Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 36 - Evidence - Meeting of February 18, 2019
OTTAWA, Monday, February 18, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4 p.m. to examine and report on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act; and, in camera, to consider a draft report.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I’m filled with emotion as I open this first meeting in the new Senate of Canada Building. I want to welcome everyone to this new location. My name is René Cormier, and I have the privilege of chairing today’s meeting.
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is continuing its study on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act. Today, we’re continuing the fifth part of the study on federal institutions.
From the National Capital Commission, we’re pleased to be joined by Céline Larabie, Executive Director of Human Resources, and Anne Ménard, Acting Executive Director of Capital Stewardship. We’re also joined by Stéphan Déry, Chief Executive Officer of the Translation Bureau.
Before I give the floor to our witnesses, I’d like the committee members to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith from Quebec.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Larabie and Ms. Ménard, the floor is yours.
Céline Larabie, Executive Director, Human Resources, National Capital Commission: Honourable senators, thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee today.
We’re pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the National Capital Commission’s commitment to the Official Languages Act and bilingualism in the National Capital Region.
My name is Céline Larabie, and I’m the Executive Director of Human Resources for the National Capital Commission. I’m joined by Anne Ménard, the Acting Executive Director of Capital Stewardship for the National Capital Commission. With your permission, we’ll both be answering your questions today. In the spirit of Canadian bilingualism, I’ll give the first part of my opening remarks in French, and the second part in English.
The NCC is the heir to a more than 100-year-old tradition of planning and stewardship in Canada’s capital. We’re following in the footsteps of the Ottawa Improvement Commission, established in 1899 at the behest of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the second Prime Minister of Canada, and the Federal District Commission, created in 1927.
The capital region is vast. It covers both sides of the Ottawa River and includes the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau, in addition to, in whole or in part, 11 other smaller municipalities. It has a population of over one million people, and we’re proud to provide services in the official language of their choice. The NCC is responsible for an area covering over 500 square kilometres. This amounts to 11 per cent of the total area of the region, and makes the NCC the largest landowner in the region.
The NCC’s mandate is clearly set out in the National Capital Act of 1959, the founding document of the Crown corporation. I’ll read the following excerpt:
. . . prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region . . . . in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance.
Our mission is to build an inspiring National Capital Region that instills pride in all Canadians and with which they can all identify. This is the unique character and identity of the region.
The new plan for Canada’s capital, released in 2017, is a vision of the capital for the next 50 years. The vision was developed by Canadians from across the country. The vision honours the bilingualism of the capital region and its residents.
The NCC is committed to serving Canadians in both official languages. The official languages are deeply integrated into our daily activities and organizational DNA. We consider ourselves an exemplary Crown corporation in this regard.
[English]
We have more than 400 employees and about 115 volunteers, and anyone whose role involves communication with members of the public must be able to do so in both French and English.
During the NCC’s hiring process, each position posted is subjected to a linguistic profile review to determine the language proficiency required. Successful candidates undergo second language testing to ensure they meet the position’s linguistic profile before receiving an offer letter.
In fact, 81 per cent of our positions are designated bilingual. I should note that the proportion of bilingual-designated positions in the core public service in the National Capital Region is closer to 68 per cent.
The NCC offers internal awards each year for staff members who show real commitment to promoting bilingualism. This year, there were 39 recipients.
Our operations include an in-house translation service to ensure Canadians have access to high-quality documents in whichever language they prefer. This commitment to official languages is explicit in our engagement with the public.
Gatineau Park receives 2.7 million visitors each year, second in Canada only to Banff. The Greenbelt receives more than 5.7 million visits a year, and more than 1 million people enjoy the Rideau Canal Skateway every winter. All visitors are greeted and served in the official language of their choice, including all signage and other visitor information.
As well, our programming — for example, our guided educational programs for students or our summer programs at Lac Philippe — is all offered in both official languages.
Our extensive program of public consultations is carried out in both French and English. When the plan for Canada’s capital was rolled out across the country, the events were publicized in both French and English media, and it is our policy to reach out to official language minority communities through local media wherever appropriate and possible. The NCC operates robust parallel social media channels in both languages, and we have had success with an artificial intelligence tool, offering visitor information about the skateway in both languages via Facebook.
Our meetings with the delegation of chiefs, the leadership of the Algonquin communities in the region, are carried out in both official languages. Full, real-time interpretation is provided at all of the NCC’s public board of directors meetings, its annual public meeting and at all sessions of the Urbanism Lab, where members of the public and subject matter experts meet monthly to discuss issues integral to capital building.
The NCC’s commitment to official languages extends beyond our own immediate operations. The NCC is one of region’s largest landlords, and we are diligent about ensuring our commercial tenants, such as restaurants, and organizers of events using NCC lands and assets, such as the Canadian Tulip Festival and the Canada Army Run, are aware of their obligations regarding service in both official languages. We have close to 60 commercial tenants with bilingualism clauses in their leases, and they are inspected regularly to ensure compliance.
On the topic of modernizing the Official Languages Act, as mentioned previously, the NCC is committed to providing services in both official languages, as well as promoting English and French in the National Capital Region. We will certainly continue to do so under a modernized act.
We think the NCC has good reason to submit its record on official languages with some amount of satisfaction, and we welcome the opportunity to discuss this further. We thank you again for your invitation to appear here today.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Larabie. Mr. Déry, the floor is yours.
Stéphan Déry, Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. I’d like to thank you for the invitation to appear before you as part of your study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. My name is Stéphan Déry, and I’m the Chief Executive Officer of the Translation Bureau and Vice-Chair of the Government of Canada’s Council of the Network of Official Languages Champions.
Before going into detail about the Translation Bureau, I’d like to present to you the organization’s role under the Official Languages Act.
The Translation Bureau plays an essential role in the application of the Official Languages Act. The bureau’s mission under its enabling legislation is to provide translation, editing, revision, interpretation, sign-language interpretation and terminology services to departments, organizations and both houses of Parliament. This mandate makes the bureau a key player with respect to communication with the public, language of work in the public service, and the promotion of English and French in Canadian society. However, it’s important to note that the bureau is currently considered a service delivery operating agency. The bureau therefore has no policy authority regarding official languages, and its role isn’t codified in the Official Languages Act.
[English]
I would now like to provide a brief history of the Translation Bureau. The Translation Bureau was created in 1934 to standardize translation in the federal government. It provides Parliament, federal departments and federal agencies with a wide range of linguistic services in both official languages, in Canada’s Indigenous languages and in over 100 foreign languages.
