accomplished?
Senator Duffy: It is not a problem in P.E.I. It is over-enthusiasm, an oversubscription. Anglophone parents want their kids to be bilingual.
Mr. Toews: That is a problem in terms of trying to get the service.
Senator Duffy: Is the federal government helping in those cases.
Mr. Toews: Other than financial support for the school boards, the Government of Canada does not involve itself in education because that is a provincial responsibility. However, we do have certain requirements in terms of the Constitution to ensure that minority language rights are respected.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: Welcome, Mr. Minister. I do understand that education is not under federal jurisdiction, but can you identify the federal institutions where bilingual services are somewhat lacking? What can you do about it? How can you exercise leadership, be it with other departments or institutions covered by the Official Languages Act? Have you identified certain institutions, and, if so, how can you remedy the problem?
[English]
Mr. Toews: As I indicated, the role of the Treasury Board is a supportive role in terms of the public service. We work with the departments to ensure that their statutory and other obligations are met in the course of the public service. However, the primary responsibility for ensuring that is done is, in fact, through the individual departments.
We have created certain central agencies that assist these departments and Ms. d'Auray is instrumentally involved in one of those departments. Our initiative, in terms of developing centres of excellence in order to support individual departments, is another example. The linguistic roadmap is certainly an overall plan of where we see things going in terms of linguistic rights.
Perhaps Ms. d'Auray can give other examples.
[Translation]
Ms. d'Auray: We work with the organizations closely. In fact, we work particularly with organizations who identify challenges in their performance. We rely on the information that institutions provide, as much as we do on reports by the Official Languages Commissioner.
We will target and work with organizations who may have the lowest performance rating for the provision of services in some areas. So we cooperate with the organization, work together in determining practices, encourage them, and put them in touch with institutions and organizations that have demonstrated best practices, so that they can learn and understand the best ways of fulfilling their obligations.
In most cases, I would say that most deficiencies are in the area of providing services. It is a question of how service is provided in both official languages. Particularly when it comes to face-to-face service, because telephone and electronic services already have a high level of bilingual delivery. But when someone walks up to a counter, a booth, or a service provider, that provider does not always automatically offer services in both languages. It requires a great deal of effort, and we have to work with everyone providing front-line service.
Sometimes, staff turnover is very high, so we have to keep coming back to the same things. We need to focus our efforts and perpetuate best practices to ensure that the tools are available, and that people are regularly reminded of what they need to do. That is the kind of work we do with organizations that may have the greatest official language challenges to face at the moment.
Senator Losier-Cool: Is awareness-raising one of the roles that the 75 champions have? Do the champions run the workshops?
Ms. d'Auray: Yes. In individual departments and organizations, there is one person responsible for the official languages program, and there is a champion whose primary role is to provide encouragement, to raise awareness, and to remind people of their obligations. But basically, every department head is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the role is supported, that the awareness-raising is done, and that performance management and program management is properly approached and done. That is the top administrator's responsibility.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Minister, I do not agree with you about the issue of ``necessity'' to speak languages. I think it is a creation of culture. I was raised to speak many languages and never thought it was a necessity. I just thought it was creating a culture. I think that is all our responsibilities, yours and ours, creating a culture where our children speak French and English; the dream my colleague was talking about.
I have a question about the training. Since the Canadian School of Public Service mandate ended in 2007 it is no longer providing language training. I understand that a considerable drop has happened on language training from the last fiscal year from $33.8 million to now $19 million.
Can you explain how it is possible to determine the cost of training by each department and the numbers of persons who are receiving it? I understand you may not be able to give the committee all of the information today. Since each department is responsible for it, how do you supervise?
I want to know what percentage of people in B.C. is receiving the training compared to what percentage is receiving it in Ontario, and from each department. How is each department accountable?
When Ms. d'Auray talked about it being embedded in the department, I know that anecdotally many people are saying to me that their manager said this year that they could not get French training because they just do not have the money.
