THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, October 31, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 4:01 p.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts; and in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I am René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick, and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I’d now like to invite committee members to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
[English]
The Chair: I wish to welcome all of you and viewers across the country who may be watching. I would like to point out that I am taking part in this meeting from within the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Today, we continue our study of the subject matter of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts. The proposed short title for this bill is “An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages.”
[Translation]
For the first part of our meeting today, we welcome representatives from the Public Service Alliance of Canada: Alexandre Silas, Regional Executive Vice-President, and Rosane Doré Lefebvre, Communications Officer. They are joining us by videoconference. With us in the room, we also welcome Daniel-Robert Gooch, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities.
Welcome.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre, Communications Officer, Public Service Alliance of Canada: Good afternoon to the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. On behalf of PSAC, we would like to thank you for your invitation to testify on this bill. My name is Rosane Doré Lefebvre, and I am a communications officer with the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
Today, I’m going to give PSAC’s testimony on behalf of Alexandre Silas, Regional Executive Vice-President for the National Capital Region. The Public Service Alliance of Canada represents more than 230,000 workers across the country and around the world.
Our members work in areas such as security, federal departments and agencies, Crown corporations, universities, casinos, community service agencies, Indigenous communities, airports and so on. In addition to our head office in Ottawa, PSAC has 23 regional offices.
We represent members who use French at work — or want to use it — on a daily basis across the country. I am not only talking about francophones, but also bilingual people who want to converse in their second language, or what I would call francophiles, people who don’t necessarily speak French, but who also want their workplace to be open and inclusive of the official languages spoken by their colleagues.
First, it’s important to recognize that all workers have the right to speak and work in the official language of their choice within the federal public service. While this may be true on paper, unfortunately, improving bilingualism in the public service simply doesn’t seem to be a priority for successive federal governments.
PSAC sincerely believes that the federal government has the opportunity to do more to promote and protect official languages in our institutions; it just needs the will to do so.
The pandemic made these inequities even more evident, with most people working from home and only interacting virtually. It’s made it more difficult for our members to work in French.
Information sent to employees in English only, work meetings without interpretation or managers unable to communicate effectively in their second language are just a few examples of significant language barriers mentioned by our members during the pandemic.
Bilingualism should be recognized as a superior skill. If we want to create a dynamic, diverse and bilingual federal public service, we must create an atmosphere where employees are both able and encouraged to work in the language of their choice.
It is the duty of the federal government to provide the tools necessary to achieve this. The Canadian public service should be a haven where bilingualism is encouraged and supported by the employer. We have to be honest with what our members are actually seeing right now: the language policies implemented in the federal public service are simply not working.
The federal government’s Bill C-13 — the first major reform of the Official Languages Act in over 30 years — is a step in the right direction. However, the bill lacks teeth to protect the French language in Canada and promote bilingualism throughout the federal public service.
We are pleased to see that the government wants to take action to support and protect bilingualism in the federal public service. The timing is right, as PSAC is currently at the bargaining table for over 165,000 members who work for Treasury Board. We are proposing a number of measures to improve bilingualism in the federal public service, as well as new provisions for Indigenous workers who speak or write in an Indigenous language as they carry out their duties.
Improving the bilingualism bonus is one of our demands at the bargaining table. This bonus hasn’t been updated since 1977 and has remained at $800 for nearly 50 years. Despite our repeated calls for the government to review its policy, it still refuses to budge. Even worse, in a 2019 report, the government even proposed eliminating the bilingualism bonus. From our perspective, this is completely unacceptable.
If the government is serious about supporting official languages, PSAC believes that the bilingualism bonus should be increased to recognize the value of working in both official languages and to provide more language training to encourage anglophone and francophone workers to develop their second language.
PSAC is also proposing an Indigenous language benefit for federal workers who speak an Indigenous language, in order to attract and retain more Indigenous workers and recognize their life experiences.
Data collected from departments by the Treasury Board-PSAC Joint Committee on Indigenous Languages identified over 450 federal workers who use an Indigenous language in the workplace in the course of their duties. They deserve to be recognized for the value they bring to the federal public service.
Parliament has taken legislative action to advance the recognition of Indigenous languages; the federal government, as an employer, should lead by example and formally recognize the contribution of its employees who use Indigenous languages in the performance of their duties.
If the government is serious about strengthening both official languages, it has an obligation to make language training available to employees at no cost. More language training is needed to encourage anglophone and francophone employees to develop their second language.
We also ask that Treasury Board stop contracting out language training and instead focus on creating its own training program, staffed by federal public service employees who will focus on the specific demands of the federal public service. The same is true for translation services. They should never be contracted out. PSAC hopes that the government will reverse its decision and accept our language demands at the bargaining table. There’s still time to make the right choice.
We also hope that committee members will take this opportunity to strengthen both official languages in the public service, because the bill, as presented, does not have a lot of teeth for our members.
Finally, all we’re asking here is that French and English be on equal footing in the federal public service. It’s not right for an employee to receive documents in English first and then in French, nor is it right for managers not to be able to express themselves in the language of their employees’ choice. It isn’t right that language training isn’t specifically adapted to the federal public service. It isn’t right that we don’t encourage or promote bilingualism in our institutions, but we can give ourselves the means to do so.
Thank you for your time. I’d be happy to answer any questions you have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Doré Lefebvre.
Welcome, Mr. Gooch. The floor is yours.
[English]
Daniel-Robert Gooch, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Port Authorities: Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today on changes to the Official Languages Act, or the OLA, proposed in Bill C-13.