The Translation Bureau’s services were mandatory for some 60 years. For a period of time, the bureau was part of the Translation and Official Languages Division of the Secretary of State — now Canadian Heritage. In 1995, the Translation Bureau became a special operating agency. Since then, the bureau’s services have been optional for departments and are provided on a cost-recovery basis. At this time, the organization manages approximately 70 per cent of the federal government’s business volume.
In addition to translating over 350 million words a year and providing close to 7,000 days of interpretation, the bureau is also the government’s terminology authority. It maintains a terminology search tool containing over 1.4 million records that are consulted 100,000 times a day in 220 countries. It can truly be said that the bureau helps Canada’s two official languages flourish around the world.
[Translation]
In October 2017, the Prime Minister asked the Minister of Public Services and Procurement to do the following:
Continue to implement reforms that will enhance the quality and capacity of services delivered by the Translation Bureau and promote the economic vitality of Canada’s translation and interpretation community as the government and industry adapt to rapid digital transformation.
In addition, the Action Plan for Official Languages states the following:
We also recognize the importance of the services provided by the Translation Bureau. It supports Canada’s linguistic duality by safeguarding the quality of language in the public service — which is why we are holding discussions to solidify its mandate.
I’d now like to tell you how the bureau is modernizing its operations. Since August 2017, the organization has been implementing a modernized vision. This vision is based on the Official Languages Act and the Translation Bureau Act and comprises four components. The goal of this vision is to make the bureau a centre of excellence in linguistic services. We’re already seeing positive results. In the first component, “Stronger Links,” the Translation Bureau recently launched two action plans. One plan aims to enhance the quality of our internal linguistic services, the other aims to assess the performance of translation service suppliers in a fair and transparent manner.
[English]
As part of the second component, “Revised business model,” the Translation Bureau has entered into five agreements over the past year — three with Canadian universities and two with professional associations. The bureau is also working with Policy Horizons Canada on an advisory panel to envision where the industry will be in 15 years and to design the Translation Bureau’s model for the future.
With the third component, “Technology for language professionals,” the bureau is acquiring a new system to manage linguistic services requests that will, among other things, modernize the way translation and interpretation requests are handled and will facilitate the integration of artificial intelligence components into its workload.
Lastly, as part of the “Renewed workforce component,” the bureau is actively helping to train the next generation of professionals. Over the past two years, our organization has welcomed over 300 students through various federal student work experience programs. In addition, the bureau is working with a number of universities and professional associations in order to better understand the impact of artificial intelligence on the translation profession and to prepare future translators for the job market.
[Translation]
I’d now like to describe the Translation Bureau’s priorities. The Translation Bureau is also responsible for the Language Portal of Canada. This website provides Canadians of all ages with free language resources to help them study, work and communicate more effectively in both English and French. This year, the Translation Bureau is working with a number of stakeholders in order to position the portal as a one-stop shop that will help point federal public servants toward an array of official languages tools. This project is part of a common goal to create a public service that genuinely includes both English and French, where public servants feel empowered to use the official language of their choice.
[English]
On a different note, the Translation Bureau has been providing simultaneous interpretation services in Indigenous languages to the House of Commons since January 2019. In order to increase its ability to respond to the needs in certain languages and dialects, the bureau is in discussions with stakeholders from Indigenous communities across Canada as well as with post-secondary institutions.
Recent advances in artificial intelligence, including in the field of neural machine translation, are creating significant changes in the translation industry in Canada and around the world. As a result, the bureau is working closely with research firms that specialize in linguistic services to integrate artificial intelligence into its translation tools in order to continue to provide high-quality services at lower costs to meet client expectations.
[Translation]
In short, the Translation Bureau’s services help to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act, whether with respect to the promotion of English and French, the language of work in the public service or the way the government communicates with Canadians. The organization will continue to modernize in order to provide high-quality services that live up to clients’ expectations.
[English]
In conclusion, I would like to highlight the work of our interpreters who are in the interpretation booths at the back of the room. Thanks to them, today’s meeting is being conducted in both official languages.
Thank you for your time.
[Translation]
I will be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Déry. We’ll now move on to the discussion with the senators.
Senator Poirier: Thank you all for being here. My question is for Mr. Déry, the Translation Bureau representative.
Two years ago, the committee met with Minister Judy Foote. She shared her plans to restore the Translation Bureau to its former glory by making its services mandatory. You spoke a bit about the directive that you received. However, we’ve heard that not much has happened since that time. Unfortunately, some people have told us that the translation of some federal websites isn’t as good as they would like it to be. Can you explain why no further progress is being made? What would be the solution? Should the act be amended? If so, what would you recommend?
Mr. Déry: Thank you, Senator Poirier. Those are very good questions. Regarding Minister Foote’s appearance before this committee, since I arrived at the bureau last May and since her appearance, we’ve implemented a number of her commitments. We’ve made great progress at the bureau. We’re still an optional service agency. We can’t force the departments to use our services, but we’re there to help them. We’re definitely available to them.
We’ve added provisions to our translation contracts that don’t seek to provide the lowest price, but quality standards. This morning, we published a standing offer in partnership with the Canadian interpretation industry to set the record straight and to ensure that we receive quality services. We’re not lowering our standards. We ensure that the services provided are of high quality. The standing offer that has just been issued, a request for proposals, will help us provide good services.
The Translation Bureau already plays a very important role under the Official Languages Act and Parts IV, V and VII of the act. However, as I was saying, the bureau is an optional service agency that isn’t codified in the Official Languages Act. It will be up to the government to decide whether to codify the bureau in the act.
We’ve established an advisory panel made of up academics and deputy ministers. The academics, deputy ministers and minority community representatives agree that the Translation Bureau should play a more important role, and that the role should be strengthened in the Official Languages Act to ensure the quality of government communications in both official languages.
Today, it’s easy to translate texts using neural tools. However, who checks the texts afterward? You were talking about Internet sites. Who checks the translation done by a machine to ensure that the quality meets the standards of the Official Languages Act? If the government so wishes, the Translation Bureau could provide the service. The Translation Bureau was a mandatory service for almost 60 years. In 2019, the bureau will celebrate its eighty-fifth anniversary. It has extensive experience. The agency is there to serve the government.
If the government so wishes, by enshrining the Translation Bureau in the Official Languages Act, it can give the bureau a clear mandate as a centre of expertise in language quality and as a translation tool. We would be prepared to provide all the translation tools to the entire government.
Senator Poirier: Can you provide a breakdown of the funding that you received under the most recent Action Plan for Official Languages? What will the money be used for?
