Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 19 - Evidence - Meeting of December 4, 2017
OTTAWA, Monday, December 4, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m., to continue its study on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act; and in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening. I am René Cormier, a senator from New Brunswick, and I am pleased to be chairing this evening’s meeting. Before I hand the floor over to our witnesses, I would like to ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves, beginning with the senator to my left.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Tardif: Claudette Tardif from Alberta.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Thank you, fellow senators. The Senate committee is continuing with the second stage of its study on the perspective of official language minority communities on modernizing the Official Languages Act.
We are pleased to have with us representatives of the Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité, or RDEE Canada, which was established 20 years ago. RDEE Canada promotes the vitality and economic development of francophone minority communities through a national network that includes provincial and territorial organizations, except in Quebec.
With us are Roukya Abdi Aden, Manager of National Coordination, and Sébastien Benedict, Manager of Government and Community Relations. The purpose of today’s meeting is to discuss economic development in minority communities. Thanks to the both of you for joining us today. You may go ahead.
Sébastien Benedict, Manager, Government and Community Relations, Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité: Thank you for having us today. We are grateful for the opportunity to appear before you. We do not have some impressive presentation. We simply want to share with you how we currently see the act and, then, answer any questions you have.
We would like to cover five points in our opening remarks. First, we want to discuss the preamble and purpose of the current act. You talk about measures taken by federal institutions, consultation and application mechanisms under the act, and the role of the private sector. The current act’s preamble and purpose would seem to use the right language. They include all the buzzwords, mentioning the need to enhance the vitality of communities and support the development of francophone minority communities.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the intent of the act, but where the problem often arises is in the lack of willingness to follow through on that intent. We really want to find out whether the intent of the act corresponds to the desired outcome. Looking at the census data for the past 50 years, I would point out that, in 1961, some 12 per cent of Canada’s population was bilingual. The Official Languages Act came into force in 1969. The country’s bilingualism rate rose over a 40-year period. In 2001, it stood at 17 per cent. That progress may be attributable, in part, to the Official Languages Act. Then, if we look at the figures for 2001 to 2016, the year of the last census, we see that the bilingualism rate rose just 0.2 per cent. The rate went from 17.7 per cent to 17.9 per cent, essentially stagnating.
To quote my colleague, I would say that, under the current act, communities manage to get by, not thrive. The bilingualism rate makes that abundantly clear. Indeed, there are dynamic francophone communities all over the country, but it is extremely difficult for them to thrive.
A few reasons account for that. First, let’s consider the measures taken by federal institutions; although there is no shortage of measures, the ability to identify what constitutes a positive measure is key. Over the past two years, I’ve participated in consultations with a dozen departments, and I can attest to the discrepancies in the definition of a positive measure from one department to the next. One of the priorities of the modernization process should be clearly defining what constitutes a positive measure. As we see it, the definition is simple: a measure that has a real impact at the ground level.
If all it means is giving a significant amount of money to an organization or putting it towards a program, with a large chunk of that money being used to cover administrative costs, it dilutes the impact of that money. The percentage of funding that actually makes its way to the ground and does some real good is a fraction of the initial investment. It is, therefore, important that any funding for positive measures actually makes it to the ground level.
For instance, last year, RDEE Canada received $3.5 million from a number of federal government departments. Many of them maintain that they have done their job by handing over a lot of money to the communities, but the work should not stop there. Performance indicators are necessary, but they are difficult to establish. If you were to ask us today whether the measures associated with that funding contributed to communities’ economic development and growth, we could not give you a clear answer. It would be tough to say with certainty, because we lack that data. In fact, despite our organization’s 20-year existence, which you mentioned, this year marks the first time that we conducted an impact assessment of what our network does and what our government funding is used for. The reason we undertook the assessment was to quantify the work we do in order to determine its true impact at the community level.
