Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 3 - Evidence - Meeting of October 31, 2011
OTTAWA, Monday, October 31, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m. to study the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it and to examine the use of the Internet, new media and social media and the respect for Canadians' language rights.
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, and I am the chair of this committee.
Before I introduce the witnesses who are appearing today, I would like to invite the members of the committee here today to introduce themselves, starting from my left with the deputy chair.
Senator Champagne: Good evening. I am Andrée Champagne from the province of Quebec.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I am Senator Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis from Quebec.
Senator Tardif: I am Senator Tardif from Manitoba.
The Chair: The committee is trying to develop a picture of the legislative, regulatory and policy framework that is currently in place to govern the use of the official languages on the Internet and in new media and social media in the federal government.
To help us in our deliberations today we welcome representatives of the Treasury Board Secretariat, who will be delving deeper into the issue under study, following on the appearance by the president last week.
We are pleased to welcome Corinne Charette, Chief Information Officer of the Government of Canada; Sue Lajoie, Senior Director, Community and Collaboration; Ryan Androsoff, Senior Policy Advisor, Web 2.0, Community and Collaboration; and Marc Tremblay, Executive Director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. I invite you now to take the floor. The senators will follow with some questions.
Corinne Charette, Chief Information Officer of the Government of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: It is my pleasure to be here today to be part of this roundtable discussion on the use of the Internet, new media and social media as it relates to the official languages.
I will not introduce my colleagues, because they have appeared previously.
The Official Languages Act — first enacted in 1969 and renewed in 1988 to align with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — was developed during an era that predates even the commercially available Internet itself.
[English]
New technology is changing our world at an unprecedented pace. Perhaps in no realm is this more important than when it comes to the advent of Web 2.0 technologies such as social media and the collaborative tools within it.
If we think back only one decade ago, the Web 2.0 tools and services that hundreds of millions of people around the globe now rely on for information and interaction, such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Wikipedia, did not even exist.
The use of Web 2.0 by the Government of Canada is even newer, with the first pilot project starting only four to five years ago, yet today virtually every department within the Government of Canada has some type of Web 2.0 presence. Every day, tens of thousands of public servants are using internal and external Web 2.0 tools to conduct official government business, to network within their professional communities and, of course, to connect with people in their personal lives.
Far from a passing fad, recent studies show that now over half of Canadians use social media on a regular basis. Amongst the younger generation that is just entering our work force, that number is rapidly approaching 100 per cent.
When we think about how we manage these new technologies in the framework of our existing legislative and policy obligations as a government, including our obligations under the Official Languages Act and related policies and directives, our approach can be summed up very simply: The same rules that apply to public servants in the off-line world also apply to them in the on-line world.
[Translation]
For example, the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, which was approved by the Treasury Board in 2006, does not include requirements specifically on social media or other Web 2.0 applications. However, no matter the medium used, the communications policy requires departments to respect the equality of status of the two official languages.
The Communications Policy of the Government of Canada does require departments to maintain their capacity for innovation and stay current with developments in communications practices and new technology in order to better connect with Canadians.
As the use of Web 2.0 tools and services, such as social media and collaborative technologies, has become more widespread within the Government of Canada, it became apparent that there was a need to develop specific policy guidance for departments and employees to help them fulfill their existing legislative and policy obligations when using these powerful new communications technologies.
[English]
In 2008, the chief information officer branch released the guideline to acceptable use of internal wikis and blogs within the Government of Canada which provides Government of Canada personnel with guidance on use of internal Web 2.0 technologies. Specifically, the guideline addresses wikis, which are collaborative and open websites that allow users to create and edit content; and blogs, which are online sites and applications that allow for the posting of written and audiovisual content and usually allow for readers to comment and discuss those postings. This guideline on the internal use of Web 2.0 contains specific guidance on a number of policy areas, including official languages. The guideline emphasizes that existing policy requirements related to language of work apply when departments are putting in place these tools for the use of their employees.
This internal use guideline has been important, as many departments have set up internal collaborative platforms, such as wikis, blogs and professional networking applications, which allow their employees to work together more effectively.
Just like with email systems, these Web 2.0 platforms are provided to employees with an interface that allows them to interact in the official language of their choice. This ensures that language-of-work requirements are respected and that employees can communicate with their colleagues in the manner most appropriate for the type of interaction in which they are engaging.
[Translation]
GCpedia, the Government of Canada's internal wiki, is one such example of an internal Web 2.0 collaborative tool for public servants. GCpedia allows any public servant from across Canada to share information with other public servants. GCpedia is used in a number of different ways, which range from sharing official documentation, for example minutes from an interdepartmental working group, to the postings of individual public servants on topics of interest to them. Again, analogous to email, this Web 2.0 tool can be used in a variety of different scenarios as it relates to official languages.
When it comes to sharing information with several people, it is done in a bilingual manner, no differently than if sending out a meeting agenda by email. Conversely, if the information being shared is comments from an employee, the employee has the ability to contribute to GCpedia in the language of their choice.