Mr. Déry: Thank you for your question. We received funding for the Language Portal of Canada. The Language Portal was funded in 2009. At the time, it was part of the Roadmap for Official Languages. The funding has been renewed under each of the Action Plans for Official Languages since that time. The funding received ensures the continuation of the Language Portal of Canada, which we’re working on. No other funding is available, apart from the funding for the Language Portal.
Senator Moncion: My first question is for the National Capital Commission representatives. What’s the language of work in your organization?
Ms. Larabie: Our languages of work at the NCC are English and French. As I was saying, 80 per cent of employees hold designated bilingual positions. We treat both official languages equally in the organization.
Senator Moncion: Good answer. We can see that many employees are bilingual and must speak English because some of their colleagues don’t speak French. The language of work often becomes English because the anglophones don’t speak French. That’s why I asked my question.
The federal government has an issue specifically because francophones are often bilingual and the language of work becomes English. To what extent is this an issue for you, or is it an issue?
Anne Ménard, Acting Executive Director, Capital Stewardship, National Capital Commission: That is not my experience. Céline has only been with us for six months. I have been at the NCC for nine years. Previously I worked for the City of Ottawa. When I arrived at the NCC, I was surprised to see that most meetings took place in French, and that is still the case today. People communicate in both English and French. The majority, even though it does not emphasize the fact that it belongs to the 81 per cent linguistically, does not really have a choice. People understand both languages. They speak to each other in both French and English.
Senator Moncion: What amendments could we make to the Official Languages Act that would help the National Capital Commission?
Ms. Larabie: As I said in my presentation, bilingualism is a reflex at the NCC. It is part of the DNA of the organization. We will let parliamentarians and lawmakers determine what those amendments could be. We can assure you that we can adapt to any change made to the Official Languages Act, because we already have an excellent track record on bilingualism.
Senator Moncion: You have no improvements to suggest that could be made to certain components of the act? You will comply with the law, but do you not have any amendments to suggest that would make your work easier?
Ms. Larabie: We are committed to bilingualism. In the Plan for Canada’s Capital, 2017-67, we committed to respecting and promoting a bilingual capital. Anything that strengthens that objective will allow us to deliver bilingual services to visitors and residents of the region.
Senator Moncion: What influence could you have on bilingualism in restaurants, for example, in the National Capital Region?
Ms. Ménard: We have 300 leases. Of that number, 60 are commercial and 25 are in the Byward Market area. An external supplier manages all of our buildings and works with the tenants. That supplier is subject to the Official Languages Act, but the tenants are not.
We worked with the Commissioner of Official Languages in 2011 when he made recommendations to us, and we committed to promoting the use of both languages. We inserted a provision in our leases with our commercial tenants so that service, posting and publications would be in English and in French. That provision applies to all of the merchants who work with the public, and not just to restaurants.
We have more than 200 contracts a year for activity permits on our land that allow the use of our assets. Those contracts contain the same provision, which indicates quite clearly that signs and postings must be in both official languages.
The Chair: I want to remind our colleagues and witnesses that questions and answers are limited to five minutes at first. We will certainly have the opportunity, Madam Senator, to get back to you in the second round.
Senator Mégie: My question is appropriate, as it follows upon those of Senator Moncion. I heard about all of the efforts you make to promote bilingualism. When I arrived in the Senate, I was invited to an event and one of the other attendees was part of a group that promoted Ottawa as a bilingual city. I was surprised because I thought Ottawa was bilingual. However, I learned that that was not the case.
Do you have a role to play in this? We were told that the mayor opposes this. Do you have any power in this matter? Could the Official Languages Act grant you such a power if we included a provision in it to broaden your outreach?
Ms. Larabie: The NCC mandate includes the National Capital Region, of which Ottawa, Gatineau and 11 other municipalities are a part. We consider the region to be a bilingual region. Once again, if changes are made to the legislation, we will be well positioned to adapt and follow suit. At this time, however, we will let the legislators decide.
Senator Mégie: My next question is for Mr. Déry. Your organization is responsible for the Language Portal. You say that with the neural translation system, it’s difficult to know if there is a mistake, because the machine does the work. Did I understand you correctly?
Mr. Déry: What I meant was that with neural translation, it is much easier to produce texts in another language very quickly. At that point, the role of the professional translator is even more important, since he can revise those texts and make sure that they comply with Official Languages Act standards, so that quality is equal in both official languages.
Senator Mégie: I understand, but do you have the staff you need to perform this revision?
Mr. Déry: Absolutely. We have personnel to review the translations that are done by the bureau. We are an optional service, so we work with the departments that want to work with us and ask us to provide a service.
Senator Mégie: If someone looks at the portal and sees a mistake, what is the procedure to get in touch with your organization?
Mr. Déry: We have coordinates. People can send us an email, or phone us, or even send us a text message. They can certainly contact us.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Mr. Déry: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: Welcome, and thank you for being here with us today.
I will begin with our witnesses from the National Capital Commission. Since 1994, the government has considered the NCC to be a key player in the implementation of Part VII of the act. When Commissioner Théberge testified in December, he proposed that the modernized version of the act define the key institutions and a specific mandate to implement Part VII. So if the legislator decided to include the institutions that could encourage the development and further vitality of communities in the act, how would this change your mandate? What effect would this have on the services you provide?
Ms. Larabie: We are already committed to encouraging the participation of official language minority communities. For example, I can point to the development of the Gatineau Park Master Plan, for which we consulted the minority language media, such as the Low Down in Wakefield, the West Quebec Post and Le Droit, precisely to reach the minority communities. We also have a list of minority organizations and community associations and we consult them by email and invite them to our public consultations. We already do that.
I spoke to you earlier about the Plan for Canada’s Capital, 2017-67. First there were national consultations about it, and when the plan was put into effect, we went to Vancouver, Quebec, Toronto and Charlottetown. We took all the necessary means to inform people of our visit in the majority media, but also in the linguistic minority media.
We report to Canadian Heritage on a yearly basis, under Part VII of the act. Following our last report, Canadian Heritage made some very positive comments about the work we do to include official language minority communities.
Senator Gagné: I’d like to put a question to Mr. Déry. What would be the consequences of codifying the Translation Bureau in the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Déry: Here again it is the legislator’s prerogative to decide, naturally, if he wishes to strengthen the mandate of the Translation Bureau to ensure the quality of government communications in both official languages.
For instance, to get back to Senator Poirier’s question, we inserted quality provisions in our contracts to ensure that the companies we deal with respect the quality of the language. Today, this is not based on price. Those provisions exist in the Translation Bureau contracts but we do not have authority over all of the translation contracts that are awarded by the Government of Canada. So, that is something that could be done.