[Translation]
I am Daniel-Robert Gooch, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities. We represent the 17 Canada port authorities that move most of Canada’s international cargo and operate at arm’s length of government to manage federal port lands. Canada’s port authorities support the protection of Canada’s official languages and are diligent about meeting their obligations under the Official Languages Act. However, there are some concerns with how official language issues are already handled today, under current legislation.
[English]
As Canada’s port authorities are charged with operating federal port assets at arm’s length of government, they are expected to operate self-sufficiently and independently from each other. While all port authorities work to promote and enable Canada’s trade, this is done primarily at a localized level within each port authority’s regional jurisdiction. Their resource levels vary significantly, with some having only a handful of staff. They also operate in many parts of the country where finding staff with minority-language capabilities can be quite challenging.
The concerns we have with Bill C-13 are directly related to these factors for which the one-size-fits-all approach on perceived official language requirements under the Canada Marine Act today raises concerns about Bill C-13. In particular, OLA compliance is more cumbersome for port authorities than for other federal institutions that are larger and national in scope — a matter that Bill C-13 would exacerbate. Also, the tension already faced by port authorities to increase transparency and work toward better alignment with local communities through greater local communication will be increasingly in conflict with the risk of failure to comply with OLA restrictions and increased exposure to vexatious complaints.
While some official language complaints are well founded and require corrective action, our members face increasing complaints that are vexatious in nature and do not, in our view, protect or assist with the values that the OLA stands for. For example, our ports consult extensively with the community on major developments with the potential to impact those communities, such as infrastructure and construction projects.
This is a shared goal of Canada Port Authorities, or CPAs, and the Government of Canada. Our members have made major efforts to improve on this consultation over the years since CPAs were established. It’s a trend we understand Transport Minister Alghabra would like to see continue, and increased consultation with communities and Indigenous groups may be mandated in the amendments to the Canada Marine Act, which we expect soon.
But the Official Languages Commissioner’s interpretation on port OLA obligations, combined with the proposed changes to the act, threaten to be in conflict. Our member ports are regularly diverted by complaints from individuals in other provinces who have developed a niche business reviewing port websites to find highly local consultation documents with elements provided only in the language of the community. Even though these initiatives are entirely local in their scope, complainants are earning thousands of dollars simply by searching for these materials online from thousands of kilometres away. Surely, this was not the intent of the Official Languages Act nor the intent of the federal government when it established CPAs, more than 20 years ago.
These complaints are not coming from port users and they are not coming from local residents, yet they continue to be advanced and investigated by the Official Languages Commissioner, the OLC, without regard to the nature, accuracy or veracity of the complaint. Our members must respond to these investigations, which divert staff and financial resources that would otherwise be dedicated to communication and collaboration with users and stakeholders who are actually in the community.
Given this is the situation today, port authorities are concerned that the expanded powers of the OLC proposed in Bill C-13, including administrative monetary penalties, would exacerbate the situation.
Canada’s port authorities do not enjoy the limitless resources of the federal government with which they must compete for bilingual employees throughout the country. In many regions, it is difficult for our members to recruit bilingual employees, and practical differences in operations and local distinctions should not expose port authorities to unreasonable penalties.
Additionally, unlike airport authorities, which share many characteristics with our members including on official language obligations, port authorities are subject to Part VII of the Official Languages Act, which outlines the government’s goals of not just protecting but enhancing minority language rights and fostering the full recognition of both languages. While these are laudable goals, it is hard to reconcile these with the mandate of CPAs to operate port assets at arm’s length of government to support Canadian trade and competitiveness, as outlined in the Canada Marine Act.
We submit that this Part VII of the OLA should not apply to CPAs in the same way it does not apply to Canada’s airport authorities. Port authorities could be exposed to additional risk if this is not addressed and if Bill C-13 is passed as it reads today. It is crucial to the Canadian economy that Canada’s ports be able to operate effectively. In order to do so while avoiding unnecessary financial penalties and meeting their obligations under the OLA, clarity and consistency are key. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your opening statements.
[Translation]
We will now proceed to questions, but before we do, I would like to ask members and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
Colleagues, being aware of the time ahead, I suggest that, for the first round, each senator be allowed five minutes, including question and answer.
Senator Gagné: Welcome to the witnesses. My first question is for Ms. Doré Lefebvre.
Where do you see the problem of leadership in the system, given that the language of work issue has been around for decades?
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: Thank you very much for the question, Senator Gagné.
We’ve been saying for a long time that there’s a problem with bilingualism in the federal public service. Is it just the policies that are in place? Is it the fact that each agency or department operates differently? The way things work within agencies and departments isn’t consistent. According to our members, in some departments it is easier to communicate bilingually in French or English than in others. For example, at Treasury Board, it’s unfortunately more difficult to communicate in French. We’re not the ones saying this; our members are saying it directly.
I don’t want to blame anyone in particular, but there are a lot of unilingual anglophone managers who head different teams, and we recognize that there’s a problem there.
In this regard, we propose that there be more language training specifically tailored to the public service, and we propose that managers be made aware of this. It’s sad to say, but some find themselves lucky when they end up with a francophone or bilingual manager. So we have to look at that, but we also have to understand that we have a particular structure in the federal government.
Senator Gagné: Do you think that somehow, whether it’s through the legislative framework or regulations or whatever it may be, we should clarify the bilingualism requirements for senior public servants and provide for bilingualism requirements for appointment to the deputy minister position?
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: We think it’s very important for managers to be able to communicate with their team in both official languages. Someone may be bilingual, but be more comfortable in the official language of their choice. PSAC believes that there needs to be a focus on promoting this bilingualism, creating more training opportunities and really prioritizing training for managers.
As I mentioned, the bilingualism of managers and senior officials frankly leaves something to be desired, but with the reorganization of agencies and departments, we may see cases where a francophone employee in Sherbrooke is supervised by a unilingual anglophone manager, for example. It is imperative that measures be taken to ensure that communications are more effective, that people don’t have to wait for translation to understand what is written in a document, and that there is the equal access in French and English.