As the use of Web 2.0 tools and services has also become an increasingly common approach for departments to engage externally with Canadians, TBS began the development of the Guideline for External Use of Web 2.0. Like the internal use guideline that preceded it, the development of this guideline was done collaboratively with impacted policy centres across TBS, as well as key stakeholders from across government. Official languages considerations were a critical component of the work in developing this guideline.
The Official Languages Centre of Excellence at TBS worked closely with my officials in developing the guidance on official languages considerations when using externally-facing Web 2.0 tools and services. I am pleased to be able to let you know that the work on developing this guideline is almost complete and we anticipate releasing it in the very near future.
Even while we have been developing guidance from TBS on using Web 2.0 tools and services, departments have been taking the lead on forging ahead in the use of these new communications platforms. There have been a number of great examples in recent years of government departments successfully using social media to connect with Canadians while fulfilling their official languages obligations.
Let me tell you about just two examples:
[English]
For the past few years, Veterans Affairs Canada has had in place a "Canada Remembers" campaign on Facebook, which allows Canadians to share their remembrance of family and friends who have served in the military. Following the emerging best practices on official languages when using social media, there is both an English and French Facebook page for the campaign. Over half a million people have connected to share stories of remembrance through these two Facebook pages and are able to do so in the language of their choice.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is using Twitter, an on-line micro-blogging site, to alert Canadians about food recalls and allergy alerts. Using both a French and English Twitter account to which "tweets" are posted simultaneously in both languages, CFIA has reached thousands of Canadians with over 400 alerts in the two years that they have been active on Twitter.
As our understanding of social media and collaborative technologies has matured, we have developed a Web 2.0 framework that considers usage in three different scenarios: official use, professional networking use and personal use. Often the boundaries between these types of usage are blurred, particularly with respect to professional and personal use, and the advice contained in the guideline reflects this reality.
When it comes to official use, it is clear that communication must be done in both official languages. Professional and personal use, like in the off-line world, can be conducted in the language of the employees' choice.
[Translation]
Though the Official Languages Act predates the world of social media and widespread digital communications, its provisions continue to be applied in today's online world. Though the ways we work and communicate may be changing, our commitment to a bilingual workplace and serving all Canadians in the official language of their choice remains strong.
Thank you again, honourable senators, for the opportunity to be here with you today to discuss this important issue. We would be pleased to take your questions.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: First of all, welcome. In light of the brief you just presented, I feel that you have made great strides in the use of new media, especially your Web 2.0. I feel it is very important that you be able to communicate with all government employees using these media, regardless of the department.
I am very concerned about your clientele, which is made up of Canadians across the country. We know that in the cities, there is no problem; people can communicate easily. But I am especially concerned about the people in remote areas, who may not always have the services they need in their own language.
Do you believe it would be possible for all the francophones in Canada to be able to use the Internet, new media and social media in French, no matter what their circumstances or where they live?
Ms. Charette: There are two aspects to your question. You talked about using the Internet "no matter what their circumstances or where they live." I will start with Internet use and place of residence.
Last week, the minister talked about the availability of high bandwidth in the regions. What I would add is that the Internet and new media such as Twitter do not require much bandwidth. When it comes to Twitter in particular, we are talking about micromessages, and many people can now receive them on their regular or digital telephone. That is already a step forward.
And regarding the Internet, it is true that that there is content that requires a lot of bandwidth, but there is also a lot of text content that is accessible even if people do not have the latest, highest-speed devices.
I therefore think that we are pretty lucky in Canada to have broad, ever-growing coverage. I think that Canadians can access the Internet fairly easily.
Now, as to your question about francophones' circumstances, I assume you are talking about disabilities?
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: No, I am talking about people in extremely remote areas, who have difficulty getting high- speed Internet access and accessing French-language sites. I know these people can get information in English, but what about someone who lives in a very francophone environment and needs information from the government?
Ms. Charette: Thank you for the clarification. The policy is very clear on this. Government websites must be bilingual and the content must be accessible in both official languages and of equal quality and quantity. No matter what the department or agency, all websites must be bilingual. The policy on official languages also applies to departments' accounts on new media or social media such as Facebook and Twitter. In these cases, the departments must also communicate in both official languages.
Certainly, access to broader bandwidth means that people can access information more quickly. However, it is possible to consult all the websites, even with less bandwidth. Information on all our programs is available on these websites. We therefore do not see any major problems.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Harvard University is not very complimentary about Internet service in Canada. According to a study released by the institution in 2009, Canada has one of the worst systems in the developed world. According to Harvard, Canada is also an example of what not to do when it comes to policies on high-speed Internet and wireless access. This is a 232-page study. It is disturbing that Canada ranked 22nd out of 30 countries studied.
Could the government have required companies to offer high-speed Internet in the regions?