Canada represents 10 per cent of the global translation budget. A lot of translation is done in Canada. We could make sure that all federal contracts contain the same provisions and that people who translate for the Government of Canada have translation degrees or are accredited by a professional association, and that the companies follow Canadian translation standards and respect those standards, all for the purpose of ensuring quality translation.
We could also provide more direct support to official language minority communities. This is already being done in that we work with the FCFA and other organizations, but as a cost-recovery organization, if the Translation Bureau were included in the Act, we could work more closely with them and provide them with an annual envelope of translated words. This was raised in our consultations with the advisory committee and also by the rectors. Those are roles the Translation Bureau could play with its team. There are, after all, 1,200 employees in the Translation Bureau, of which 800 are professional translators, so that is quite a force that could help and support the communities.
Senator Smith: Mr. Déry, how do you assess the delivery and the quality of the delivery? Moreover, if there were one thing the federal government could do in modernizing of the Official Languages Act, what would be your greatest need? Let’s not talk about money, but about your needs.
Mr. Déry: If the legislator were to make that decision, what would be best for the Government of Canada and the Translation Bureau would really be to strengthen its mandate. As I mentioned, I heard this from several of the members of the advisory committee, which included deputy ministers and rectors such as the rector of the Université de l’Ontario français, as well as Ms. Linda Cardinal. They felt that the Translation Bureau should be strengthened, and recognized as more than a translation service; it is a key player in the implementation of the Official Languages Act.
I would also like the Translation Bureau to be able to share its technological tools. Over the next two years, we will invest in technological tools that will improve the quality and speed of translation services. I would like these tools to be shared with all of the departments, and with the Canadian universities that greatly need them, once again for the purpose of helping official language minority communities. The universities also sit on my advisory committee, and they — especially the translation schools — can’t afford to purchase translation software to train their students. So that could be another contribution. The translation and interpretation community would cooperate in meeting that challenge.
Canada has been a pillar and a pioneer in the translation field. In 1934, when the Translation Bureau was created, there were no translation B.A.s offered in Canada. They were created following the establishment of the Translation Bureau, which is thus a pillar of the translation industry in Canada. We are recognized — not only the bureau, but Canada in general — for the quality of our translations.
In fact, the neural translation tools and artificial intelligence are often used for the Senate and House of Commons Hansard, because they allow us to produce quality texts. It is important to be on the cutting edge, to highlight Canada’s role and to continue to forge ahead as pioneers. Thank you very much.
Senator Moncion: You mentioned sign language interpretation for French and English. You also mentioned Indigenous languages; you began offering that service in January 2019. Are you providing that on a large scale?
Mr. Déry: With respect to sign language interpretation in ASL or LSQ, the bureau’s mandate is to offer those services to the entire federal government to communicate with its employees, or when the Prime Minister’s Office requests it for events. So the Translation Bureau provides about 4,500 hours of sign language interpretation yearly. We provide those services to the departments that ask for them and to parliamentarians for special events. We also offer an accreditation program for sign language interpretation provided by the Government of Canada. The Translation Bureau manages a sign language accreditation program. Here too, we are pioneers. We work closely with colleges and universities, because there is a shortage of interpreters in that field. We are beginning to promote that career in colleges and universities.
As for Indigenous languages, following the decision made by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, since January 29, 2019, I believe, members have had the right to express themselves in Indigenous languages in Parliament. Previously this only happened in committee meetings when witnesses spoke in Indigenous languages, but it was not done in the House. All of the members who spoke in their Indigenous language had to provide a translation in French or English, according to their preference. Since January, we have begun to offer this service. We have provided the service to over six members so far. We have a list of approximately 100 interpreters who work in more than 20 Indigenous languages, and we are working with the communities to increase the number of interpreters and promote that service.
Earlier I said that the Translation Bureau was a forerunner in the translation and interpretation fields. Interpretation is still taught at the University of Ottawa. Translation Bureau members teach the master’s level interpretation course. There are only two universities that teach interpretation: Glendon College and the University of Ottawa. There is a shortage in that profession too. The bureau could play the same role as it played in 1934 for official languages, and promote the professions of translator and interpreter for Indigenous languages.
Senator Moncion: Are you aware of Bill C-81, which has just passed third reading and been sent to the Senate? Probably not.
Mr. Déry: Yes.
Senator Moncion: Are there any measures in this bill that will affect you?
Mr. Déry: In the bill as such, there are no measures that concern sign language, to my knowledge. However, the Translation Bureau is working with government authorities to increase its capacity and that of the industry so as to be able to provide those services.
Senator Moncion: I’ll explain why I am asking that question. I was an entrepreneur in Ontario, and my business was subject to Ontario laws since 2005. Since it was a service enterprise, we had to provide and pay for interpretation to anyone who asked for it, so that the person could understand any document they were signing. I’ve asked my staff to check to see whether this will be included in Bill C-81 and whether this might affect you at the departmental level.
Mr. Déry: We are preparing for an increase in the demand for sign language interpretation since the passage of Bill C-81. Since we are a cost recovery organization, our participation was not written into the law so that we could be given an envelope, but we are preparing to offer that service.
Senator Moncion: So it will be a billable service.
Mr. Déry: Not at this time, but if it is offered on a broad scale, it would have to be because we do not have the necessary funding to provide it to the entire government.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: Did the internal exercise aimed at making the Translation Bureau an obligatory choice for the various departments take place?
Mr. Déry: The work has begun. Earlier, I spoke of our work with Policy Horizons Canada. That is a federal organization that is reflecting on the next 15 years in order to provide advice to those who develop policy. That is the exercise we did this year for three or four months to gain some perspective on the translation industry in 15 years. We started preparing a business model. Then we invited several universities that offer translation programs to present our vision to them and find out how they see the future of that field. Afterwards we created an advisory committee with policy makers such as Ms. Linda Cardinal and the rectors of the University of Montreal and the University of Toronto to ask them what they thought the role of the Translation Bureau should be in the near future. Their opinion is that the Translation Bureau should play a broader role, especially because of the development of artificial intelligence, to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act.
I carried out consultations with federal and national organizations that represent official language minority communities to find out what they thought, so that this would not be a proposal put forward solely by the CEO of the Translation Bureau, but one that would also represent the interests of the communities and the government. In April, we will be making a presentation to the Canadian Association of Schools of Translation to determine what the future role of the Translation Bureau should be. According to an international organization that advocates for translation, artificial intelligence or neural translation is not just a storm, but a tsunami. We have to ensure that we are in a position to rise to the occasion and see to it that our governments continue to respect the Official Languages Act.