Senator Gagné: My next question is for Mr. Gooch.
I know that the Association of Canadian Port Authorities has already talked about challenges in recruiting bilingual staff in certain regions. Are you able to quantify the extent of that shortage? Can you tell us how problematic the situation is and in which regions it is more difficult to recruit bilingual staff?
Mr. Gooch: Unfortunately, I don’t have the data, but we’re talking about cities like Nanaimo, Port Alberni, and Prince Rupert, British Columbia. It’s difficult to find bilingual employees, but we must also remember that the ports compete with the federal government, which is also looking for bilingual employees. So it’s difficult for ports that are located in cities like that.
We also have ports on the east coast, in Halifax and in St. John’s, in Newfoundland and Labrador. It isn’t always easy to find bilingual employees.
Senator Gagné: Do you know if there are any statistics or studies on how to measure that shortage?
Mr. Gooch: I imagine there are statistics on the number of bilingual people in the cities, but unfortunately I don’t have any data on the number of employees.
Senator Mégie: My first question is for Ms. Doré Lefebvre.
You said that the government refuses to provide language training to employees; is it because it has already estimated the cost of that training? Second, are there other reasons for not providing that training? From everything you’ve told us, it’s very important. Third, what about temporary staff and non-unionized interns, in terms of access to that training?
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: Thank you very much for the question, Senator Mégie. You touched on some extremely important points, including access to training, as well as training for temporary employees. I would love to have an employer representative here right now to be able to answer those questions more specifically, as to why we don’t have greater access to training for the federal public service. That would really be a question to ask them.
However, on the ground, we have found — and our members have found — that there is very little language training. More needs to be done to encourage francophone and anglophone workers to develop their second language.
There is language training, but much of it is contracted out. We’re asking that the Treasury Board stop contracting out language training for public service employees and instead focus on creating its own training program, made up of public service employees who can focus specifically on the demands of the federal public service. We have specific jargon and specific demands to manage, and it’s important to have people who understand exactly how it works. If there is too much turnover or if training is done externally and is privatized, it doesn’t work nearly as well.
Senator Mégie: Mr. Gooch, do you think that Bill C-13 is ambitious enough in terms of the government’s immigration policies? You mentioned the labour shortage; would it be helpful to establish bilingualism standards for these immigrant workers?
Mr. Gooch: Honestly, we haven’t looked at the bill from that standpoint. However, I would say that it’s more than simply a problem of employee availability.
[English]
When you look at the complaints, these are not the types of complaints that would even necessarily be caught by bilingual employees. For example, a port wants to do a consultation in a community. They are talking about a very local issue like what to do with a piece of land and wanting to develop it into a park and put cranes there. They consult with people who are in that community, and they put forward 30 pages of documents. If there are two words that were not translated on page 17, or if there are 15 appendices and one of them is an image that has writing in English but not in French, those are the kinds of things being put forward by individuals who are not part of the consultation — they’re not local in the community; they’re on the other side of the country — are profiting from.
We just don’t believe that’s in the spirit of what the Official Languages Act, Bill C-13 and certainly not the Canada Marine Act are supposed to be about. So that’s the area of concern that our port authorities have.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Have you quantified the number of complaints received, and do you know which ports generate the most complaints?
Mr. Gooch: That’s a very good question; unfortunately, I don’t have complete data on the numbers. I know that it affects several members of the association in British Columbia and on the east coast in particular, but I don’t know how many.
Senator Mégie: Are the figures available in print somewhere? If so, you could send them to the committee members through the clerk.
Mr. Gooch: I’ll check to find out whether we can get that information and send it to you. However, even though I do not know the number, I know that the problem has increased over the past five or six years; that is clear.
Senator Mégie: Okay. Thank you very much.
Senator Moncion: I’d like to go back to the previous answer.
You mentioned people who took advantage of some of the typos in your documents to earn money. How do they go about taking advantage of this situation?
[English]
Mr. Gooch: They sit on their computer and go through websites, trying to find examples of things that are not in French, or not entirely in French. I have heard stories of two words that were not translated, and that was a complaint that was taken up by the Commissioner of Official Languages. I have also heard stories where individuals haven’t actually gone and made a complaint; they have gone to our ports and said, “We found this example. Give us some money and we won’t make a complaint.”
Senator Moncion: You pay money for that?
Mr. Gooch: Port authorities have to decide how they are going to handle each one, and they generally end up paying for that, yes.
Senator Moncion: But that’s against the law?
Mr. Gooch: I’m not a legal expert. It certainly doesn’t sound like good behaviour.
Senator Moncion: We could have another discussion on this, but it doesn’t sound like smart behaviour when you pay for blackmail. It is illegal, and I don’t think any money should be given for those kinds of behaviours and for people who want profit.
[Translation]
My next question is for the representatives of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. When you appeared on September 22, you said that if the government wanted to strengthen both official languages, it would have to make language training available free of charge for the workers. We know that many employees are taking language training; they pass the tests, they receive the bilingual bonus, but they don’t use the language at work because they say it’s too difficult. And yet, they benefit from additional funds without really making an effort to use the language.
How do you think the language training offered free of charge to employees enabled them to use French more often?
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: Thank you very much for the question, Senator Moncion.
The training is part of our toolbox to make the federal public service more bilingual, and also to ensure that people feel at ease working in both languages. Clearly, if someone is working in a location where people tend not to work in both official languages, or if the activities or tools made available do not lead them to use both languages, it can in fact be more difficult for some members to work in one or the other of the official languages. A working environment in which both languages are accepted and encouraged has to be established.