When we work with the government, we are often asked whether we were consulted. My purpose here, today, is not to point fingers, but we are told one of two things: that we were consulted or that the money was invested, and that’s the end of the conversation. Federal institutions maintain that they have done their duty simply because they spent a half-hour speaking to us. That brings us to a common problem among government programs: all too often, they are time-limited, without any long-term planning. We find ourselves working on a case-by-case basis with a number of departments. It is extremely challenging to adopt a horizontal view in order to coordinate all departmental efforts and produce a more meaningful outcome. We do a lot of piecemeal work, which is certainly challenging when you’re dealing with government measures.
Roukya Abdi Aden, Manager, National Coordination, Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité: I can give you examples of priority issues that our network has identified. We really do work at the ground level with all our organizations, focusing on those priority issues.
Consider tourism, for example. It’s an area of economic development for francophone communities. We have been trying to develop the sector for five years now. We are responsible for Corridor, a major project that was funded by the Department of Canadian Heritage to mark the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Confederation. The tourism market is fiercely competitive, so we are trying to help businesses in our communities compete, but we run into barriers in the form of ill-suited programs. When a federal program does not exist, we turn to the provinces and territories, whose response depends on how receptive they are to official languages matters. Despite the economic development potential that tourism represents for our communities, we find ourselves barely able to tap it. We lack the resources to provide businesses with the support they need to attract not only French-speaking Canadians, but also people outside that community, and thus create a market for tourism products tied to their francophone cultural heritage.
Now, take immigration, for example. It’s an issue you are quite familiar with. We have spent years trying to highlight the employability of immigrants. The federal government offers a program focused solely on learning one of the country’s official languages or providing front-line settlement services. Everything having to do with employers comes under the umbrella of what are known as indirect services, which are not covered by the program. What that means, then, is that we have to hit the ground with few resources in an effort to convince employers who do not realize that they can hire immigrants or work with certain client groups, such as international students or temporary workers. These groups are a source of immigration for our communities, and they are already in place. Even though these groups remain a priority for us, we cannot reach out to them because doing so is not possible under the available programs.
Here is another example I can give you. Soon, we will be dealing with the issue of retiring business owners, which we refer to as repreneuriat in French. Many of our entrepreneurs, whether anglophone or francophone, will soon be retiring. Some 41 per cent of our business owners across the country will be taking their retirement in the near future. It is an issue we consider a priority, not just because we want the businesses we have been helping stay afloat for 20 years to be passed on to our youth, but also because we want those businesses to help attract newcomers. The issue is neither a federal nor a provincial priority, however. Consequently, as Sébastien mentioned, we end up using the resources we have to provide support on the ground, without making a meaningful difference to the communities, as we would like.
What is more, we often have to operate in the context of very short-term planning. We take a long-range view, taking into account both the short and medium terms. That view, however, is often too broad and too ambitious for what exists, so we are forced to scale back our goals. As a result, we are not able to achieve the results we would like. Even though we have official languages legislation that is supported by programs, it is important to consider whether those programs are truly aligned with the spirit of the act, as it was designed. For a few years now, we have been in survival mode, as opposed to development mode. In our sector, leading the way and responding quickly are key. If communities lack that capacity, they fall by the wayside. Our efforts merely amount to minor development, if not underdevelopment.
Mr. Benedict: One solution would be to centralize everything. All the responsibility falls on the Department of Canadian Heritage. It is not easy for them or for us. When we work with other departments, we are often referred back to the Department of Canadian Heritage, as though official languages matters were solely that department’s concern. Nevertheless, we work closely with multiple departments. I don’t want to point any fingers. If an impartial centralized body were tasked with overseeing all official languages efforts across the government, it would greatly improve our working relationship with the government. What we want is not to lay blame or punish but, rather, to promote the vitality of official language minority communities. This must be seen as an opportunity. Through immigration and tourism, it is possible to grow our communities. All we need is a government gateway to make that happen.