Senator Gagné: Do you always keep in mind the fact that departments can choose their own translation service provider?
Mr. Déry: As I see it, we need to listen to them in order to figure out the right model to implement. Should it be a model where the translation bureau is the mandatory service provider? Alternatively, should it be a model where translators are deployed to departments to serve as language advisors who, together with the department, ensure the quality of both official languages in the documents produced? That is how I look at it.
The Chair: I have a follow-up question. I’m trying to figure out why the translation bureau’s services went from being mandatory to optional. What happened to make them optional?
Mr. Déry: Thank you for the question. It was a historic change. In 1995, through the spending review committee process, the government wanted to make the departments responsible for translation services. In 1967, when the Official Languages Act was introduced, the demand for translation exploded, and so, in order to reduce the demand and hold departments accountable, the government made translation spending their responsibility, establishing a common service approach. That is more or less my understanding of what happened.
The Chair: I see. Thank you.
Senator Poirier: You talked about strengthening your mandate. Have you talked to the minister about the possibility of strengthening your mandate, and, if so, how did she respond?
Mr. Déry: I haven’t had the opportunity. The idea of strengthening the bureau’s mandate came up in the consultations with the advisory panel and universities; participants suggested that the translation bureau be given a stronger mandate. Ms. Joly’s deputy minister, Ms. Roy, is also on the panel and heard all of the feedback from participants, universities and minority communities.
Senator Poirier: The suggestion hasn’t prompted a reaction from either the government or the minister?
Mr. Déry: We aren’t at that stage yet. The advisory panel met for the first time on January 24.
The Chair: I have a question for the National Capital Commission representatives. Do you use the guide for federal institutions that the Department of Canadian Heritage put out in 2007? Is the guide useful for your organization?
Ms. Larabie: I can’t say that we use the guide on a regular basis. I’ve been at the NCC for just six months, so I haven’t referred to it myself. I can check with the team and get back to you on whether the guide was used, for example in developing our internal policy and consulting the public.
The Chair: Yes, that would be appreciated, because one of the follow-up questions is whether the principles in the guide should be incorporated into new regulations for the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Many witnesses told the committee that Part VII should include certain regulations and that it may be appropriate to incorporate the guide. What do you think?
Ms. Larabie: I’m not familiar with everything in the guide, so I’d prefer to get back to you on that once I’ve spoken to the team and had a more in-depth look. In terms of Part VII, we report to the Department of Canadian Heritage annually, and the department has commended many of our initiatives. In my view, the NCC respects the spirit of Part VII, but I would have to take a closer look at the guide.
The Chair: I have a human resources question for the officials of both organizations. Human resources often comes up as one of the big challenges facing the country. The capacity to staff positions, recruit qualified people and assess employees’ work can pose a problem.
You mentioned that 81 per cent of your workforce was bilingual. Do you find it hard to recruit and retain staff? Also, do you face any challenges as far as performance assessments and professional development go?
Ms. Larabie: The NCC is really a workplace of choice for people. We don’t have trouble recruiting people. We do quite well on that front. We do have some positions that are a bit tougher to staff, primarily corporate services and highly specialized positions. We use a language school for our language testing, and, of course, all the rules are followed. We don’t have any problems when it comes to our language test results either. The NCC made a decision to invest in language training and provides individual and group training. What’s more, group training isn’t limited to people in bilingual positions; it’s available to everyone, French-speaking and English-speaking. We make all the necessary efforts and we invest in employee training.
Mr. Déry: At the translation bureau, we’ve been working with translation schools for the past two years. Canada has 11 translation schools. We’ve hired more than 300 students, providing them with training and work placements. In the past year, we’ve established partnerships with the Université de Montréal and Université de Saint-Boniface, and we are about to sign a partnership agreement with all of the translation schools in support of a collaborative training program. Translation students will be paired up with bureau translators and will spend a term training and learning about what employers look for in a translator. Afterwards, we can help them find a job, either in the private sector or in the bureau. In the past six months, we’ve been able to hire more than 50 translators. University enrolment is down, as opposed to up, but we have joined forces with Canadian universities and are working very hard to help young people envision a future in translation and understand the importance of the profession, keeping in mind the digital landscape and the arrival of artificial intelligence.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Ménard, Ms. Larabie and Mr. Déry, for being here today. Your comments, observations and insight will be of great value to us.
Honourable senators, we are carrying on. The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is continuing with the fifth part of its study on the views of federal institutions on modernizing the Official Languages Act.
From Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, we are pleased to have with us David Manicom, Assistant Deputy Minister, Settlement and Integration Policy Branch; and Corinne Prince, Director General, Settlement and Integration Policy Branch. We also have with us, from Statistics Canada, Jane Badets, Assistant Chief Statistician, Social, Health and Labour Statistics; and Jean-Pierre Corbeil, Assistant Director and Chief Specialist of the Language Statistics Program, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division. You have quite the titles, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to all of you.
You may start, Mr. Manicom.
David Manicom, Assistant Deputy Minister, Settlement and Integration Policy Branch, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is David Manicom, and I am the Assistant Deputy Minister of Settlement and Integration at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC for short. I am also responsible for francophone immigration department-wide. Here with me today is Corinne Prince, Director General of the Settlement and Integration Policy Branch. We are pleased to appear before the committee today and hope that our input will be useful to your study on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act.
I’d like to start with an overview of the ways in which IRCC helps to fulfill our collective commitment to linguistic duality and strengthen the vitality of official languages minority communities while supporting their development.
[English]
Our managed immigration system brings many benefits. As the government steadily increases immigration levels, our department plays a role in helping to sustain the population of francophone communities outside Quebec. As such, IRCC has been working with various partners and stakeholders to progress toward meeting its target of 4.4 per cent of immigrants settling outside Quebec by 2023.
French is a growing and glowing global language. According to the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, there are some 300 million French speakers worldwide in 2018, and by 2050 this number is likely to more than double. Our official languages enhance diversity and inclusion and provide a competitive advantage to attract and retain French-speaking and bilingual talent.
[Translation]
We have a number of new developments to share with you since we last appeared before the committee on the issue of francophone immigration. First, in June, the department announced the creation of a francophone immigration policy hub to foster a centralized approach. The policy hub will be the nexus for all of the department’s work on francophone immigration. Our team is in the midst of finalizing a francophone immigration strategy, which will be released within the fiscal year. The strategy will guide the department’s efforts to better support its objectives.