Ms. Charette: That is a question for Industry Canada. TBS has no responsibility for the telecommunications industry and the speed at which they develop their bandwidth capacity.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Madam Chair, perhaps we could invite them to come and talk to us about that.
The Chair: Yes, senator.
Senator Champagne: Ms. Charette, I listened to your presentation very carefully and with a great deal of interest. I am very glad that the Treasury Board Secretariat is putting the finishing touches on guidelines for new media and social media.
In your opinion, is the legislative, regulatory and policy framework in place in Canada clear enough on the use of new technologies and respect for Canadians' language rights? If not, how should that legislative, regulatory and policy framework be improved when you are already finalizing your guidelines?
Ms. Charette: I will let my colleague answer your question.
Marc Tremblay, Executive Director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: That is a good question. I will divide it, as you did, into legislative, regulatory and policy frameworks.
At the legislative level, we need to realize that, with all due respect, we are not talking just about the Official Languages Act, because the basis for the language rights we are talking about is really the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is already a basis that, although not immutable, is stable and unlikely to be changed. That basis has to be interpreted against a background that is constantly changing. We have the Charter, and its broad guiding principles are reflected in the Official Languages Act, which is more easily amended. The act was last amended in 1988, before the advent of the major technologies we know today.
Just as the Charter has to adapt to changing circumstances, the act is also interpreted against a changing backdrop. The act refers to services and communications. There is no reason to believe that these principles, these concepts of communications and services, are not perfectly suited to the latest technologies we are discussing today.
At the regulatory level, I believe the committee members are well aware that there is just one set of regulations under the Official Languages Act, and they determine which federal offices and points of service are required to provide services in both official languages. However, I do want to make one small comment. We are talking about broad principles. When Ms. Charette says that the Internet is available in both official languages and that the federal government communicates in both official languages, that is true in general. It may be that an office or a point of service that provides local service is bound by rules that are more local than those in the regulations. But the regulations still apply. A determination is made with regard to federal offices and points of service that have places where service is provided by way of a telephone, a plaque, a counter or a computer. Once again, the regulations apply.
At the policy level, we have occasion to explain to our employees and users how the rules in the act and regulations are applied on a day-to-day basis. For many years, we have found that the act and regulations contain the same broad principles you are talking about today: availability of service, equal access, simultaneous access and product quality. These are the principles that were enshrined in these policies.
If we look at the Directive on the Use of Official Languages on Web Sites for 2004, it already addressed blogs, but did not yet use the word "wiki". It proactively addresses what were relatively recent developments at the time and applied the same principles.
There therefore seems to be no reason to doubt the capacity of our policy instruments to apply to all these new circumstances. They have done it. They have managed to apply, even though certain concepts needed to be tweaked from time to time to deal with the features of emerging technologies.
Senator Champagne: If I understand correctly, sometimes in communications on the Internet, just as at service points, we might not find anyone who speaks the official language in which we would like to be served. Information offered on the Internet might not be available in the person's language of preference.
Mr. Tremblay: We might say that this happens less frequently. At the service points, the fact remains that if there are only a few employees behind the counter, those employees are responsible for meeting the requirements.
Senator Champagne: We hope there would be someone there who is bilingual.
Mr. Tremblay: It depends on the requirements of the office. Not every federal service point has to offer services in both official languages. That is a reality.
However, if we are talking about bilingual service points, then, yes, we expect bilingualism and we are entitled to it. The point I am trying to make is that technology allows us to combine the services and make them accessible to a larger number of people, regardless of the language, from any given service point. By having access to a departmental website, regardless where we are in the country, we have access to it in both official languages; but if we went to a counter in a region where very few people speak the minority official language, that would not be the case and it would not be legally required.
Senator Champagne: On the Internet, we are sure to have a response in the language of our choice. Very good! Thank you.
The Chair: I have complementary question to that of Senator Champagne; it is about designated bilingual service points.
If I understand correctly, services can be obtained in both official languages, if we use the Internet at service points and we can use the official language of our choice at designated bilingual service points.
That is the case on the Internet, but what are you doing about media such as Twitter and Facebook, where communication is far more instantaneous and short?
How do you deal with French to English or English to French translation without diminishing the message, which is instantaneous?
Have you already examined this issue with regard to Twitter and Facebook?
Ms. Charette: With regard to Facebook, the departments that use it publish their content in French and English simultaneously.
The Chair: On Facebook.
Ms. Charette: Yes, and on Twitter as well. They publish their information on a bilingual account or on two simultaneous Twitter accounts. They have an account in French and an account in English. They publish a message and it is issued at the same time: once in French and once in English.
For Twitter, this allows the public who prefers to follow the stream in French to do so and vice versa for anglophones. People can respond in the language of their choice.
The Chair: Is that the case for all the designated bilingual offices? It should be.