It’s important to understand that in some regions, it’s more common among francophones, who are required to speak English at all times or use their second language, which is English, in performing their duties. However, they are often hired for a bilingual position. That can sometimes be discouraging. They switch into English to facilitate matters. If managers used and valued both languages, whether at bilingual meetings or through other measures, it would be easier for these people and also more beneficial to both official languages.
Senator Moncion: I agree with you. Even at my office, we work exclusively in French. I know that the office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court now works completely in French. When a francophone manager works there, the team working for that manager is very often bilingual, and in such circumstances, there are offices where the workers are capable of expressing themselves more often in French than in English.
My second question is about the bilingualism bonus. You mentioned the $800 bonus, which has been at that level for many years without ever been increased. That leads us to wonder whether the bonus is still necessary, because everyone gets it. Francophones get the bonus automatically, unless they have trouble speaking English, but anglophones almost always get it too. If they pass the proficiency tests just once, they will have the bilingualism bonus added to their salary, meaning that at some point, the bonus no longer serves any purpose. Even if the bonus were to be increased, I’m not sure it would have the same advantages as before.
I’d like to hear what you have to say about that.
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: For our members, it’s the very opposite. The bilingualism bonus is one of the important tools for bilingualism in the federal public service.
There might be a way of making better use of bilingualism, but I don’t think the problem necessarily stems from the bilingualism bonus. We should instead be asking what, if I can put it this way, the managers can do with a bilingual workforce?
At PSAC, we believe that the bonus enhances francophone bilingual employees and at the same time encourages unilingual anglophones to learn French and use it in their work. However, it needs to be used as a tool to make the federal public service more bilingual than it is now.
Senator Moncion: Thank you, Ms. Doré Lefevbre.
Senator Dalphond: Am I to understand from Senator Moncion’s question that when you qualify for a bilingualism bonus, it can take up to 15 years to check whether people still have the required level of language proficiency?
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: Is that question for me?
Senator Dalphond: Yes.
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: Thank you very much for the question, Senator Dalphond.
I don’t have specific details about what happens after people receive the bilingualism bonus. I’d have to check and get back to you on that. I could provide more details about what happens after someone receives the bilingualism bonus seal of approval. But with the bilingualism bonus, the whole money side of things has been forgotten. The bilingualism bonus is indexed to the cost of living. The amount would be about $3,000 a year for employees, which would perhaps be more of an incentive for unilingual a —
Senator Dalphond: I’m okay for the increase. I just want to know whether the bilingualism bonus is a vested right, even if the language is not used afterwards and the language proficiency has been lost. Could you check on that?
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: I’ll get back to you later on that question.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you Ms. Doré Lefevbre.
My second question is for Mr. Gooch. In Chapter 7 of your brief, you said that it applicable to the port authorities means that these additional official requirements would place them at a disadvantage compared to other similar institutions in the sector. Which other institutions similar to the ports sector are not subject to the act?
Mr. Gooch: I’m not sure I’ve understood the whole question.
[English]
Senator Dalphond: In your brief, you referred to the fact that it makes you non-competitive with other institutions in comparative, similar sectors. What are the sectors that are comparable to ports?
Mr. Gooch: Airport authorities are also federal assets operated at arm’s length of government. In that case, they are completely private, but in most other ways, they are similar to port authorities. They are not subject to Part VII. It speaks to the responsibility to promote official bilingualism, which makes sense in terms of the federal government, but not necessarily for a business when it’s talking about promoting it in the community.
I don’t know that it’s part of Part VII, but another way in which there’s a strange imbalance is that port authorities, just like airport authorities, are considered headquarters. In terms of their communication with the public, the requirements are actually more stringent for a port authority than they are for a Government of Canada office down the street in a community like Vancouver or Prince Rupert. Transport Canada has fewer requirements in terms of official languages when it comes to their British Columbia offices than a port authority does because the port authority office is considered a head office.
Senator Dalphond: What does it mean in reality? If you receive a letter in French, you have to reply in French?
Mr. Gooch: It’s more in terms of the scale and scope of communications with the public.
Senator Dalphond: So, in British Columbia, you do advertisements? What are you talking about specifically because if you are operating a harbour where there are ships with passengers coming off the ship, I guess it would be normal to offer services in both languages to welcome these people and to process them through customs, to direct them to where they can find their luggage or find a taxi. Do you oppose that?
Mr. Gooch: No, that’s not really the heart of the concern. Services to travellers, I think, are well understood, and services to travellers will be provided in both official languages. Directing passengers is a very small part of a port’s business, but this isn’t even really about the business that a port conducts with its users. What is really of concern are communications that are very local in nature.
Ports have lands throughout the community; geographically, they are spread quite wide. A port might be consulting with a local suburb, for example, on some construction work they want to do in that area. It affects the people who live in that area or who might be driving through that area. It doesn’t affect someone who is sitting behind a computer in New Brunswick when the port is out in British Columbia. That is really the heart of the port authorities’ concern. It’s a sense that with the current requirements, there was certainly an intent that port authorities be able to communicate with their users, including passengers, using both official languages. We don’t believe that this was the intent. There are highly localized —
Senator Dalphond: If a container ship is coming from Montreal, stopping at a port in B.C., heading to China, do you think the customers are not entitled to receive information about the container or something that happens in the port? Are they not entitled to receive information in French?
Mr. Gooch: We’re not talking about service to customers, sir. We’re talking about local consultation, documents that are highly local in nature that involve consultation on development, construction projects, redevelopment of land. That is where the biggest challenge is occurring. It’s not in the business of the port. It is in these areas where the communication is really quite localized.
Senator Dalphond: Can you provide some data about how often your members have to consult with the community because they want to expand the harbour or they want to transform the port? This is not happening every week, I suspect. Can you provide us some data about that?
