Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 16 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, December 13, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:07 p.m. to continue its study of the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it. (Topic: The English- Speaking Communities in Quebec and other issues.)
Senator Maria Chaput (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we have a quorum and I would therefore like to call the meeting to order.
Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. With us today is the President of the Treasury Board, the Honourable Stockwell Day.
Mr. Minister, it is with great pleasure that the committee welcomes you to its meeting and, on behalf of the members, I thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today.
[English]
The Treasury Board Secretariat is responsible for the elaboration and coordination of federal policies and programs to ensure that official languages are respected in federal institutions. The secretariat monitors the actions of federal institutions in regard to communication with the public and delivery of services, language of work and equitable participation of English-speaking and French-speaking individuals in the public service.
The committee could not end its study on English-speaking communities in Quebec before having an opportunity to hear from you on this matter. Furthermore, your appearance is an opportunity for the committee to hear from you on the annual report tabled in Parliament in July of 2010 and on the government response to the third report of the committee on Part VII of the Official Languages Act and on other issues related to your responsibilities with respect to official languages.
Mr. Day, again, thank you for accepting the invitation to appear before us today.
[Translation]
Honourable colleagues, I would like to remind you that the meeting with the President of the Treasury Board runs to 5:45 p.m. I would therefore ask members to be as brief and concise as possible. Each senator will have four minutes to put their question to and receive an answer from the witness.
[English]
Mr. Day, I invite you to take the floor and then senators will follow with questions.
[Translation]
Hon. Stockwell Day, M.P., P.C., President of the Treasury Board: Thank you very much, to the members of the committee for their patience. I was a few minutes late, as there is always business to attend to in the House. It is very important to me to be here today and I would also like to thank you for the interest you have shown.
As you know, this is the 40th anniversary of the Official Languages Act, which I believe is good for Canadians. I am proud of what we have accomplished over the past 40 years in the area of official languages.
[English]
There is a lot to celebrate in this fortieth year, but there is also work to be done. I think we all recognize that.
[Translation]
And while we are proud, it is important to understand that there is still more to accomplish. That is why we have implemented the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality.
[English]
It is a path that we are proud to be on but one that is not without its challenges. As you know, at Treasury Board, my responsibilities fall under Part IV, Part V and Part VI of the act. I understand my colleague, James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage, has had time with you and you with him and that was appreciated.
As far as the Treasury Board itself is concerned, clearly we will continue to develop and coordinate the policies and the programs relating to Part IV, Part V and Part VI of the Official Languages Act.
Basically, we are talking about dealing with services to the public, the language of work and the equitable participation of anglophone and francophone Canadians in the public service. That effort will continue from my point of view, and those engaged in it, in an open and, I would say, energetic way.
You are aware the deputy heads of federal institutions are ultimately responsible for human resource management, but Treasury Board is there with their statutory designations to play the complementary oversight role in the areas that pertain to them.
[Translation]
As you know, heads of federal institutions are responsible, and rightly so, for human resources management within their organizations, and in particular, for the application of the Official Languages Act.
[English]
We want to ensure the deputy heads will have the right support to fulfill those obligations. You are aware the Prime Minister announced changes last year in the governance structure for the management of human resources in the public sector and the public service, and that change has had implications.
I believe we have seen a reduction in duplication, and clarified the roles and responsibilities of institutions. I believe that change has been necessary and helpful. We have created the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer within the Treasury Board Secretariat. There are a number of ways the office supports institutions to help them comply with the act. Clearly guiding institutions in their understanding of linguistic obligations and developing the tools to assist departments in complying with the Official Languages Act and its regulations is one of them. A number of events are organized, whether it is the annual forum on good practices for public servants from across the government to educational opportunities.
We will work closely and continue to work closely with the institutions to help ensure that Canadians receive that equal quality of services in the official language of their choice. That work includes, by the way, being able to support institutions to help them not only work alongside but promote and enhance the availability of services to minority language groups. This approach is not a static one; this is something that requires energy and foresight.