Ms. Charette: The distinction I would make is that Twitter is not necessarily linked to a specific physical office. The office is a physical place a person goes to in person, but Twitter is an English account and a French account and, in some cases, a bilingual account we can access no matter where we are in Canada. I could be in Alberta and follow the veteran's affairs stream in French or in English, or I could be in Ontario and follow the French stream or both if I wanted to sign up for both and so on. The concept behind the social media is independent from the physical location. The organization is represented on Web 2.0 bilingually and it is up to the Internet user or the person to click on the French or English version to get information or respond or make a comment in the language of their choice.
The Chair: Why can we not receive services in both official languages across the country since, given this new reality, we can receive services without having to be physically present anymore?
You do not have the answer that, but the thought just crossed my mind.
Mr. Tremblay: Now that services are indeed offered on the Internet through the website or through social media, it is true that the old geographic limitations on service delivery in French and English tend to disappear. If we go to a Canada Revenue Agency counter — the agency's local counter — for service, then we are at a physical counter with a linguistic designation under the rules of the act. If we deal with the CRA electronically, we click on "English" or "French" and get access to the information or services we are looking for in either language.
Senator Tardif: I asked the minister the following question last week, but I would like to come back to it. The question was on the financial and human resources that are needed to ensure that the departments can meet their obligations under the Official Languages Act.
With the elimination of the Public Service Agency in 2009 and the transfer of its responsibilities to the Official Languages Centre of Excellence of the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer of the Treasury Board, the transfer of the necessary resources did not follow. If I understand correctly, there were budgetary cuts, in other words, 60 per cent of the employees were not transferred to this new Official Languages Centre of Excellence from the former centre, which was the responsibility of the Privy Council Office.
How do you ensure that you have the necessary resources to meet your official language obligations with regard to the linguistic rights of the federal employees using the Internet, as well as the communities?
Mr. Tremblay: I recall that question. During our previous appearance, the President of the Treasury Board of Canada and Ms. Meredith indicated that with this transfer of responsibilities came a new philosophy, a new approach to human resource management in general, which falls under the official languages program within the Treasury Board Secretariat.
Under the new approach, we rely much less on centralized responsibilities, on the individualized directives and advice of the centre, in the broad sense of the central agency, and more on the individual responsibility of the deputy ministers who are the CEOs of these institutions and to whom, it is becoming increasingly clear, the full responsibility is being given for achieving the objectives of the act.
Ms. Meredith, who is my boss, told you it is her understanding that there are enough resources available at the Official Languages Centre of Excellence to allow her to play her role in this new perspective, where the central agency gives lateral advice, sets major policy directions and, then, provides lateral advice and general support to the deputy minister who remains primarily responsible.
Senator Tardif: How many employees do you currently have?
Mr. Tremblay: I should have counted before I left. We have regular and frequent changes. I had the opportunity to fill 22 positions, which means an increase over the year of five positions. In other words, another five positions have been added in a year.
Senator Tardif: Yes, because at one point you went from 74 to 13 employees; it was a major cut at a time of restructuring of responsibilities.
Now that the deputy ministers have been given this responsibility, do they have more resources to ensure that their commitment with regard to Official Languages Act compliance, new media and social media is being upheld?
Mr. Tremblay: There are no resources devoted to the issue of official languages. It is all a part of the management of the institution. Each department has to work within the budgetary envelope it is given. Any time we come up with an idea, a project, a program, we have to not only consider the number of offices, employees, and rooms, but we also have to account for the capacity required for offering those services in both official languages.
Senator Tardif: In other words, it is a matter of priority. The deputy minister has to decide whether it would be better to support language training or technological training, or whether or not the material on the website should be in both languages.
If there are no resources, the minister is constantly required to establish priorities. We know full well that official languages are often not at the top of the list of priorities. Do you care to comment on that?
Mr. Tremblay: I did not hear the question.
Senator Tardif: Does the deputy minister constantly have to choose between different priorities? Can we ensure that official languages are a priority and that these commitments are being met?
Mr. Tremblay: The first part of my answer is to say that the deputy minister does not have full discretion over what he does. There are two components to the centre of excellence's mission and to the support for the Treasury Board Secretariat's mission. First is to give directives. The act applies to each deputy minister who runs a federal institution. That is the basis of his or her obligation.
However, the deputy minister can, depending on whether he or she manages a large or small institution, or a scientific or cultural institution, depending on his or her knowledge of what is needed, he or she can adapt the programs and services — and must adapt the programs and services to achieve the objectives of the act as best as possible.
In a way, the philosophy behind the authority given to the deputy minister is a recognition that, from the centre, we are not always able to establish one rule that applies to everyone and guarantees the best result. Sometimes there needs to be rules and sometimes the chief executive officer needs room to manoeuvre to achieve the objectives using means best suited for the circumstances. That is what the policy seeks to give the deputy minister.
Ms. Charette: When we are talking about the website, there is really no decision to be made. Communications on the departmental and agency sites are only posted if they are bilingual. Departmental sites are constantly updated in French and English simultaneously.