My last question is that, in your brief, you say that the association members cannot initiate legal proceedings in the language of their choice. What do you mean by that? They have to file the proceedings in both languages?
Mr. Gooch: Yes. I believe this is one of the things that’s related to Part VII, that the port is required to file its response in the language of the complainant, which is a bit different from the airport authorities, which have the ability to file in either official language. I would say, on the list of concerns, that’s pretty far down the list. In terms of your other question on —
Senator Dalphond: Because you refer to the fact that they cannot initiate proceedings in the language of their choice. So it’s not to respond to somebody who is suing the port authority, but it’s when the port authority is initiating some proceedings? What do you refer to here? What is the real problem? Is it because the cases have to be filed in the local court in both languages, and maybe the local court uses only one language?
Mr. Gooch: No, my understanding is it’s in terms of the proceedings that ports would be filing. I would have to get more detail on that, to be honest with you. Like I said, it’s not one of the biggest concerns, but in terms of what they are, one of the issues that is that there is a difference between port authorities —
Senator Dalphond: I wonder if you could provide some further information about what you are referring to.
Mr. Gooch: On that particular question, I’m happy to follow up. To your other question about data on consultations, I cannot. Ports consult on an ongoing basis with communities that they serve; they are communicating with the public on a daily basis. The communications between ports and the general public is constant, and it would vary significantly in terms of the frequency from port to port, based on the size and operation.
Senator Dalphond: I appreciate if you would provide more information about that whole paragraph, which is on page 2, before the conclusion of your brief. Thank you.
The Chair: If I may, I think it’s more related to Part III than Part VII. Part III of the law is on administration of justice. Thank you for that.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: I’d like to thank the two witnesses. My question is for Ms. Doré Lefebvre. You spoke about Indigenous languages. Could you tell us more about that, and whether you think there are challenges involved in giving greater recognition to Indigenous languages and workers who speak an Indigenous language?
First, I have a comment to make about the bilingualism bonus, and I’d also like to hear what you have to say about it. I still get it, because I’m still working at the legal aid clinic part time. At the provincial level, the rate is the same, $800. I’m wondering whether the provinces might follow the federal lead and assign more importance to the role of the federal government and its leadership in this area. I can tell you that I get the $800 and that I plead in French. I use French at a very high level, but everyone receives the same amount. It’s been that way since 1940. If you could make a comment about the link between the federal and provincial governments with respect to this rate, and then address Indigenous languages, I’d like to hear further details.
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: Thank you very much, Senator Clement. You’ve raised two important points, we feel. For the bilingualism bonus, I do in fact think that for all programs where the federal government is setting an example, which occurs often and everyone knows it, the provinces will follow. One good example of that was the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. The provinces followed in lockstep from coast to coast. It is happening slowly, and it has just begun, but there appears to be a difference on the ground. There is also a difference on the ground with respect to collective agreements. Rights pertaining to the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, and even a provincial employer will begin to follow what is being done by the federal government. Your point on this is an excellent one.
As for the bilingualism bonus, if the federal government does something, then it’s likely that the provinces and territories will follow suit. As for the amount, the quality of French, and all that, I’ll continue to hammer away at the fact that language training that happens in-house, rather than with a third party, is even more important. If managers and deputy ministers set an example and emphasize that facilities should be safe and secure, and that people should work in both official languages, it makes an important contribution. There is also work to be done on that.
With respect to the allocation for Indigenous languages, at the National Joint Council we conducted a study and concluded that there were 450 Indigenous workers who use their language as part of their duties, both orally and in writing. It was an integral part of their work to use these languages to serve Canadians in an Indigenous language. That’s why in our current negotiations with the Treasury Board, we propose that there be an allocation for workers who speak their Indigenous language, not only to recognize their experience, but to attract and retain more Indigenous workers to the federal public service. In 2022, we got there, and it’s a progressive and tangible way for the government to acknowledge the importance of Canada’s Indigenous languages.
It would benefit all Canadians across Canada. We know that a diverse workforce with strong Indigenous representation means a stronger and more adaptable public service. That’s another one of the tools in the box. It’s a proposal that aims at eliminating racism in the federal public service. It’s in the toolbox that’s being used to obtain more compulsory training on systemic racism, harassment and discrimination. If people see themselves reflected to a greater degree in the federal public service, it will definitely help matters.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your answers. Before going to the second round of questions, I’m going to ask a few. My first is for Ms. Doré Lefebvre.
This problem with the challenge of bilingualism — and I would include in that the concept of linguistic duality within the federal government — has been a major issue for years. You spoke about the need for managers to master both languages. You are talking about things that have more to do with administrative measures. Have you thought about the legislative measures contained in Bill C-13 that already exist and that could be improved to promote the concept of linguistic duality within the machinery of government?
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: That’s an excellent question, Senator Cormier. I’ve paid close attention to your work on linguistic duality. I worked for a long time in French in Saskatchewan and Alberta. It was something we talked about a great deal with our fellow colleagues. Having a working linguistic duality is a gift; it’s so important for our minority communities, whether francophone or anglophone, and we need to address it with a bill.
I’d have to get back to you with more precise details on other aspects of the bill that we might entertain. Setting the bar higher in terms of protecting minority language rights across the country will help the federal apparatus. I’m thinking in particular of areas for my colleagues in the rest of the country, areas where people are asking that bilingualism ought not necessarily to be — I wouldn’t want to say important, and I’m trying to weigh my words —, but perhaps less essential, as in British Columbia or sometimes Alberta.