The last point I want to discuss pertains to the private sector. Private sector involvement in official languages efforts, under the act, is often quite limited. The modernization of the act should include a focus on greater private sector involvement, but not through the introduction of penalties. Private sector co-operation is essential. Just take Air Canada, for example, which has official languages obligations. About a year ago, the company informed us that it was looking to increase its bilingual workforce all over the country, which is no small feat, especially in the Atlantic region. What can we do? We suggested that we work in partnership with the company. Thanks to our 30 service points across the country, we have access to skilled bilingual workers. Building partnerships is key. Through that partnership, we realized how prevalent the situation was in the private sector. Oftentimes, companies fail to provide French-language service not because they have no desire to do so, but because they have trouble finding bilingual staff. Are punitive measures the answer? Our preference would be to build partnerships with the private sector and community sector to close that gap. No solution is ideal. The act has to set out guidelines. Strengthening co-operation between the private sector and the community sector is an option worth exploring, in our view. Those are the points we wanted to cover. We would now be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you for that very articulate and insightful presentation. We will now begin the question and answer portion of the meeting.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for being here today and sharing your concerns with the committee. The current roadmap expires on March 31, 2018, at which point the minister, Ms. Joly, is supposed to have a new action plan in place. Were you consulted by the minister on the action plan? What do you expect from the next action plan?
Mr. Benedict: Yes, we were consulted a number of times. Sometimes, the meetings were productive, and other times, not so much. I appreciate that it often comes down to resources and time, but when you have 10 or 15 organizations all sitting in the same room with an hour to articulate what they want to see in the action plan, it can be difficult to make all of your points. I realize that it is not easy to meet with all the stakeholders. Sometimes, people have the sense that they were not adequately consulted. However, the team at the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Official Languages Centre of Excellence, which is currently reviewing the regulations governing bilingual service delivery, took the time to meet with our organization for two hours. We were able to have a more detailed discussion than was possible during the hour-long consultation involving numerous organizations, when we each had five minutes to say what we had to say. That was not realistic.
The other problem tied to what I was saying earlier arises when we are asked about the elements that need to be changed. The lack of indicators and data on how francophone communities are doing means that it can be difficult to identify the tangible changes that are needed. Of course, organizations always need more money, but at a certain point, the solution comes down to more than just increased funding. Handing out more money without knowing exactly what approach to take is not the way to go. In other words, it is ineffective to put the money towards programming that requires you to do the near impossible. Oftentimes, despite having good projects that are needs-based, organizations have to completely alter their projects to the point of distortion in order to implement them with government support.
We were consulted, and we are very thankful. The issue is about more than just money. It is important to know how the money will be spent to ensure that appropriate measures are put in place in communities at the ground level.
Senator Poirier: Will the 2017-18 action plan retain the economic development component for communities?
Ms. Abdi Aden: We have not heard anything official on that. All the organizations have submitted their requests. It is now up to the department to decide on its priorities. I keep coming back to the roadmap or action plan. However, is that the only way to provide funding to organizations? I have serious concerns about that. In connection with certain programs, departments tell us that they did not receive the funding and, therefore, that we cannot obtain funding. Delivering on the priorities is what we do, though. We are dealing with departments that are subject to the Official Languages Act, and confusion exists. I’m sure that you have heard this before and that this does not come as news to you, but confusion is rampant. In some cases, departments tell us that they cannot give us funding because we do not represent enough people, which does nothing to help us achieve an adequate outreach. What we do, however, is implement projects based on needs, and not on the number of clients they serve. Clients will come forward afterwards. Service providers establish programs that are based on existing needs.
That brings me back to the issue of immigration and the recognition of prior learning. We cannot tackle that issue because we do not represent enough engineers to warrant a program. We represent engineers and members of other regulated professions, but we cannot help with the recognition of their credentials because we do not necessarily have 100 French-speaking entrepreneurs in need of help in a particular region. We may have a dozen or so, which is not enough to warrant a program for that group of individuals.
Senator Poirier: My next question is about the legislation that is currently being reviewed. In 2002, the Government of New Brunswick, Canada’s only officially bilingual province, decided that its official languages act would be reviewed every 10 years. In your opinion, should the federal legislation also be subject to periodic review?
Mr. Benedict: I think so. As we can see, if you wait so long before amendments are made, the longer you wait, the more difficult it often is to make those changes. If you compare the legislation to what it was before, you can see that society has evolved. For francophones, the realities are not the same. If the legislation were to evolve, it would be easier to create partnerships within federal programs. There is no downside to a periodic review.