We have been supporting federal institutions to implement the Caldech judgment of the Supreme Court. As you are aware, this particular ruling takes into account differences in characteristics and circumstances, and moves away from any idea that equality means the exact same provision of services in each place. Rather, it deals with the whole principle of substantive equality to institutions, programs and services, and resources being adapted to meet those specific needs. These key factors must be taken into account.
As you are probably aware, we also report annually to Parliament on the progress that federal institutions are making in a number of areas. Those progress reports are important. The latest report, 2008-09, shows that the vast majority of employees that provide personal and central service to Canadians in the areas of compensation, financial communications and library services meet the language requirement of their position. We have seen that rate continue to rise. It was nearly 93 per cent in 2009, compared to 91 per cent in 2007. The annual report shows that nearly 92 per cent of employees who supervise staff, including executives, meet the language requirements of their position. This information is important to note.
As of March 31, 2009, the participation of anglophones in all federal institutions subject to the act was nearly 73 per cent, and for francophones it was 27 per cent. Those rates are stable. They closely match the rates found in the Canadian population. I think those rates give us an indication that both official language groups continue to be well represented in the public service.
As I know this area is of specific interest for you, looking at the region of Quebec, we see good representation rates there. Anglophones make up about 14 per cent of public servants at institutions outside the National Capital Region, and that percentage is almost identical to the percentage of anglophones found in Quebec, which stands at just under 14 per cent based on 2006 Census figures.
As we continue to implement the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality, our commitment to official languages is not only strong but will continue strong and, I believe, will increase.
[Translation]
With the help of the roadmap, we will continue to provide more opportunities for French-speaking Canadians across the country and for English-speaking Canadians in Quebec, to ensure that they are able to live and work in a vibrant community in the official language of their choice.
[English]
Those are some of my overview remarks. I know you have questions and perhaps advice for me, which will be helpful as we continue to move on this pathway and on this journey.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, may I remind you that you will each have three to four minutes for questions and answers, as we must wrap up at 5:45 p.m.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: In September, the committee held hearings in Quebec and welcomed here to Ottawa several anglophone groups that presented briefs. We heard about the problems English-speaking communities were having and about the major challenges they were facing.
I for one always thought that Quebec's anglophones were wealthy individuals and that everything was going well for them. However, I discovered during the hearings that this was not the case. We heard about the incredibly high dropout rate and about many other kinds of problems.
You quoted some percentages, but your figures do not quite correspond to mine. Quebec anglophones are under- represented at various level of government. According to my figures, representation at the federal level is 11.7 per cent. At the provincial level, the proportion is an astonishing 2.8 per cent. Finally, if we combine municipal, regional and local representation, we come up with a figure of 7 per cent.
The participation of anglophones in government is lower than that of francophones across all regions of Quebec. In your opinion, what steps could be taken to improve access to employment in the public sector?
Mr. Day: These are very interesting statistics, especially since they differ from the ones I have. It is important for the people in charge of program management to continue encouraging people to follow programs to improve access to employment in the public sector.
I find your figures and percentages quite interesting because if English-speaking Canadians are under-represented, then this is a challenge for us. That is why it important to continue our efforts. We have programs in place and responsible individuals working to achieve acceptable levels of representation. As minister, in terms of the bills that I am responsible for, I will continue this work. I want to see a change in these statistics.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I can let you know where these figures were taken from. As President of the Treasury Board, have you identified areas where improvements could be made?
I listened closely to your opening statement. You must have some idea of where improvements could be made to official languages, either to French in those provinces in which francophones are in the minority, or to English in Quebec. What have you observed and where in your opinion could improvements be made?
Mr. Day: As I see it, one of the most important things we can do is continue the consultation process, as you pointed out. I truly believe that we have made some progress.
[English]
In the last report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, his exact words were ``surprised.'' He said he could not have imagined 40 years ago — four decades ago — that we would have achieved the levels that we have now. Obviously, he had other things to say, too, but broadly speaking, it is important that we communicate with respect to all the progress to show that there has been progress over a period of time. It is not even from the point of view of which party was governing because, over the 40 years, it was not always the same party. There has been progress, and there is more to do.
Reaching the people themselves who are served or who feel they are not well served is how I find democracies run best, namely, by hearing from the people we serve and then trying to match that information with the reality.