These areas are based on rather outdated data. They go back several decades. The system needs to be reviewed to help the federal public service. I’d like the bill to address this in order to give our communities more teeth, because there are all kinds of francophones and bilingual people working, living and residing there who are proud to live in two languages, but who happen to live in other parts of the country where there are no pockets of bilingualism.
The Chair: Some witnesses told us that it would be important to be able to make regulations, not only for Part IV, but for Part V, which deals with language of work. Do you think that a requirement to be able to make regulations in Part V, which addresses language of work, would help deal with the problems you raised?
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: Can you be more specific? I’m familiar with Part V.
The Chair: Part V touches upon the question of language of work and Part VI the participation of both linguistic components of the country and the possibility of working and having access to positions in the public service. There is no regulatory role associated with these parts of the act at the moment. Do you think the ability to make regulations about that would be an important and positive measure? Things are specified in the act, but making them happen will require help from elsewhere. Some witnesses suggested doing that in the past.
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: That’s rather interesting. I’ll have to get back to you in more detail about this. You mentioned something important and it’s very important not to forget it. When this act is implemented, no matter what it contains, it will be essential to make sure that these language policies are properly established on the ground. That’s not necessarily the case at the moment in the public service. A way has to be found to get that done. How and by whom? I would say that it must be done by members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, of course. However, I believe that it will go well beyond regulation, and the act, once the time comes to implement these policies.
The Chair: Mr. Gooch, I’m somewhat bothered by the comment you made about port authorities giving money to people who complain about non-compliance with the Official Languages Act. Facts like that really need to be checked. It’s rather worrisome that the port authorities should have to use such illegal methods.
You spoke about local consultations and encountered local challenges because you had to translate some documents and had to provide communications in both languages. Can you tell us about the activities at which you were required to use both official languages without any problems arising, and which local consultations struck you as problematic? What is the nature of the activities where such problems are experienced? You mentioned local consultations, but compared to your other activities, are there challenges resulting from being required to comply with the Official Languages Act and to meet the official languages requirements?
[English]
Mr. Gooch: It is a challenge at times. Our ports do not question the fact that they are subject to official languages, and they seek to comply as best they can. The biggest concerns are with these cases where you have activities that are highly local in nature. There may be a meeting, everybody at that meeting speaks English, all the materials are provided in English, there is no request for anything to be provided in French and the port has made efforts to translate as much of the material as they can, but a month or six months later, somebody on a website finds something that didn’t get translated properly and comes at the port with a complaint. In rare circumstances — not very common, but there have been instances at more than one port — individuals have come and said that they think we are in violation of the Official Languages Act and that if we give them money, they’ll go away.
That’s not the majority of the cases we are talking about. Most have gone through the complaint process. However, the way in which that’s been handled and the degree of sensitivity is what has caused concern. In the example of a document where two words just inadvertently didn’t get translated and it is deemed to be a violation that comes with a financial penalty, the port authorities don’t think that is what is intended when we talk about official language obligations on port authorities under the Canada Marine Act and the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
The Chair: So that would involve an amendment to the Canada Marine Act? Have you been in touch with the Minister of Transport on this matter? If my information is accurate, there is the possibility of some coming amendments, is there not?
[English]
Mr. Gooch: Correct. We appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages last week, and I was asked how we would amend the bill. I don’t know that we would suggest amending it; we don’t know that this is necessarily the place where this issue could be corrected.
I would say that you have hit on a good point. It is the Canada Marine Act that outlines the requirement that port authorities be subject to the Official Languages Act. The clarification that is really needed should be coming from the Minister of Transport and the Canada Marine Act.
We know there are amendments being prepared to be put forward for the Canada Marine Act. The minister has committed to doing that at the end of this calendar year. We have met with the minister’s office and the department, and we have put in writing our suggestion that that would be the appropriate place to clarify the obligations. That’s simply what we want here. We want the obligations to be clarified in a way that is reasonable and consistent with what government was trying to achieve when it set up these obligations.
To date, we do not have expectations that it will be tackled in the Canada Marine Act. We certainly don’t have any indication that it is going to be tackled in amendments to the Canada Marine Act that are being prepared, from everything we understand from talking to the department and the minister’s office.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for your answers. We have about 30 minutes left, and will continue with Senator Mockler.
[English]
Senator Mockler: Mr. Gooch, I will begin with you. I’m troubled by you saying it is the case that we give them money to go away. Can you explain that and give me dry run of a case regarding what you are telling us today? Because that is very concerning.
Mr. Gooch: I know of a few times it has happened at more than one port. My understanding is that it actually happened before I arrived at the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, so I’m not as familiar with the details. My understanding is that it was a similar type of complaint to what we are seeing go through the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
I agree with you; it is troubling that individuals would do this. It was more than one port, so I’m not sure exactly how they dealt with it. It would have been in different ways, probably.
We have as much concern with the complaints that are going through the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. For those complaints that are similar, they have just chosen to go through the proper process.
Senator Mockler: Again, I’ll ask the question: Give me an example and not just saying, “I think.” Can you give me a case? You are talking to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Mr. Gooch: I have mentioned a few where you might have a 30-page document where a few words were found to not be translated, and that is deemed to be a legitimate complaint.
We know of at least one case where there was a focus on social media, and the request of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages was that the organization in question go back and translate several years’ worth of social media, which would have included things that were highly of the moment, for example, “There is a traffic pileup at our port. Please don’t come through gate B1 in the next two days.”
There was a desire that the port go back and translate all of those. It is hard to understand what would have come from that.
You have mentioned the case of individuals who are going and saying, “Give us some money, and we’ll go away,” and that’s a concern, but the bigger concern is how the actual complaints that are going through the Official Languages Commissioner are being handled.
Senator Mockler: In my 30 some years as a parliamentarian, I can tell you that what you have exhibited and what you are telling us now is very troubling, if that’s the case. Through the chair, I would like to get more information on what you have just said.