Senator Poirier: There has been talk about the possibility of the Commissioner of Official Languages having more power to enforce the law within federal institutions, particularly with regard to Air Canada and Radio-Canada. Do you share the opinion that giving the commissioner more power would lead to better enforcement of the act?
Mr. Benedict: You have to be careful with that. Clearly, it is important for the commissioner to have the authority to strengthen enforcement of the act. Let me use a metaphor. I compare the Commissioner of Official Languages to a firefighter whose role is to put out fires. He has to intervene when there are problems with the official languages, but he must also be involved in prevention. He must not wait until violations occur and then slap people on the wrist. That rarely leads to lasting solutions. You have to identify the problem, to find out which sectors are not providing enough services in French or in English, and decide on the solutions to be considered. It is good for the commissioner to have powers, but not just punitive ones. He must play a role in prevention, in conjunction with everyone working on behalf of the official languages. In that way, problems can be solved in the long term, not just by handing out penalties left and right, penalties that have to be constantly reviewed.
Senator Gagné: Welcome. I am going to continue along the same lines and talk about consultation. I am not necessarily going to talk about the action plan that we are going to introduce in April 2018, but rather about the infrastructure plan that Minister Sohi announced. We are talking about $180 billion over 12 years in certain activity areas: green infrastructure, social infrastructure, and public transit. Clearly, bilingual municipalities will be affected by those investments. Bilateral agreements have been signed between the federal government and the provinces. My question is whether you were consulted in the context of the infrastructure plan that should be helping minority communities.
Mr. Benedict: No, we were not consulted about that plan. Our network is not really involved in infrastructure development. We should be and we would like to be to a greater extent. There really is a disparity. When you are a community organization, your role is limited to making presentations. It is as if economic development is often excluded, but that is our main mandate, it is what we do. We raise that issue a lot. We would like there to be programs. In the last budget, we saw a specific infrastructure program for indigenous tourism. I do not want to compare the situation of francophone minorities to the indigenous situation, but it is a great example of a program. When you are looking for solutions for specific communities, there could sometimes be other examples like that.
Another thing that must be considered in these infrastructure programs is the fact that small municipalities are excluded from the criteria. We know that a lot of francophone communities are located in small population centres, so, they do not often fit into the categories of these large infrastructure plans. I imagine that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the FCM, is making representations about the matter. It is something to keep in mind for francophone communities.
Senator Gagné: Okay. In your presentation, you also talked about the importance of making sure that community development is really being supported so that the communities’ vitality is enhanced. If we go back to the Official Languages Act, we see that Part VII is about the government’s commitment to enhancing the vitality of anglophone and francophone minorities in Canada. A question occurs to me and I am going to put it to you as well. Would it be possible to create mechanisms that would make the application of Part VII more of a likelihood? That is to say, in any potential agreements to be signed — whether agreements with communities, with RDEE or even with transfers to the provinces — should there be a requirement that would ensure development?
Ms. Abdi Aden: Personally, I think there should be requirements like that. They are important. At the moment, if I look at transfers to and agreements with the provinces, the provisions are often interpreted as they currently are. A lot of communities do not benefit from those provisions. There is a case for a unilateral definition of “development.” For example, when a government wants to implement a program — at federal or provincial level — what does that really mean? It means consulting communities and sitting down with representatives. For us, the word “consult” just means that people ask us questions and then leave. We do not know what happens afterwards. Our realities are different. It is very simple at federal level. For economic development, for example, we are given directions to work on, generally with different variables in the provinces and territories. We are looking towards the next economic development. But what does that mean for you? Even before defining the criteria of this program, the criteria should be reviewed with the communities. Yes, I think that requirements are important.
Senator Gagné: So there could be requirements in the agreements. Would it be necessary to have the requirements in the form of legislation, or to focus on Part VII in all the transfer agreements to be signed?
Ms. Abdi Aden: Yes, it would help us a lot to clarify all the transfer issues. They cause a great deal of harm in the communities where we have no presence. We are at the mercy of interpretations made by individuals who head up one government or another, or one program or another within a government.