Senator Tardif: Does every department and institution subject to the Official Languages Act have to respect your policy on social media and the Internet?
Ms. Charette: It applies to the institutions listed in Schedules I and II of the Financial Administration Act.
Senator Tardif: How many institutions is that?
Ms. Charette: It varies between 101 and 106. I do not have the specific number in front of me.
Senator Tardif: It would be roughly half the federal institutions, since we are talking about 200 institutions?
Mr. Tremblay: Yes. If I can clarify a bit, our policies at the centre of excellence are currently under review. The policy that applies here is the Directive on the Use of Official Languages on Web Sites.
This directive applies to all institutions subject to Parts IV or V of the Official Languages Act, with the exception of the Senate, the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament. . . et cetera.
This directive applies to every type of federal institution and as I was saying earlier, it will be revised to be modernized and consistent with the current world of the new technology, but it applies right now and so does the principle whereby every federal institution subject to the act have a website that is bilingual, of equal quality and that its communications are available simultaneously.
Senator Tardif: But it is not a bilingual service point?
Mr. Tremblay: No, I am talking about every institution, every website.
The Chair: I have another question, because I did not really understand. I am sorry about that.
Are you able to tell us whether all these departments that are subject to the rules on the availability of both official languages on websites, are obeying those rules? Are the sites being checked? I understand that the policy is in place and the directives are in place, but is anyone checking to see whether the rules are being followed?
Mr. Tremblay: Yes. Again, under our policies there are requirements that fall under the responsibility of the chief executive officer, the deputy minister, who has to assess the compliance of his or her department with Treasury Board policies and directives.
The Treasury Board Secretariat, through the work of the human resources CEO office, and therefore the Official Languages Centre of Excellence, asks the department to conduct an annual review of the situation within their agency and to provide the audited data, assessed by the institution. That is the data reported annually in our statement.
Senator Mockler: Ms. Charette, with the help of your staff, could you please elaborate on what you have planned for your Official Languages Centre of Excellence?
You are currently operational. How does the centre affect the entire apparatus of government in terms of media and social media?
Ms. Charette: We are working to ensure that the methods that the government uses to publish information and offer services online in both languages fulfil the official language obligations.
With regard to technological platforms for new media and social media, we are ensuring that the policies and regulations that we publish for departments and agencies clearly explain their official language obligations. We advise them to choose only technological platforms that will allow them to provide information and services online in both official languages. That is for technological platforms.
The Official Languages Centre of Excellence falls under the responsibility of my colleague, who works under the Chief Human Resources Officer, Ms. Meredith.
Senator Mockler: Could you comment on the specific role that the centre plays in improving services to our two language communities?
Mr. Tremblay: At the centre, we are currently working on reviewing our policies, which date back to 2004. Changes have occurred since that time, mainly technological changes, but other changes as well.
Right now, we are reviewing and updating our policies and directives in order to ensure that they better address the new technological realities and that federal institutions clearly understand the direction they must take.
Senator Mockler: With the experience that you have, have you seen changes?
Mr. Tremblay: There have been changes. We see federal institutions — and I am a little bit out of my field of expertise here — that want to make more use of new platforms and are wondering how to do so and how to guarantee quality; they have some questions. For example, when it comes to online discussions among multiple parties, they are wondering how to manage a bilingual discussion or a bilingual national consultation online. They want some support and guidance in this regard.
Senator Mockler: Termium Plus is a terminological and linguistic work tool that was issued by Public Works and Government Services Canada two years ago. I remember that the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie requested this several years ago and that Canada played a leadership role.
Do you use Termium at the centre of excellence to ensure that the media in general and social media can have access to it?
Mr. Tremblay: As federal public servants, we use Termium. This tool is available on our department's intranet site and is therefore very visible and very present on everyone's desktop to ensure that we get our wording right when we communicate in either official language. Although this also does not fall within our mandate — a more in-depth discussion could be held with the representatives from Public Works and Government Services Canada — as you mentioned, the platform is now more widely available, which supports language quality in Canadian society.
Senator Champagne: I was among those who used Termium even when there was a yearly subscription fee. We found out, when the roadmap was introduced in 2008, that we would be able to access Termium from our parliamentary offices and from home at no cost from that point on. I thought that this was extraordinary.
When one looks at the websites of companies in the business world, there is always a clearly identifiable link where, with a single click, one can get in touch with the company. I imagine the various departmental websites have this feature as well; I did not check, as I should have, before coming here this afternoon. One then sometimes receives an email saying that the request has been received and that a response will be sent within 48 hours. However, other companies offer a live chat feature, where one can obtain an immediate response. Is this something that Treasury Board and the various departments, institutions and agencies might consider? It is not always easy.
Ms. Charette: We have to think about the use of new technologies in the evolution of our online service delivery.