Have you read Bill C-13?
Mr. Gooch: I have not read Bill C-13 in its entirety, no.
Senator Mockler: Have you read Part VII?
Mr. Gooch: It has been a while.
Senator Mockler: Okay. Thank you, sir. For clarity, I think it is important to get facts regarding what you have said.
[Translation]
Ms. Doré Lefebvre, given your long experience and your leadership, I’d like to have your opinion on the following matter. Should Bill C-13 specify the bilingualism requirements for senior officials as well as for appointments to deputy minister positions across Canada?
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: Thank you for your question, Senator Mockler. As I mentioned earlier, we have problems with unilingual anglophone managers in the public service.
First of all, I believe that our concrete measures should focus on solving the basic problem. The problem is definitely there and it will take time to get things moving. We feel that what is most important is for managers to be made aware of the fact that bilingualism in the public service is very important. Bill C-13, through leadership from parliamentarians and the federal government, must demonstrate that bilingualism is a strength and that it needs to be properly rooted in Canada’s public service.
What we have here is an opportunity to use Bill C-13 for leveraging, and then focus on making the teams at ease in speaking both official languages. This possibility needs to be properly presented if bilingualism is to be taken seriously in the public service.
As for having bilingual managers from one end of the country to the other, I would sincerely like to see that become a possibility. Unfortunately, I don’t know whether it will happen with Bill C-13. Nevertheless I believe we can supply the tools needed to make everything more pleasant for francophones, francophiles, and bilingual people.
Senator Gagné: My question is for Mr. Gooch. I’d like to know more about the role of the various ports across Canada, which act they come under and which department.
As I understand it, some ports come under Transport Canada and others under Fisheries and Oceans Canada? Is that correct?
[English]
Mr. Gooch: The Association of Canadian Port Authorities represents the 17 Canadian port authorities. Those all come under the Minister of Transport. The Government of Canada owns the assets, but the organizations that actually operate the ports operate independent of government.
It is a bit different from the airport authorities, which I had some experience with in my previous role. The airport authorities are actually independent businesses. These are considered to be government enterprises, but as with airport authorities, they are responsible for raising all of the funds to operate their business. So for all intents and purposes, they operate as independent businesses from that perspective in terms of how they raise funds and how they operate on a day-to-day basis — very independently of government. But the minister to which they are responsible is the Minister of Transport, and the law, the main governing legislation, is the Canada Marine Act.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Are there any ports operated by a municipality?
[English]
Mr. Gooch: There are, but they are not members of my organization at this time.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: So I take it that you would like to see greater consistency among the various legislative frameworks, in terms of the linguistic obligations under the Official Languages Act and the Canada Marine Act?
[English]
Mr. Gooch: The Official Languages Act is the governing framework for how the official language obligations are managed and handled by the Official Languages Commissioner. The fact that ports are subject to them — and what they are subject to — is in the Canada Marine Act. The challenge is that it’s sufficiently vague that the interpretation of the scope of the obligations has expanded over the years. Where it may have been quite narrowly defined at one point in the past, we are seeing it more and more broadly interpreted as time has gone on, and particularly in the last five to seven years.
It’s my understanding that is the Official Languages Commissioner, in its engagement with ports, is much more aggressive in terms of their interpretation.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: My last question is the following: are you suggesting that the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages be more limited with respect to the various port authorities?
[English]
Mr. Gooch: I guess the way I would characterize it is that the ports acknowledge that they have obligations under the Official Languages Act, and they have sought to be as compliant with them as they can. I would say that the efforts have increased dramatically over the last few years, as the complaints have increased. The will is there. One of the challenges is that the commissioner has the discretion and latitude to be able to recognize, for example, when an individual is perhaps taking advantage of the situation and could decide not to entertain that. But the latitude and discretion that is available is not being exercised.
In that context, when we see a bill that proposes to increase the powers for that office, that’s what gives us pause. We were happy to put a brief forward to the committee because we did want to ensure that you were aware of this concern, but it does feel like it’s something to be clarified, probably, with the Minister of Transport and the Canada Marine Act, rather than a concern with the Official Languages Act itself. We recognize that the law is here for very good reasons. My colleague on the panel is addressing the public service where there are very valid concerns. We sort of feel like we’re being caught in something that wasn’t really designed necessarily for this situation.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Thank you for that clarification.
[English]
Senator Moncion: You mentioned the complaints that are received by the Commissioner of Official Languages. It is just a question because the port authorities haven’t been on our radar when we were looking at the report. So hearing this from you is new. It’s new to me, for instance, because the one we hear the most is Air Canada. But for the port authorities, we haven’t had any concerns about your group.
I understand you are concerned about the increase in the powers the commissioner could have. What kinds of changes would you see, or what suggestions would you make to change Bill C-13 in that way?
Mr. Gooch: Like I said, I’m not sure there are changes to be made with this legislation. Really, our interest in being here and putting a brief on the record was to register these concerns in part because, in the coming years, if the legislation goes forward, and if the engagement between ports and the Official Languages Commissioner continues down the road where it is headed, then we want to ensure that we have advised the Government of Canada where the concerns are. It does feel like it’s probably the Canada Marine Act that needs clarification.
We’re not going to suggest that you should change the entire law to deal with what is, in effect, a niche concern, because port authorities and airport authorities — there are not a lot of organizations that necessarily find themselves in this role of seeking to operate independently at arm’s length from government, responsible for their own financial sustainability, and yet find themselves captured by the Official Languages Act. We’re a very small club.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My question is for Ms. Doré Lefebvre. Some witnesses have said the act should be reviewed every 5 years or every 10 years, and not after 50 years. Do you think certain departments should be responsible for that review or do you think we should form a joint parliamentary committee, which would allow for the testimony to be released publicly? Have you thought about that?