Senator McIntyre: Welcome to the committee. Let us turn our attention to the strategic alliance for early childhood that was concluded between your organization, the Commission nationale des parents francophones, the CNPF, and the Association des collèges et universités. Could you comment on that alliance in more detail?
Ms. Abdi Aden: That is a great example of what communities can do together. The alliance was born because of the needs of our children — from 0 to 4 or 5, depending on the province — who have no access to services in French. We lose a good part of that population and they do not come to our school system afterwards. When the CNPF wanted to find a solution, they came to an organization like ours. We cannot touch certain services that are legislated by the provinces and territories, but our solution was to decide that RDEE Canada is going to help to develop small businesses in the early childhood sector to create day care spaces in the provinces and territories. On Prince Edward Island, they have waiting lists of 300 children. Parents do not wait; they find places on the anglophone side or somewhere else. We have to find solutions together. The association we formed with the francophone universities is intended to ensure that staff is trained and working in that kind of small business, either private or collective, so that francophone families can find spaces. They have to have qualified staff to work in them. This is a great example of what communities can do together and the partnerships that can be established together when they pool their strengths and their expertise.
Senator McIntyre: Let me continue with early childhood in terms of the supply of services. As you know, the Department of Families, Children and Social Development has very recently taken action to provide early childhood services in French all across the country. Are you satisfied with those actions by the minister?
Mr. Benedict: Yes, it is an excellent start. We are very pleased that the government is beginning to attach importance to the issue. Since 2015, we in RDEE Canada have begun to poke our noses into early childhood development. At the time, it was really difficult because we were told that, first, we should be working more on economic development, and, since day cares were community initiatives, it was none of our business. Then we were told that it was in provincial jurisdiction, so it was also none of our business. Our reply was that we have to stop looking at all the levels of regulations, because we have a problem. We have children who cannot get into day care, so they are registered in anglophone day cares. They go to elementary school with their anglophone friends. When they become adults, they are no longer francophone. That is the problem we have to solve. We have to stop saying that the responsibility lies with such and such an organization or government. Yes, our goal is to attract investments to the area, but we also want to make people aware of the problem. So action like that makes for a good first step.
Senator Mégie: Thank you for your presentations. You talked about issues related to tourism and to immigration, and you talked about business leaders, 40 per cent of whom will be retiring. We may possibly have no one to take their place. What role could the federal government play in a situation like that? Could the Official Languages Act include a provision to fill this void that will soon be upon us?
Ms. Abdi Aden: The act must remain general. I was telling you about that issue we are facing, but doing nothing about, from either the francophone or the anglophone side. Canada is not prepared for it, but it is a reality.
Quebec has established a centre of excellence on what they call the repreneuriat, or business succession. This could be the kind of program that we might want to see at federal level. The act must continue to deal in needs and issues, because, while the issue is business succession today, it will perhaps be something else in 10 years. It has to keep addressing any emerging economic needs. If we are dealing with the issue of economic development, for example, we have to be avant-garde in some aspects and we must be ready for the fights we are going to have in some areas.
Senator Mégie: I have just learned a new word: repreneuriat. I did not know it existed, but it is a good one.
Senator Tardif: Welcome. I was very taken with your comment that the act allows us to survive, but not to develop. That makes one stop and think.
To follow on from Senator Gagné’s question, do you believe that the act should contain specific mentions of immigration or employability, for example?
Mr. Benedict: Yes, but there again, the problem that we often have is that, even if things are mentioned in the wording of the act, there then has to be some follow-up. Just think of immigration: the government set a target of 4 per cent francophone immigration, but we did not reach it. It is all very well to put one’s intentions on paper — it is certainly critical to do that — but the intentions then have to produce results. The answer is yes and no. I know that I have not completely answered your question.