Mr. Toews: I will let Mr. O'Sullivan answer that question.
However, on the issue of necessity, I do not want to leave that alone. My only intent in raising that is sometimes people learn through necessity and learn quicker because it is necessary to do so. Creating a culture is a more difficult thing and does not have the same driving forces in all situations. Would it be nice? Yes, absolutely. Is there the same drive in every situation to learn both official languages? No. That is where the Government of Canada can play a very important role in developing in fact, as you say, that culture. I will leave that issue at that point. Perhaps Mr. O'Sullivan will speak to the technical issues.
Marc O'Sullivan, Acting Senior Vice-President, Workforce and Workplace Renewal Sector, Treasury Board of Canada: First, we ask departments to provide us with information for the types of language training they do and we distinguish between required training for the positions and training done for developmental purposes.
It is important that public servants can strive to become bilingual even if at this point in their career, it is not part of their job requirement. Departments provide training for people who are learning a second official language, not because they need it for their current job but for their future development, and that is encouraging.
We know there are costs of training breaks down to about two thirds, one third in terms of one third devoted to training required for the job and two thirds for developmental purposes. We see they are looking forward and not doing it just for their immediate job but also for the future career of that public servant.
We will continue requesting that information from departments in order to be able to get that overall picture of language training.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much, Mr. O'Sullivan.
Can you provide that information to us in writing? Also, can you answer all the questions I asked in writing? I know you have not had the time. I asked a number of questions and can you provide those answers in writing, please?
Mr. O'Sullivan: Okay.
[Translation]
The Chair: Unfortunately, it is already 6:30 p.m., and we have no time left for further questions.
Senator Robichaud: Would the minister agree to staying on for five minutes longer?
[English]
Mr. Toews: I have an appointment at 6:30 unfortunately. My officials are more than prepared to stay here, unless they have other appointments. If you wish, my officials will stay.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Minister, thank you very much for being here this evening. And good luck. We will continue with Ms. d'Auray and Mr. O'Sullivan.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you, Mr. Minister. My question is to Ms. d'Auray, and follows on Senator Losier- Cool's question on the organizations.
Earlier, you described the oversight process. Does that process also cover the Canadian Forces, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Air Canada, and Revenue Agency? Do you oversee them, even though they do not come under you?
Ms. d'Auray: Yes. For example, we have had discussions with the RCMP, Air Canada and some airport administrations.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Do you think that the President of Treasury Board plans to show more leadership among federal institutions to guarantee the delivery of bilingual services during the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, as recommended by the official languages commissioner?
Ms. d'Auray: In his statement, the minister indicated. . .
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Yes, he did say something about it. But he did not say very much.
Ms. d'Auray: In fact, I might ask my colleague to provide more details. We are also working under the aegis of Canadian Heritage, which is responsible for coordinating the Olympic and Paralympic Games. With them, we are working with federal departments and organizations that will be more directly involved in providing services in both official languages, during or around the games. Those departments and organizations are aware of their obligation to provide services in both languages during the games.
We are working with those organizations through a committee established by Canadian Heritage, although at the same time the organizations are responsible for discharging their obligations under the Official Languages Act.
Mr. O'Sullivan: We are working with the departments and organizations that will have to provide services to the public during the Olympic Games period, including Border Services, airports — particularly Vancouver and Toronto — in fact, all organizations identified by the official languages commissioner as being particularly involved during the games. These organizations will have to boost their efforts to provide services in both official languages to the public. Air Canada is among them as well.
These are the institutions we work with along with the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. His office officials a part of a flying squad that provides advice to organizations that are particularly affected by the Olympics.
Senator Robichaud: The minister spoke about unilingual anglophones and unilingual francophones. Could you tell us how many unilingual individuals of either language work within the public service?