[English]
In 2017, the department introduced bonus points for French language skills in the Express Entry system. This represented a major policy shift for the department. We are seeing very positive trends. By the end of 2018, 4.5 per cent of invitations to apply were issued to French-speaking candidates in Express Entry, compared to 2.9 per cent in each of the two preceding years. Within our temporary programs, a new stream of the international mobility program called, “Mobilité francophone,” exempts employers from the labour market impact assessment process when they hire French-speaking workers to undertake jobs outside of Quebec.
Mr. Chair, we have recently improved the accessibility and affordability of French language testing in Canada by designating a second French language testing organization, the Centre international d’études pédagogiques, that will deliver the Test du connaissance du français.
[Translation]
As we focus on francophone immigration, we are stepping up our promotion efforts at home and abroad. Events like Destination Canada, the mobility forum held every year, in November, in Paris and in Brussels, are designed to connect French-speaking candidates and Canadian employers looking for skilled workers. Last year’s event drew nearly 3,000 people hoping to settle in Canada. In 2018, the minister approved a federal-provincial-territorial action plan to increase francophone immigration outside Quebec. The plan is a collaborative effort by federal, provincial and territorial immigration officials and Canada’s francophone community, and implementation of the joint action plan has already begun.
[English]
Mr. Chair, improving the delivery of high quality settlement services is one of the commitments identified in Minister Hussen’s mandate letter and is therefore one of our priorities. This includes settlement services delivered by and for francophones. Currently, we fund over 50 francophone organizations to adapt their services for French-speaking immigrants, and we continue to improve the quality and breadth of services. Earlier today, our department launched the National Call for Proposals 2019, seeking project proposals that support newcomers to Canada.
The Government of Canada’s 2018 investments in the Action Plan for Official Languages 2018-2023 also support francophone immigration. More than $40 million in new funding over five years will improve collaboration and accountability for francophone immigration and support the development of the Francophone Integration Pathway. This includes several initiatives to create lasting ties between French-speaking newcomers and francophone minority communities. For example, the department is investing $11 million over five years to strengthen pre-arrival services specifically for French-speaking newcomers.
[Translation]
We’ve also launched an expression of interest process to improve adapted language training services so that French-speaking newcomers can access English-language training and improve their French proficiency in order to obtain a job or permit to practise their occupation.
Beginning in April 2019, French-speaking newcomers arriving in Canada at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport will receive settlement services from a French-language organization. They will be provided with important information and specifics on settling in French-speaking communities in Toronto and elsewhere in the country.
In addition, we are working with our partners in the community on a pilot initiative to establish welcoming francophone communities. This will provide an opportunity to build capacity at the local level to integrate and retain French-speaking newcomers. The efforts and achievements of welcoming communities could help draw even more newcomers. A total of 14 communities will be selected by the communities themselves, under the leadership of the francophone immigration networks.
[English]
Finally, the implementation of the Official Languages Act requires a concerted approach. It is in this spirit that our department continues to increase interdepartmental coordination activities here in Ottawa as well as in regions across the country. We will mark the fiftieth anniversary of the act in 2019 with several activities in working with federal partners, including Canadian Heritage.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would now be pleased to answer the committee’s questions. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Manicom.
[Translation]
Jane Badets, Assistant Chief Statistician, Social, Health and Labour Statistics, Statistics Canada: I’d like to begin by thanking the committee for inviting Statistics Canada to appear today to discuss our contribution to the modernization of Part IV of the Official Languages Act and the enumeration of children of rights-holders.
First, I’d like to say a few words about the modernization of the act. As was the case in the lead-up to the introduction of the initial Official Languages Regulations, in 1991, Statistics Canada has been leveraging its expertise by working closely with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, or TBS, this past year.
The purpose was to explore options that would build on the new language questions that have been part of Canada’s census questionnaire since 2001. A number of options were presented to TBS, each with rationale, points of view, concept details and supporting data. An objective presentation of the strengths and weaknesses of the various options was also delivered to TBS. It is important to note, however, that Statistics Canada was not involved in TBS’s decision-making process.
[English]
In regard to the enumeration of rights-holders in Canada, Statistics Canada is fully committed to applying all of its science and expertise to find ways to collect quality data on the number of children of official language minority rights-holders in Canada. To this end, Statistics Canada has taken very seriously the numerous requests received on this data need and has undertaken, to date, a large number of activities that I would like to outline to you today.
In January 2018, Statistics Canada created a new advisory committee on language statistics composed of language experts. The role of this expert committee is to advise Statistics Canada on concepts, methodologies and questions in relation to the language statistics program. The 14 expert members have met over the course of 2018. The enumeration of children of rights-holders was discussed at length during these meetings, and the advice of the expert committee was used to guide the development and wording of potential questions to be tested for the 2021 census. A fourth meeting of the advisory committee is planned for the summer of 2019.
During the spring and summer of 2018, Statistics Canada conducted qualitative testing on various versions of the 2021 census questionnaire, including new questions to enumerate the children of rights-holders. Results from the qualitative testing were discussed at length with members of the advisory committee, as well as revised rights-holders questions, which will now be part of the 2019 quantitative census test to be conducted in the spring of 2019 with a sample of about 135,000 households throughout Canada. The latter will be used to assess data quality, and more particularly, the understanding of the questions, response burdens, assessment of filters and impact on response rate to other questions and impact on operations. These considerations and risks will have to be assessed, along with the results from the 2019 test, before coming forward with recommendations for the content of the 2021 census.
[Translation]
I would also like to mention that methodology experts at Statistics Canada have been repeatedly consulted on the enumeration of children of rights-holders in preparation for the 2021 census. A working group of seasoned analysts and experts was set up to ensure the best statistical methods were used to enumerate the rights-holder population.
As you can see, Statistics Canada has been working proactively on this important issue, devoting considerable efforts and resources to it and collaborating with many of the country’s top experts in the field. The federal agency will continue to take its role and responsibilities in this area very seriously to ensure objective scientific considerations guide the results analysis and decision-making process. As you are aware, despite having authority over the way in which high-quality statistical information is produced, Statistics Canada does not have the authority to determine which statistics are necessary. That is up to the government.
Thank you. We would be pleased to answer any questions you have.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation.
[Translation]
We will now move into the question and answer portion. I would like to remind everyone that each senator has just five minutes to ask questions and obtain the answers. If we have time, we’ll have a second round of questions.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for being here today. Your presentations and answers are appreciated. One of the criticisms we’ve heard about the new version of regulations proposed by the Liberal government has to do with how complex the calculation method is. In particular, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, expressed that concern. Were you consulted on the choice of the calculation method?