Ms. Abdi Aden: I would say so, if you are looking to review the act periodically. That would allow us to do the exercise in terms of our issues and priorities. The act would have to define the priorities for francophone communities in the following years. For example, if the review period is 10 years, we need ten-year plans. What are the priorities? The act needs to set out its priorities so that people can work towards them. But those priorities must not remain the priorities for all time. The approaches to development must be reviewed to determine what the priorities will be for the next 10 years. We must not forget that, in 10 years, new challenges will arise and, above all, we need to have been able to meet the challenges mentioned at the outset.
So my answer is yes, if the review periods for the act are established in a way that the directions set out in the act can be reviewed.
Senator Tardif: I understand your comment completely. If there were more regulations setting francophone immigration targets, for example, do you think that it would be an avenue to pursue?
Ms. Abdi Aden: I think so, if that means that the ways of achieving those targets will be established. If the act provides for the target and the ways to achieve the target, I would say yes.
Senator Tardif: You also indicated that it is difficult for you to find programs that meet your needs. Why? Where are the problems in that regard?
Mr. Benedict: I can give you an example.
We are one of the lucky organizations, because our main funder provides our funding for five years at a time.
Community priorities take years to evolve. When we sign an agreement, we have to meet specific criteria. But then, after three, four or five years, if we want to focus our projects on one subject that represents a particular need in the communities, we can no longer do so because we have to comply with the specific criteria of some program or some agreement we have signed.
Often, there is no tie-in between the original agreements, the original programs that we fit into and the evolving needs of the communities. In my opinion, that is the main reason.
Ms. Abdi Aden: When programs are developed, they are not developed from a francophone perspective. They are developed for the community, for Canada. Nothing is forcing them to do that.
I will go back to the immigration situation in 2012, a time when we went through a number of changes, but when there was no francophone perspective that allowed us to question the changes. For example, when a program is being put in place, we can ask ourselves whether the program will also serve francophone communities. Nevertheless, the position of the majority is taken as the focus with which the programs are designed, and the communities then have to fall in line. If they do not find anything for themselves, they will let them go.
There must be a requirement that, when any program is developed, departments will be required to consider it from a francophone perspective. As a colleague from the Yukon said, this is not a matter of “one size fits all.” That does not work, because we are different and we have specific needs that require things to be done differently than for the majority. But the programs are developed for everyone in Canada.
Senator Moncion: I would like to come back to what you said earlier about comparing the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages to a fire chief who has to be involved in prevention.
You do not seem to be very much in favour of the punitive approach, whereas most of the groups we met actually propose to increase the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages by adding punitive powers, the power to award damages, as well as to provide for administrative fines, administrative monetary penalties. Those are the comments we have heard. However, you seem to have a different take on that, and I would like to hear what you have to say.
Mr. Benedict: I did not want to downplay the importance of strict guidelines or rules that the commissioner could impose. However, in our experience — perhaps because we are in the area of economic development and employability — the mere fact of imposing punitive measures does not seem to result in more jobs for francophones on the ground.
That’s why I found our win-win partnership with Air Canada useful. On its end, Air Canada needs bilingual people to fill positions and to meet its obligations and, on our end, in our provincial offices, we have people who are able to find skilled, bilingual people to meet that need. Basically, we would not have worked together; by working together, we make sure that unemployed people find jobs and that Air Canada meets its obligations. This partnership has generated real results. There are jobs, and Air Canada participates in our job fairs across the country to help with the recruitment. The fact that Air Canada is fined is one thing, but if we think about our mandate of finding jobs for francophones on the ground, fining them does not change our mandate at all.
That’s why we really want to find ways to work with the private sector in general. It is very difficult for community organizations like ours to work with the private sector, given that our funding is almost exclusively federal. The private sector usually sees no benefit in such a partnership and in making a financial investment in an organization like ours, but there is one.
If we are able to demonstrate the added value of bilingualism, be it in tourism, immigration or any other area, we can show that there is value for the private sector, and that’s what we want to put forward.
Senator Moncion: In terms of the role of the commissioner as such, you talked more about it as someone who extinguishes fires or who has a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach. Since the current role of the commissioner is very clearly described in the act, I would also like to hear what you have to say about it, because I think his potential preventive role is extremely appealing.