Ms. d'Auray: We do not have the language profile of staff, however we do have the language profile for positions. There are unilingual francophone positions and unilingual anglophone positions. We cannot necessarily conclude what the language profile is of an individual who is in a unilingual position. We request the language profile of staff when they have specific responsibilities. We do not ask them how fluent they are in both official languages if they are in a position that has been designated as a unilingual position.
We can provide you with these positions and their classification but we cannot necessarily tell you whether or not the individuals filling unilingual positions are unilingual themselves. There may be bilingual individuals in unilingual positions.
Senator Robichaud: I understand.
Mr. O'Sullivan: To give you a general picture, 40 per cent of the positions within the core public administration are bilingual and out of those 40 per cent, 90 per cent of the people occupying those positions meet the language requirements of their positions.
Senator Robichaud: That is a requirement. If the position has been designated as being bilingual, then they have to meet that requirement, is that not so?
Mr. O'Sullivan: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: With respect to bilingualism, language of work and language of training, I am interesting in knowing whether there have been any changes in terms of the language of work. We all know that all too often, when there is a group of 12 individuals and 3 of them do not understand French, the language being used tends to be English. Is any effort being made to encourage directors to use the majority language as the language of work?
Ms. d'Auray: As a general rule I should say yes however this depends on the individual. Earlier on we mentioned culture. There are certain practices, and the culture within a team stems not only from the director but also from the other individuals and their openness to these practices.
Under language of work regulations, in a region that has been designated as being bilingual for language-of-work- related issues, individuals must be supervised in the language of their choice, receive human resources services, administrative support, and so on in their language. The question with respect to the environment, and whether or not current practices encourage people to express themselves, and make that choice, really depends on the atmosphere and the culture that is being fostered by the person in charge of the team and the members of that team. From my experience I would say that this is happening more and more. People who learn a second language want to be able to use it. You are seeing this more and more in work teams. Is this a current practice everywhere? No. Is it something that we are trying to encourage? Absolutely. The commissioner himself in his report said something rather interesting. He wants to try to determine and identify what it is that creates a certain environment within a team, a working group, a group of leaders, where there is a comfort level and room to exchange with each other, for people who do not speak French or English perfectly. There are specific methods or methodologies that can be used, but what is it that leads to this type of culture, that makes people feel comfortable within a specific environment? This type of study may have been called a sociological study at one point, but the purpose is to understand what makes this a common practice and how we can reproduce that.
In addition, in the last report submitted by the clerk, Mr. Lynch, the outgoing clerk asked one of my colleagues, Monique Colette, who is the deputy minister at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), to meet with officials at all levels, throughout the country, in an effort to identify best practices to find out how things really are done in meetings, in the task force, in the service delivery unit and in the unit that works behind the counter. She will be completing her mandate this summer, and should be submitting a report to us in the fall. She has uncovered all sorts of ways to get people to pool their efforts, talk to each other and find ways to interact with official languages communities in minority situations, obtain resources, help each other and come up with ways to exchange ideas, find guidance and support in their training or in their daily practices.
This will also help us identify why one team does so naturally and on an ongoing basis whereas the other, for reasons which may be difficult to identify, does not.
Senator Robichaud: You said that you encourage this language-of-work practice in certain groups. Are you waiting for Ms. Colette's report before you implement certain procedures in order to encourage the use of the majority's working language in a group?
Ms. d'Auray: We are not waiting for Ms. Colette's report. She will provide us with additional aspects. We already have several tools that we make available to managers to encourage this exchange and the use of the language in the workplace. The regulations too are very clear, very specific and we remind managers of these regulations on a regular basis. We have to go beyond the regulations to create this culture of exchange in both official languages. This is what I was trying to get across to you.
According to the procedures, we work with the individuals responsible for the official languages program in each of the departments. We have some very specific tools that people use in all of the departments precisely for the purpose of reminding them about their obligations. We work with official language champions on an ongoing basis. We follow and support the basic work with respect to workplace language obligations, as well as those individuals responsible for programs and the official language champions.