Over the next five years, as we have $1.1 billion committed to the pathway itself, we have the opportunity to direct resources where we are hearing and seeing the greatest pressures, and we need to continue to do that.
[Translation]
We know what the challenges are. People have told us that there are problems and they have asked us to work on finding solutions and on improving these percentages.
Senator Champagne: Approximately 200 federal institutions are subject to the Official Languages Act and as a rule, they are required to submit an annual review. In 2008-09, only 77 institutions were asked to submit a review and of those, not every institution was asked to submit a comprehensive review. In some cases, only partial reviews were submitted. As you can appreciate, it is rather hard for us to make year-over-year comparisons when the number of institutions submitting reviews varies and when different types of reviews are submitted.
What criteria do you use to decide which institutions must submit a review, and whether it should be comprehensive, or partial? On what basis do you make that determination?
Mr. Day: As I said, certain sections of the act, specifically Parts IV, V and VI, come under my purview. To meet these responsibilities, we continue to work with responsible officials. It is important to bring any cases of failure to comply with the regulations to their attention.
Senator Champagne: According to your report, you asked only 77 of the 200 institutions to submit a review. I would like to know the reason for that decision.
Mr. Day: We saw an improvement in the percentages and we wanted to continue on this path.
As you said, a total of 77 institutions submitted a review, while others did not. I want to find out if the President of the Treasury Board is the authority responsible for following up on this matter. If he is, then I will do a follow-up. And if it is someone else's job to do so, it will continue to be the government's responsibility. We will continue to verify if institutions that were supposed to submit a review in fact did so and if they did not, why they did not. We need answers. I need to ask these kinds of questions and if I have to, I will use persuasive tactics.
[English]
The Chair: Are you willing to do that?
Mr. Day: Absolutely.
Senator Fraser: Further to the question of Senator Fortin-Duplessis, the information I have here, taken from your department's annual report, is that in federal institutions, the anglophone participation rate was indeed 14.1 per cent. However, in the core public administration, it was only 7.9 per cent, which would seem to be directly related to your department.
How do you see the differences between English Quebec and French-speaking communities in the other provinces? What steps has your department taken, is it taking, will it take, to understand those differences and adjust its policies appropriately?
Mr. Day: You used the word ``differences.'' I think that word is the key. As the Supreme Court ruling portrays, I do not think there are precise comparisons. I think communities are different. There is no monolithic view from a minority English community; there is no monolithic view from all francophone minority communities. Each one has different pressures. From the point of view of substantive equality, it must be looked at that way.
There probably is no better way to find out how it is working than, as I said earlier in my remarks, to hear from people themselves in those communities what they think is working and what is not, and then, as far as possible, to tailor those particular needs.
Senator Fraser: Are you taking steps to do that?
Mr. Day: I believe we do that regularly. I believe the assessment is there — working with the managers, from the deputy ministers who are ultimately responsible in their own departments, through to their structures and organizations — to look at what services are working, what services are not and the feedback we are receiving. To continue, I think it is an ongoing pursuit. It will always be a work in progress.
Largely, we see improvement, but we cannot say that we have had an increase and leave it at that. We must continue to look at ways and means, whether we use the new office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, the Canada School of Public Service, or whether it is forums, annual or otherwise. I do not think we should be discouraged in the process, when we look at the fact that, in the year 2000, 82 per cent of positions requiring bilingual capacity were fulfilled. When we look at the 2008 report, that figure had moved up to 93 per cent. We see the improvements.
The fact that improvement is happening and can happen should not be something that causes us then to sit back and say, ``Look at what we have done.'' It shows that we can do things. We continue that pursuit, working through the agencies and working with the powers that are available to us to continue to move people along.
Senator Fraser: I think my time is up, unfortunately.
The Chair: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator De Bané: First off, Mr. Minister, thank you for joining us today. I do not doubt your determination to ensure respect for the country's two official languages, as set out in the Constitution.
As I am sure you know, the Commissioner of Official Languages has been very harsh in his judgement of good governance as it applies to linguistic duality. For instance, he has questioned whether the Treasury Board has enough experts on staff at this time to ensure that federal institutions meet their official language obligations.