Jean-Pierre Corbeil, Assistant Director and Chief Specialist of the Language Statistics Program, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, Statistics Canada: I imagine that question is for the Statistics Canada officials.
We worked very closely with TBS, which sought an explanation and methods that were easier to understand, so that’s what we proposed.
Senator Poirier: In concrete terms, what impact will the new method have?
Mr. Corbeil: Rather than depending on a complex algorithm — the first official language spoken — the method that the Treasury Board Secretariat adopted asks about the population that would indicate the minority mother tongue as the only response or as a multiple response. Then we add any population that states that it speaks the minority language the most often, or on a regular basis, as a second language at home. This approach is simpler, but it captures a greater part of the population. The logic that the Treasury Board used was that the people who use a language are more likely to ask for services in that language. That is more or less the argument that was developed.
Senator Poirier: Do you have any role in applying the institutional vitality criterion? If so, is there a disadvantage in the current definition that is limited to schools?
Mr. Corbeil: We had detailed discussions with the Treasury Board Secretariat and Canadian Heritage. In terms of the vitality component, although Statistics Canada conducted a survey on the matter in 2006, Canadian Heritage has the main driving role in the measure that is used. So Statistics Canada cannot express an opinion on that choice.
Senator Poirier: Some planned changes are to come into effect in 2023. In your opinion, could those changes to the regulations happen earlier?
Mr. Corbeil: The act stipulates that the data are from decennial censuses. The last was the 2011 census; the next will be in 2021. Of course, recent data are available.
We have worked with the Treasury Board Secretariat to obtain estimates based on the 2016 census, as well as estimates coming from Statistics Canada’s population projection programs. The decisions will be up to the Treasury Board.
Senator Poirier: In the Action Plan for Official Languages, $3 million over five years has been allocated to you to support research and data analysis. What will that funding be used for? Will it be enough to allow you to achieve your objectives?
Mr. Corbeil: In the past, Statistics Canada has developed many partnerships with various departments, including Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Canadian Heritage, Employment and Social Development Canada, Justice Canada and Health Canada. The funding allowed Statistics Canada to conduct research activities and publish data. However, that approach could not keep the expertise in place, because the funding came with a degree of uncertainty.
To mitigate that risk, funding was allocated in the Action Plan for Official Languages. One of the objectives was for Statistics Canada to have funds available to conduct research and development activities. That includes accommodating emerging issues and new needs for information, and being able to publish information for all Canadians and for official language minorities. Three million dollars over five years clearly allows a degree of stability. It also allows the language statistics program to conduct cost-recovery projects to meet the needs of other departments and agencies. That announcement was very positive for Statistics Canada.
Senator Mégie: My question is for the officials from Immigration Canada. On what did you base the choice of 4.4 or 4.5 per cent, in order to attract French-speaking immigrants to places outside Quebec?
Mr. Manicom: That target was established a long time ago, in 2003, actually. At the time, the percentage reflected the francophone population outside Quebec. The intention was for immigration to maintain the ratio of French-speakers outside Quebec.
Senator Mégie: To achieve that target, I saw that you participate in Destination Canada and you send letters and invitations. First, have you been able to evaluate the response? Second, have you been able to assess the retention of those immigrants after a certain period of time? If not, is it possible to do so?
Mr. Manicom: The retention of French-speaking immigrants in general and the retention in Canada? Yes.
Senator Mégie: Outside Quebec.
Mr. Manicom: What do you mean by “retention”?
Senator Mégie: I mean those who stay in the province where they first settled.
Mr. Manicom: We have those figures, but I do not have them with me. As a general rule, the number of people who move between other provinces and Quebec is more or less the same. We can certainly provide the committee with those specific data.
Senator Mégie: Okay, thank you.
Senator Gagné: Welcome, and thank you for being here this evening. I will start with Mr. Manicom and Ms. Prince. First of all, I must say that I appreciated your testimony. There is movement in the department and I congratulate you for that.
In his testimony in December, Commissioner Théberge proposed that a modernized act would designate key institutions with a specific mandate in the implementation of Part VII. A number of other witnesses have mentioned that key institutions, such as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and Statistics Canada, could be specifically designated in Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
Do you believe that a clearer definition of Part VII would help you as a department in implementing these principles?
Mr. Manicom: Certainly, as a general rule. We are holding discussions with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Although the department’s final position has not been established, we are convinced that bringing more precision to the terminology and the roles and responsibilities would be an advantage. At the moment, I cannot be more specific, but that is our approach.
Senator Gagné: I would like to continue with the target of 4.4 per cent of French-speaking immigrants outside Quebec. How do we go about reconciling the needs of the provinces in recruiting immigrants, knowing that the target of 4.4 per cent applies to Canada as a whole? We know that, in New Brunswick, at least one third of the population is francophone. How do we go about reconciling the needs that the provinces are expressing with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s overall policy?
Mr. Manicom: I will ask Ms. Prince to add to my answer, but the department is working very closely with the provinces and territories. Five provincial governments have a specific target for francophone immigration. So, for the federal government, it is 4.4 per cent and Ontario has a target of 5 per cent in its provincial nominee program. New Brunswick has a target of 33 per cent by 2020 and Manitoba and the Northwest Territories also have their own targets.
We have cooperation agreements with the provinces. They are invited to our major fairs in Paris and Brussels, and we are also working in North and West Africa. We include their objectives in our own provincial nominee programs. In the future, it is highly likely that we will be working more and more closely with the provinces in integrations programs designed to retain immigrants in communities. I hold annual discussions about our common programs with each provincial deputy minister, in order to avoid overlaps and to fill in gaps. We are now establishing host community networks and working to develop those programs in close communication with the provinces and territories. Our approach is really a collective one. We are increasingly convinced that immigration will be a success for French-speaking immigrants as a result of the community approach. We have to communicate closely with employers, and the health care and education systems. This naturally involves the provinces.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Corinne Prince, Director General, Settlement and Integration Policy Branch, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Our work with our federal and provincial colleagues clearly requires close collaboration. That is why all the ministers responsible for the Francophonie, federal, provincial and territorial alike, met for the second time, in Toronto on March 2, 2018. On that occasion, they announced a federal, provincial and territorial action plan designed to increase francophone immigration outside Quebec. We have implemented that action plan, which includes sections dealing with strengthening promotional efforts, increasing employer involvement, improving access to public and settlement services in French, and supporting the retention of French-speaking immigrants. In addition, the department is in the process of signing settlement and integration agreements with the provinces and territories, and we have also added two annexes dealing with francophone immigration to federal-provincial-territorial immigration agreements. One is with New Brunswick and the other with Ontario.