Currently, we have an inventory of content-rich websites that house a lot of information in both languages. These sites were mainly set up in the past few years, particularly during a period of growth between 1998 and 2005-06. There was a lot of growth. We are now grappling with a portfolio of technological platforms that allow us to publish information in both official languages but are not necessarily designed to allow us to easily make use of all the new capabilities.
We are aware that we must renew the technological platform for our websites so that the departments and agencies can more easily make use of technologies such as live chat if they so desire; this sort of thing generally requires human support in real time 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I cannot imagine that the public would not want to communicate. The renewal of the platforms will also require us to look at our limits when it comes to offering such services. Clearly there are many modern technological capabilities that could help us. We are in the process of assessing our renewal needs and determining how long the renewal process will take.
Senator Champagne: It seems to me like this would be a way to simplify the lives of the people of Canada, particularly those of a certain age. If I were missing one of the forms required to have my passport renewed, I would rather find out right away, rather than three weeks later. For the past 20 years, many people, even those who are getting on in years, have been using computers. This might facilitate communication between the government — its various departments, institutions and agencies — and taxpayers. With the new telephone system, we have to push different numbers, over and over on the menu and submenus, only to be told, in the end, to please stay on the line because all the employees are currently busy; I would rather hear a message and get my answer 24 hours later. That way, I would not have to waste my time on the telephone waiting for someone to answer me in one language or the other.
Ms. Charette: I am happy to say that our online service standards, as applied by Human Resources and Service Canada, involve sending an email to acknowledge receipt of a person's request. The email indicates that a response will be sent within 24 to 48 hours. The other agencies that offer many online services are also trying to implement such a system. This does not guarantee that we will be able to provide answers to all your questions.
Senator Champagne: And I will receive an answer in the language in which I wrote to them?
Ms. Charette: That is the rule. They must answer you in the language of your choice — without question.
Senator Champagne: They will certainly answer me.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: My question is somewhat related to what the chair was saying earlier. Do you have a way of measuring the equality and quality of communications and services provided in both official languages in this new electronic world?
Ms. Charette: The Treasury Board Secretariat measures policy compliance in general — whether it be policies on official languages, computer use or information management — through a process called the Management Accountability Framework or the MAF. The MAF is the annual process by which the Treasury Board Secretariat, through a series of performance indicators, measures departments' compliance with various policies and measures. I know that we use the MAF to measure compliance with official language obligations by department area on a rotating basis, and that we also assess departmental websites.
Clearly, compliance is based on sampling and on the departmental reports, in which departments are required to answer a series of questions.
The number of government websites, for all departments and agencies, is considerable, as is the amount of information published in both official languages. It would be almost impossible to continually measure or validate it. The number of sites and pages is huge. We therefore rely on an annual process involving sampling and the answers that departments provide to questions related to their performance criteria.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: So, you are not in a position to know which institutions are not fulfilling their obligations? And, if you had to take measures, what would they be? If, for instance, you knew that there was a problem in a certain department, would you be able to do something about it?
Ms. Charette: Senator, with regard to the websites, from what I can see, the departments are all working hard and they are meeting the policy requirements. Clearly, there may be cases here and there where the quality in one language or the other is not perfect but, to date, we have observed that the departments and agencies are doing everything they can to always publish content in both languages.
I think that it is now the norm and part of the basic culture to publish content and offer citizens service in both official languages. Obviously, we conduct an annual review, but we do not have any concerns about official languages.
Senator Tardif: I have a follow-up question. Is it true that, of a total of 200 institutions, only 73 submitted an annual report to the Treasury Board Secretariat?
Mr. Tremblay: Our review is conducted on a three-year cycle. The reports that were submitted to the Prime Minister on the modernization of the public service insisted on the need to reduce the administrative burden on departments. As a result, our review is based on questions asked to departments and agencies and, once every three years, these 200 institutions must provide answers to our questions.
Senator Tardif: So, only one-third of the institutions are subject to the MAF you spoke about earlier.
Mr. Tremblay: It is, in fact, the same principle that we apply to our review. The review contains more questions and is more detailed than the MAF but the results management philosophy is based on the premise that, unless an institution has been identified as having specific problems, it is sufficient to conduct a review on a cyclical basis. We concentrate our efforts on correcting any deficiencies in the few cases where that is necessary.
Senator Tardif: I have another question to follow up on the question asked by Senator Fortin-Duplessis, who wanted to know if it is possible to follow up with the institutions that did not meet the requirements. She also expressed concern that, if a review is conducted only once every three years, then there is a strong possibility that the problems in some departments may not be identified.
My question is for Mr. Tremblay, who told us that one of the main responsibilities of the Official Languages Centre of Excellence was to review the policies from 2004 and update them.
I would like to know whether you will hold consultations with the official language minority communities as part of the policy review process currently underway at the Official Languages Centre of Excellence and at the Treasury Board Secretariat.