It seems that there are no longer any official languages experts, as they are commonly referred to, at Treasury Board to liaise with the various federal institutions. Increasingly, this task is falling to professional administrators who are not experts in language matters.
That is one of the reasons why the Commissioner of Official Languages has said the situation is stagnating. He had this to say, ``I fear for the future. Will we have the leadership we need?'' I would very much like to get your opinion on that and, if I might just say this, on anglophone participation in Quebec's public service. We have received many complaints from Quebec's English-speaking community which is under-represented.
I would really like your experts to read the testimony presented to the committee in Montreal and to send us their comments in writing.
[English]
As you know, perception is reality. They are convinced that they are underrepresented in the federal public service. In the provincial one, it is a tragedy. Anglophones represent barely 2 per cent. The federal government should do its part.
[Translation]
Mr. Day: I do not wish to comment on the provincial government. And with all due respect, I disagree with the observation that the situation is stagnating. The numbers belie that, because over the long term, we are seeing some improvement. I know that it is possible to make some improvements and many people want the situation to improve. I repeat that we have seen some improvement and the percentages are higher. However, we cannot stop there because as you said, there have been complaints.
I believe this is a good objective and perhaps in the year to come, we will not receive any complaints at all. I am convinced, however, that we have a responsibility to continue working with people, especially in the Montreal area where complaints have been made. We must continue working toward this objective. Nearly 93 per cent of Treasury Board Secretariat employees occupy positions that are designated bilingual imperative. At the management level, 97.9 per cent of employees are in such positions. It is not 100 per cent, but the percentage is not bad either. In some regions, the percentages are still low and we need to continue working to improve the situation.
Senator Losier-Cool: Welcome, sir, and thank you for being here. My question concerns the roadmap that you spoke of in fairly general terms at the start of your presentation. You quoted a figure of $1.1 billion over five years. The roadmap commits $17 million over five years to the Official Languages Centre of Excellence. Later on, you alluded to the creation of a new office. Can you clarify for our benefit the responsibilities of the Centre of Excellence? Will the new office have the resources it needs to carry out its mandate? As we all know, resources have shrunk since 2009.
Mr. Day: The Official Languages Centre of Excellence has a mandate to work with and assist ministers. Resources are now protected by each department, unlike the past when a certain level of funding was allocated to the centre for service delivery. Now, resources are based in the departments to enable them to provide training to their employees and to encourage them to provide service in both official languages. The mandate of the centre is more to provide encouragement, not merely training. It encourages departments to develop and carry out training activities.
Senator Losier-Cool: Who is responsible for the Centre of Excellence? Is it the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer? As we learned, the office's budget was cut. In your opinion, does it have the financial resources it needs to carry out its mandate? Who is the responsible authority? You mentioned several agencies.
Mr. Day: As I said, as President of the Treasury Board, I am responsible for Parts IV, V and VI. Minister Moore is responsible for services. He evaluates the progress made from year to year and conveys his findings in a report. He is responsible for doing that. Deputy ministers have more responsibilities today than they did before and it is for the better, in my view. We will continue to supervise, to provide training and to ensure that the services are in compliance with the act.
Senator Rivard: Madam Chair, you will recall that I was unable to attend every single meeting, as I was serving on another committee. I familiarized myself with the testimony presented and I was surprised to learn that in Quebec, Anglophones continue to be under-represented in the public service. We tend to criticize the fact that French-speaking Canadians in other provinces are under-represented. The ideal situation would be to strike a balance.
In the Quebec City region, anglophones account for 14 per cent of the population, while their participation rate in the federal public service is also 14 per cent. Their representation is therefore balanced. In other regions, be it Montreal or the Eastern Townships, there have been complaints. Our objective is ensuring compliance with the act and seeing to it that steps are taken to make everyone happy.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Day, thank you again for accepting our invitation.
[Translation]
We appreciate it very much. I am disappointed that we cannot spend more time with you today, but the Senate is sitting at 6 p.m. and our presence is required there. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy holiday season.
(The committee adjourned.)