Senator Losier-Cool: That is why it is important to hear from the organizations. If you will recall, it was further to the pressure brought to bear by the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse, when Marine Atlantique announced bilingual positions, that we developed a language.
Senator Robichaud: I would encourage you to go beyond the regulations. If you stick to the regulations alone, I think that you are simply treading water. I would encourage this practice.
Senator Tardif: I completely agree. Good practices regarding the active offer and use of French depends on the enthusiasm of the people in the teams. However, I would not want to underestimate the important role of leadership.
Treasury Board plays a very important role in providing this leadership to all of the institutions covered by the Official Languages Act. Indeed, you are responsible for ensuring that the official language policy framework is followed. I would say that, when we talk about building a culture, leadership is very important. I believe that one of the shortcomings is precisely the fact that we have refused to normalize bilingualism.
Indeed, someone I appreciate a great deal for his writings in this field, John Ralston Saul, said that the ``Canadian disease'' stemmed from this refusal to normalize bilingualism. I think that if this culture were established at the leadership level, at the government level, we would have much better results.
That said, you had indicated that, as far as this was concerned, you were helping to integrate official languages into the culture of organizations and that you were managing a champions' network. Could you tell us the level of authority given to these champions? Do they have the requisite authority and influence to bring about significant changes within the cultural organizations they manage?
Ms. d'Auray: I can speak to my experience in the various departments that I have managed. The champions who were appointed in the departments sat at the departmental management committee table and therefore they did have influence as such. The role of a champion is, in fact, to exert influence, but we must not forget the role played by the official language program managers and the general administrator or the deputy minister. You talked about leadership. The role of the champion is to encourage and to work with his or her colleagues and with all of the departments, but I would say that the deputy minister also plays this role.
Senator Tardif: Has the deputy minister committee been restored to ensure horizontal coordination of official languages?
Ms. d'Auray: We do have a committee of assistant deputy ministers who, indeed, ensure this horizontal coordination.
Mr. O'Sullivan: We established these champions in order to have someone at a higher level. Official language directors are often at a director or director general level, and the idea was that the champions would ensure the presence of individuals at a higher level, people who sat at the management table of each department to promote the urgent official language matters within the departments.
In fact, this week we are holding the annual meeting in Kingston and we have established a rule, namely, that it is not possible to send replacements. Some people asked whether or not they could send a director general in their stead. The champions decided that only assistant deputy ministers could be present at this meeting. We do not want people to get into the habit of sending directors general in their stead. We have done this in order to ensure that people at a higher level will be present and really engaged in the key official language issues.
Senator Champagne: What is the percentage, throughout the federal public service, of positions that are designated unilingual francophone? Are there any?
Ms. d'Auray: I will let my colleague answer that question as he is looking very seriously at the table.
Mr. O'Sullivan: Very seriously, but without much success at this point.
Ms. d'Auray: Yes, there are some.
Senator Champagne: All right. I was simply concerned about the number of positions available for unilingual francophones.
Mr. O'Sullivan: I found the information. As of 2007, 4 per cent of the positions were designated ``French essential.''
Senator Champagne: ``French essential,'' not French only?
Ms. d'Auray: That is the expression we use to designate the position. It is like saying ``English essential.'' It is the equivalent. That is how we qualify unilingual positions, if you like. That is the expression we use.
Senator Champagne: That is curious.
Senator Robichaud: You said ``French essential.'' What is the percentage of ``English essential'' positions?
Mr. O'Sullivan: In 2007, 51 per cent. If we look at the way things are evolving, there are more and more bilingual positions. In 1978, 8 per cent of the positions were designated ``French essential.'' Now it is 4 per cent. There used to be 60 per cent of all positions designated as ``English essential,'' but now this figure is 51 per cent. The number of unilingual positions is declining.
The Chair: Ms. d'Auray and Mr. O'Sullivan, thank you very much for agreeing to stay with us in order to answer the senators' additional questions.
(The committee adjourned.)