Mr. Tremblay: Yes, there is a consultation process. In fact, we are currently in the consultation phase. Our consultations first target the community of users, namely, our client departments, if we can call them that. These include the central agencies, the Department of Justice, the Department of Canadian Heritage and other departments with official languages responsibilities, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. More recently, in the public consultation phase, the QCGN and FCFA were both consulted. They were shown drafts of our policies and had the opportunity to read them, review them, comment on them, ask questions, and provide suggestions with regard to their content.
Senator Tardif: I would like more details about the communities because, in order to enforce Part VII, you must verify whether the departments are fulfilling the analysis role in effect under Part VII, namely, whether the communities are in fact being consulted in this regard.
I believe that it is important to consult not only the national organizations but also some regional organizations in different areas. We know full well that it is often the most remote regions or those that may not have a very large demographic weight that are the most affected by the lack of technological tools in their area. So, I am hoping that you will broaden the consultation process.
Mr. Tremblay: All I can say in this regard is that the FCFA, as you no doubt know, is an umbrella organization that is made up of several hundred community organizations across the country. For us, that is the best way of finding out what the francophone official language minority community or communities think. The same goes for the QCGN, which plays the same role in Quebec. Clearly, nothing is preventing the FCFA from contacting its network and sharing those communities' comments with us. And, undoubtedly, that is what we hope the FCFA is doing.
Senator Tardif: I agree, but the government also has a responsibility to fulfil and a leadership role to play in this regard.
Senator Mockler: I would like to add something to what Senator Tardif has just said. I know that the use of ombudsmen is very popular right now. The role of the ombudsman within government is to ensure that services are provided.
I also see the role you have in the Official Languages Centre of Excellence. In your opinion, will there be ever- increasing pressure from social media? We can see it with our children, not those in kindergarten, but those in elementary and secondary school. If we look at Canada overall, with services provided in both official languages in minority-language regions, have you thought about having an ombudsman for the Internet?
Ms. Charette: Social media is a grassroots forum that is self-sustaining. It is a forum used by the public, or by employees within the government, which is self-managed. Wikipedia is a perfect example. Someone can post an article about the War of 1812 and, if it contains a mistake, it does not take very long for someone else to correct the article. That is the power of social media. It is a collaborative medium that reaches out to everyone and allows them to collaborate, no matter where they live and, in the government's case, no matter the language of work. It makes it possible to exchange information and to contribute to collective knowledge. Therefore, it is a self-managed community. That is why wikis are so popular. It is also why Wikipedia exists today and the renowned encyclopedia has faded away. The power is in the community. The community tries to collaborate, intervene, exchange information and create dialogue. Today, through the Internet and social media, it can do so. What we have observed is that the dialogue is very respectful and very beneficial to the development of both central and remote communities. I believe that would be embracing the phenomenon.
Senator Mockler: Thank you. We could certainly elaborate, but I will respect your opinion.
In terms of services provided to minorities through social media, in both French and English, has there been deterioration in the quality of both languages?
Ms. Charette: As with any tool that is easy to use, we tend to use it without carefully reading the instruction manual. That happens with our remote control at home and any tool. It is very easy today to communicate through new media. Because of the speed at which communications are created and transmitted, people may not go back to check their spelling and the richness of their vocabulary. However, these are personal habits. Every professional should be mindful of that. As a parent, I certainly do not want my children and grandchildren to neglect the quality of their language just because they can communicate quickly with these tools. That is the risk with any new tool. They can always be used without rigour.
Senator Mockler: What mechanism could be put in place for social media in order to better control the quality of French and English? Are there any or am I dreaming in Technicolor?
Ms. Charette: There are so many technological tools available. Today, we can consult the Bescherelle online. The number of dictionaries available online is incredible. The Bescherelle can be used to correct a fairly complex phrase and the results are far better than what I achieved when I was in high school, had to take out the book and read the whole thing myself. The availability of these tools online, through the Internet and on all platforms that support them, is an asset.
Another factor is that we can write faster today. Previously, it took much longer to prepare a report. We had to type up multiple copies on a typewriter. It could take months to prepare a document. Today, however, we print out a document and send it to a colleague, who edits it very quickly. Documents are prepared very quickly. This provides an incentive to put out a great deal of material. However, there is the risk that not enough attention is given to the document. It is up to each individual who publishes a document to ensure that the quality of the language is good. When agencies and departments post items on their sites or prepare official publications, I am proud to say that the quality of language is generally very good.
Senator Champagne: We will be drafting a report in the next few weeks. Is there one thing in particular that would make your job easier and that you would like to see in our recommendations to the government? You are obviously passionate about official languages; we can see it and hear it. What could we recommend that would make your life easier?
Ms. Charette: I must say that good supports are in place to encourage respect for and to foster the use of the official languages both within the public service, when working with our employees and our colleagues from different departments, and also when publishing externally. It is clear that new public servants are social media enthusiasts. Having officials encourage the use of social media helps stimulate dialogue in an employee's language of choice within the public service.