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: Thank you very much for the question, Senator Mégie. As to who should be responsible for reviewing the Official Languages Act, whether that is done by a joint committee or in some other way, we have not thought about that. The key for us are the results.
I can tell you from experience that it is always preferable to have something non-partisan in order to get the best quality of work in the end, but the structure will depend on what parliamentarians decide. I have complete faith in our parliamentary system and I will let you judge what is best for us.
There was another part of your question though, and I have forgotten it.
Senator Mégie: No, I think I just asked you about what the witnesses said about a review every 5 years or every 10 years, and I then asked whether you had thought about that.
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: As to a review, I think you saw it with the bilingualism bonus — In fact, an official languages provision took effect in the federal public service in the 1970s, and we are reviewing it now. A lot has happened in the interim. In order to stay more current, I think the review should be more often than every 50 years. I completely agree.
The federal government consults public service members regularly to see how things are going in the workplace, and the official languages are among the questions sent to our members as part of that exercise. If the federal public service is consulted that often, I think that, for the official languages, not just for members of the federal public service, but also for members of minority communities across the country, it is extremely important to do it more often.
Senator Mégie: Thank you, Ms. Doré Lefebvre.
Senator Dalphond: My question is once again for Mr. Gooch. The Association of Canadian Port Authorities has 17 members. Looking at your website, I see that there are five in Quebec: the ports of Montreal, Quebec, Sept-Îles, Saguenay and Trois-Rivières. I also see the port of Thunder Bay. I see the ports of Belledune and Saint John, New Brunswick. So the majority of ports are in areas with a lot of francophones.
Are the francophone ports requesting that they no longer be required to consult and produce documents in English as part of their public consultations?
Mr. Gooch: I don’t think our ports in Quebec have received any complaints, at least not the way the ports in British Columbia have. To my knowledge, that is not an issue for the ports in Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: They hold their public consultations in both languages?
Mr. Gooch: I believe the documents are produced in both languages. Since there is no problem, I am not very familiar with the situation. To my knowledge, the documents on their websites are in both official languages. Since they receive fewer complaints, I believe there is no problem.
Senator Dalphond: You mentioned the ports of Nanaimo, Port Alberni and Prince Rupert. Are these the port authorities that have had problems?
Mr. Gooch: There are some in Ontario as well. The number of complaints varies. I know there have also been problems at the port of St. John’s, Newfoundland. I do not know how many complaints each port receives per year, but I know most of the complaints are about the ports in British Columbia.
Senator Dalphond: In your testimony, you said the complaints are from the Eastern Canada. Do you mean Quebec and New Brunswick?
Mr. Gooch: There is more than one source of complaints. There are complaints in Quebec and perhaps others in New Brunswick. Our association does not receive the complaints, so we do not know the details. I am familiar with the examples we have been given to explain the problem.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
The Chair: In closing, I have a question for Ms. Doré Lefebvre.
Certain regions are designated bilingual for language of work. Do you think those regions should be reviewed? As a follow-up question, in view of hybrid work and telework, is it still necessary to designate bilingual regions to ensure that your members can work in both official languages or in their preferred official language? Do you have an opinion on that?
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: Thank you very much for the question, Senator Cormier. It is very topical. I am also eager to answer your follow-up question.
We believe that certain regions are less bilingual. It is nonetheless important to properly understand the current linguistic landscape and to have the appropriate staff in place. The current system of designated regions should be reviewed. An update is overdue. As I said earlier, the system dates back to the 1970s.
Your follow-up question regarding hybrid work is very interesting, because hybrid work is something new. We will have to see how things evolve in the federal government in the years ahead. Right now, the government creates different regions for language of work. It will be very interesting to see how things evolve in the coming years.
As to the second part of your follow-up question, the issue is not just hybrid work but also services to the public. Alberta is the province with the most francophone immigrants, after Ontario. There are more than 200,000 francophone or bilingual people in Alberta. Yet this reality is not necessarily reflected in the services offered to francophones.
With regard to designating regions, even with hybrid work, we must first determine who is being served. Even if the person is comfortable in both official languages, it is always preferable to be served in one’s own language and it is always easier to communicate in one’s own language. Take medical consultations for instance, or if I have a problem with immigration or passport services, as a francophone, it is always easier for me to speak French, even though I also speak English. That has to be taken into consideration.
The Chair: You said that Treasury Board is one of the places where it is most difficult to speak one’s preferred language. That is rather troubling, since Treasury Board is responsible for language of work. In your opinion, is Treasury Board properly equipped to ensure bilingualism and linguistic duality within the bureaucracy? Does Treasury Board have the right tools to fulfill its role and to foster the growth of linguistic duality? What can you say on that subject, in conclusion?
Ms. Doré Lefebvre: I would be very interested to hear what a Treasury Board representative would say on that subject, to know exactly what is happening.
I would simply say that, right now, it depends on the department and the agency, which is unfortunate. A lot of work needs to be done at Treasury Board to strengthen bilingualism, and that is what our members are asking us for. Very often, it is English first, and then French. At Treasury Board, French is considered a translated language. It is very annoying that our members do not to have access to documentation at the same time as anglophones do. I could say a lot more about this, but I will stop there.
The Chair: Ms. Doré Lefebvre, thank you for your testimony and your answers. They will inform the conclusions of our preliminary study.
Mr. Gooch, thank you very much for your testimony and your answers. As Senator Mockler requested, I think it would be very helpful for the committee to receive specific examples to illustrate the points you mentioned. That would be very important for this preliminary study and for the committee.
On that note, we will suspend briefly and then resume in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)