Mr. Benedict: Perhaps I can draw a parallel with the Ethics Commissioner. Often, the Ethics Commissioner gives people a slap on the wrist if they are caught doing something wrong. Basically, the Ethics Commissioner sits down with people who have certain responsibilities or obligations, and even before they take office, the commissioner makes sure they are pure as the driven snow and that everything is fine. This will ultimately prevent fiascos and problems. Why should the role of a commissioner be limited to punishing or waiting for people to get caught and then trying to fix the situation instead of preventing it? That takes a lot of money and energy, and it ultimately does not make people comply with the legislation. Having a preventive role is another way of approaching the problem. I’m not saying that we should exclude the strict side, but the preventive side truly is underexplored by the commissioner.
Senator Moncion: You are talking about the role of prevention, the fire chief’s role, but also your role. You could become the Commissioner of Official Languages’ partner to propose solutions based on situations or problems that arise.
Ms. Abdi Aden: I’m just thinking out loud. I have been working on the immigration issue for years, either at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada or elsewhere, at the FCFA. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages has always been on the federal government’s side on this issue; however, the role was that of an observer. I’m sure they have seen a lot of things that have not worked since, because there have been committees since 2002. Apart from observing, they have no other roles, unless a complaint is lodged. Perhaps we should strengthen their role or allow them, when they see something amiss in the routine, to intervene and identify the needs of the communities. The federal government and the provinces have done so under the language provisions in federal-provincial agreements. Alberta was involved in the matter, but it was absolutely not interested in the issue of francophone immigration and was being pulled by the federal government. The office of the commissioner observed the situation, but the needs went beyond simple observation on its part. We would have needed a mechanism that could identify shortcomings and suggest ways to make changes. There would not have been nearly as much waste of time on this issue.
Senator Moncion: That’s great. Thank you.
Senator Poirier: I would like to follow up on Senator Moncion’s first question. If I understood correctly, you said that your biggest role is to work in partnership with private companies to ensure that they have access to potential bilingual employees. We often hear that there is a labour shortage across the country, especially in a minority situation, be it in education, at Air Canada, or in public transit. In the sectors where you work, is the bilingual workforce sufficient to meet those needs? Does the demand exceed what you can supply? If so, how can it be improved? Do people know you and what you do?
Ms. Abdi Aden: We are small organizations. Perhaps not everyone knows us. However, we are using new technologies increasingly. We have limited resources, but we are trying to use new technologies to match a pool of candidates in British Columbia with jobs in New Brunswick, for example. To that end, we use virtual communications to make sure that employers who need employees in certain sectors, employees who may not be in their province, are able to find them in British Columbia where there are pools of bilingual francophones who would like to go to work in other provinces. Yes, I think the workforce is available in some sectors. It may not be where the needs are. We have to bring them together. We also have an international recruitment component that ensures we can help employers to recruit internationally if we do not find anyone in Canada. We also provide that option.
Senator Poirier: Do you address both sides in the same way?
Ms. Abdi Aden: We try to address them both in a balanced way. One of the problems is that, if the employer is not satisfied, we won’t hear from them again. We make sure we have employees who are available and who can meet the needs of the employer because we are building relationships with those employers as well. Yes, we work on both sides.
Senator Poirier: Do you have trouble meeting the needs of either of the two sides?
Ms. Abdi Aden: The one we’re struggling with is the employers. They are small businesses. They are scattered and, all too often, they do not post their job offers. Job offers are done through word-of-mouth. So small organizations like us cannot contact all the employees. This does not only affect the francophonie, but the entire Canadian labour market. Job offers are not posted. I would say that 98 per cent of our businesses are very small businesses. The head of the company mentions them, but he does not have enough money to post all his requests. He may leave the position vacant and work 50 hours a week. This is the reality in our communities, in the provinces and territories.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator Maltais: Let’s focus again on the reform of the Official Languages Act. First, Ms. Abdi Aden, I invite you to contact the Conseil du patronat du Québec. Quebec City has an unemployment rate of 3.5 per cent. Everywhere, we are hiring people, we are training people, we are providing paid internships, and so on. Such a labour shortage has not been seen since the last war. If you have surplus staff, please contact them. It’s also good for the Montreal and Eastern Townships areas. They really need workers, and everyone will be very welcome, you can count on it.