We would like the government to continue using social media appropriately. I am convinced that, in ten years' time, we will see the benefits for all communities, those in remote regions and others. It is a powerful tool for bringing people together.
Senator Champagne: We will try to find an eloquent and incisive way to express in our report what you have just told us.
The Chair: I will close with some very specific questions that may touch on issues already raised. I would like to ensure that I have understood correctly. Based on your answers, the situation seems to be more positive than what I had anticipated.
Do official language minority communities have access to online information in the language of their choice on all federal government websites? You seem to be saying that this is the case.
Ms. Charette: All official communications from departments and agencies are available to all citizens in both languages.
The Chair: Are these communities able to actively interact in their language with federal departments and organizations that use social media? Can I interact with these departments in the language of my choice?
Ms. Charette: All departments receive email and reply in the language of the originator.
The Chair: Is service equitable and of equal quality in French and English?
Ms. Charette: Online services are available in both languages. Physical services, either at a point of service or by telephone —
The Chair: I was referring to online services and social media.
Ms. Charette: Online services, such as those of Human Resources, Service Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency are regularly available in both languages.
The Chair: Are the answers that you have provided today based on the report you ask for every year? Are your answers based on information provided by the 70 institutions that responded, or are they based on responses from 200 institutions? You choose 70 institutions every year. Is what you are telling us today based on the information for your annual report provided by those departments?
Mr. Tremblay: Generally speaking, the online information posted by the departments is available in both official languages. Is that the case for all institutions and departments? Our assessment is as follows. When we put the question to 73 federal institutions, they respond with more specific information available to them about the degree of compliance that they believe they attest to and justify. I would have to make inquiries. However, if I recall correctly, I would qualify that statement by stating that all institutions indicate that their websites are available, as required by the policies and the act, and that the information — I am getting a little ahead of myself — is almost always available in both official languages. We recognize, and this is the case for almost any policy requirement, that, on occasion, the ball is dropped in a particular case, it is noted and it is acknowledged.
Senator Tardif: The report indicates that the majority of institutions have effective measures to ensure the simultaneous availability and the quality of bilingual websites for employees and of bilingual electronic messages sent to them. In unilingual regions, most institutions indicate that the language of work is the language that predominates in the province or the territory where the work unit is located. That is also the case for the availability in both official languages of general and everyday work tools for staff that must provide bilingual services to the public.
There seems to be a discrepancy between bilingual and unilingual regions?
Mr. Tremblay: There are two concepts in our great world of official languages. In terms of the implementation of regulations, Part IV, with respect to communications with the public, sets out the designated offices that must provide services to the public in both official languages. Part V sets out the regions designated as bilingual for language-of- work purposes, as established under the Official Languages Act, namely the National Capital Region, western Quebec, northern and eastern Ontario, New Brunswick, and the Eastern Townships, if my memory serves me well.
Tools, blogs, wikis, intranet sites — internal departmental sites — must comply with the regulations. In bilingual regions, our work tools, our central and personnel services must be available in both official languages. In unilingual regions, whether French or English, intranet sites, blogs, wikis and work tools are available in the predominant language.
Once again, when a tool is available centrally, the magic of new technologies ensures that it is more readily available to all users in all regions. Formally, in unilingual regions, we are required by the act to provide, services — even central services — work tools and other tools to employees in the language that predominates in the region. Institutions have responded according to the requirements imposed on them.
Ms. Charette: I would like to clarify. The external websites of every department or agency are not linked to a particular region. There is only one website, whether the department has a presence in one region or ten. Websites are neutral in terms of the region and most of the content is available in both languages.
Mr. Tremblay is referring to internal sites, or intranet sites, that are only available to employees.
Senator Tardif: And to Part V of the act with regard to the language of work.
Ms. Charette: Yes.
Senator Tardif: And in that regard, there is a lack of consistency.
Ms. Charette: Intranet sites are not necessarily geared to regions. The Treasury Board Secretariat intranet site is completely bilingual. Of course, we are a central agency. For example, the Canada Revenue Agency intranet site would be bilingual across Canada.
Senator Tardif: But others would not.
Ms. Charette: Potentially.
The Chair: I forget what the electronic network is called, but if it is bilingual within the federal department in question, in my opinion there is no reason why this tool, which is already bilingual, could not be available in all federal offices of this department across Canada, given that it already exists. Could there be a link?
Ms. Charette: Employees in other offices can access it.
The Chair: Could access it, yes.
Ms. Charette: Employees in the offices can access the intranet from their work stations if there is access. In general, that is the case.
The Chair: Honourable senators, if there are no further questions, on your behalf, I would like to thank the witnesses who appeared before us this afternoon and who did a good job of answering our questions. We are just beginning our study and I am sure that we will think of other questions. Thank you very much for coming.
Honourable senators, I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes and we will resume in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)