Mr. Benedict, you said that the Commissioner of Official Languages could play a preventive role. The role of the Commissioner of Official Languages is to enforce legislation, not to give compliments. In the event of non-compliance, he imposes penalties. This is how the rule of law operates. The Chair of the Canadian Transportation Agency told Air Transat that it made a mistake by letting people wait in two planes and imposed fines on the airline, period. No one beat around the bush with. I personally think the role of the commissioner is to enforce the law. If other organizations want to do prevention, good for them.
I listened to you talk about your agreement with Air Canada. I am pleased to hear that. I do not know whether you have found a lot of employees. I suggested that Air Canada go to CN because it has no problem recruiting bilingual employees. We asked them about it a number of times. Air Canada may be having trouble recruiting staff because it’s not looking in the right place. As they say in my part of the country, if you want to pick blueberries, go to a blueberry patch.
I’m trying to figure out where you can fit in the reform of this act, for your benefit and that of the people you are serving, and how we could support that kind of involvement. It’s basically a very simple question.
Mr. Benedict: I understand your point. It seems that this is the portion of my speech that really grabbed people’s attention. Our interpretation may be wrong, but the purpose of the legislation, as it stands, with respect to minorities, is to support the development of the francophone and anglophone minorities.
In the end, if punitive measures alone do not promote the development of the community, is the legislation being enforced? The purpose of this act is to develop those communities. So what we ultimately want is to see the vitality of those communities. We can see that the rate of bilingualism in the country is stagnant. If we look at the statistics from the last census, the people who become bilingual are often francophones in Quebec learning English. As for anglophones across the country, 9.2 per cent of anglophones with English as their mother tongue are bilingual. So that’s pretty low.
Senator Maltais: Let’s look at Air Canada, which is often in default. If the Commissioner of Official Languages reviewed the passenger complaints and told Air Canada that: (1) it should reimburse the 325 passengers on board; and (2) it would be fined $500,000 for failing to comply with the Official Languages Act, don’t you think Air Canada would go knocking on your door asking for employees right away? The goal of the punitive action is to enforce the law. Since the Commissioner has quasi-judicial powers, he can do so. He alone can do that, but he cannot travel across Canada with Air Canada and tell them to find bilingual personnel; that’s not his role. It is Air Canada’s role to comply with the act by finding bilingual people.
I think the future Commissioner of Official Languages will absolutely have to have this arrow in his quiver to enforce the law, otherwise it will get lost in the shuffle again. That’s been the case for 50 years. We have had the same problem for 50 years, with the same companies. To enforce the law, you need a big stick.
Ms. Abdi Aden: That would mean that the Commissioner of Official Languages must also penalize government institutions.
Senator Maltais: Certainly.
Ms. Abdi Aden: I agree.
Senator Maltais: I asked the President of the Treasury Board the same question, and he gave me the same answer as you. He said, “Certainly.” You can find his answer in the transcript of the meeting.
Mr. Benedict: If we use the stick approach, I think we would need consistency. If it’s used for the aviation industry, it would have to be —
Senator Maltais: How do you think the Act to amend the Charter of the French language and Bill 101 were implemented in Quebec? With a big stick. That’s the only thing people understood. They got the message, and that solved the problem.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That concludes the meeting with our witnesses. My sincere thanks for your presentations and for your answers to our questions. You have illustrated your arguments with very tangible examples. Thank you very much for coming to meet with us this evening.
We will continue the meeting in camera, honourable colleagues.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are resuming the public session. We need a motion to have the budget application for the special study on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018, approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
The budget summary is as follows. For activities, public hearings and the fact-finding mission to Manitoba, the total amount is $68,000.
Senator Maltais: I move the motion.
The Chair: The motion has been moved by Senator Maltais. Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried. That brings our meeting to an end this evening.
(The committee adjourned.)