Senator Gagné: Not with other provinces, such as Manitoba?
Ms. Prince: We have a settlement and integration agreement with Manitoba, but the francophone annexes are to federal-provincial-territorial immigration agreements. At the moment, we have no francophone annex with Manitoba. The first one signed was with New Brunswick and the second, signed last year, was with Ontario.
Senator Moncion: In the light of the comments you have just made, do you have targeted immigration? You will say yes, in terms of your travels to Paris, Brussels and North Africa, where you are targeting francophones. But do you set even more specific targets when you go to those places? Or do you just look for francophone immigrants without checking whether they have academic qualifications or skills in such and such an area?
Mr. Manicom: At the major international fairs that have been held in Paris and Brussels for a long time, many more people want to attend than can be accommodated. From the expressions of interest, we select 3,000 or 4,000 people with the professional skills and experience that the provinces and employers’ groups attending the fairs are looking for. Yes, it is quite open. But in order to have real conversations with employers, provinces and territories, the size of the room imposes certain physical limitations. We invite about one third of those who express an interest each year, based on what we have the people to handle.
Senator Moncion: This is new to me. I did not know that the federal government had targeted programs. I find it interesting when you talk about agreements with certain employers. I imagine that those employers determine the need and you work with them to find the people and bring them here under the francophone immigration targets.
Mr. Manicom: Yes. For example, last year, seven provinces and territories, and 128 employers posted job offers for the events in Paris and Brussels. The Paris office organized 35 web conferences to add to the conversation more broadly and to provide potential candidates with information on various topics. The topics included temporary and permanent immigration programs, the Canadian labour market, education, the francophone community, and newcomer services. We combine networked information with specific matching of employers to the people who are at the events in person.
Senator Moncion: Now those people can become permanent immigrants. How do we go about recognizing the qualifications of the people coming from those countries? How do you make that happen?
Mr. Manicom: Recognizing professional qualifications and skills is an extremely complicated matter in the Canadian federation, as you know. It is in provincial jurisdiction. At federal level, the matter rests with the Department of Employment and Social Development. Ms. Prince has been an expert in the area for a long time and may have things to add.
Ms. Prince: It is an excellent question. Some years ago, the department implemented a way of recognizing qualifications earned outside Canada. We now have two professions and nine generic organizations that handle the recognition of qualifications in the immigration application. What does that mean for us and for the candidate? It gives us a Canadian equivalent for the immigration and also recognition for the qualifications with a view to obtaining a licence. Second, it lets us verify whether or not the document is genuine. Previously, our officers around the world had to make a decision on all those issues in five minutes, and it was very difficult for them. Now, we have agreements with expert organizations that do the work for us; the candidate includes a report from an expert agency in the application form. That helps a lot, but, as Mr. Manicom said, even today. We still have to work closely with the regulatory bodies and with our colleagues from ESDC.
Senator Moncion: When the people arrive here, how do you integrate them so that they count in your statistics?
Mr. Corbeil: Statistics Canada has various statistics tools, of course. The census is one; every five years, it allows us to gather information on the immigrants in the country, because we know that there is a lot of mobility. There is also the database of immigrants to Canada. That is extremely useful because it means that we have information on all the immigrants who have come to Canada since 1980. These are the files on permanent residents that Statistics Canada receives from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and that are matched with tax returns. That allows us, on an annual basis, to follow all immigrants filing a federal government tax return, to know where they live and work, what their income is, and how they move between provinces. This is an extremely rich source of information in following those immigrants.
Senator Moncion: You have it on an annual basis. If they are still there after five years, you can see it in the general census.
Mr. Corbeil: Yes, but there is also the cross-referencing of files between the census and the immigration database. In that way, we can see the characteristics of the immigrants from the moment they arrive to five years later, and whether they are still in the census 10 or 15 years after they arrive. That gives us a more longitudinal view of their integration and their inclusion in the labour market.
The Chair: I have some questions for Mr. Manicom and for Ms. Prince. You talked about a francophone immigration strategy. Is the department also involved in helping English-speaking communities in Quebec with an immigration strategy? Is that a consideration for the department or not?
Mr. Manicom: The department has contacts with the minority anglophone communities in Quebec for the purposes of researching and analyzing their situation. The federal government’s immigration tools in Quebec are relatively limited, in a sense. The integration and settlement programs are provided by the Government of Quebec through a grant from the federal government. The integration service is not a responsibility of the federal government. The selection of economic immigrants is done by the province of Quebec. The federal government plays a more direct role with the family class and with refugees, but, in that case, the people are selected by their sponsors, their spouses or their children. No aspect of our federal immigration strategy is specifically directed to the minority anglophone communities in Quebec, except in terms of information exchange, best practises, research, and so on.
The Chair: Thank you for that clarification. Let me ask a broader question. Immigration is an issue that constantly comes up when we are talking about minority communities and about the general population decline in Canada and the economic and social issues, and so on. A number of witnesses have told us that the act should refer to immigration and the role it plays in encouraging the specific development of linguistic environments, for example. You are not a lawmaker, but do you believe that it would make a difference if immigration was incorporated very clearly into the Official Languages Act, as a fundamental component to support the development of official language minority communities?
Mr. Manicom: You are probably right to assume that, given my experience and my career, I am completely in favour of all tools that can help in strengthening the language situation in Quebec. We have worked for 20 years without a great deal of success in achieving our targets of maintaining and increasing the number of French-speakers outside Quebec, using immigration as a tool.
There are a lot of other tools, of course. For the first time in a long while, we are optimistic. The figures are starting to move, with the combination of federal strategies, especially the change in the points system for the express entry program. This is really starting to make a difference in the statistics. If we can link that with more effective integration and retention programs and with provincial partnerships, there really is hope that we can achieve those targets.
As I mentioned at the outset, we are very lucky in Canada. Some believe that French will be one of the world’s most widely spoken languages in 50 years. Twenty years ago, the thinking was that it would be Spanish or Chinese. Demographic data are changing very quickly and it is possible that English and French will be the two recognized global languages. We are very optimistic. We are heading in the right direction, but it will only work as an integrated project on a national scale. The federal government does not have all the necessary tools in the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. In my opinion, establishing clearer roles, responsibilities and definitions would be in everyone’s interest. I don’t know if that answers your question.
The Chair: Yes, it answers my question. The success of immigration in Canada does not depend on the immigration department alone. We get the impression that everyone is working to further immigration and that results are difficult to obtain. As a summary, in a few words, how do you work with other departments when it is required? How is that work done? You talked about the roundtable for the ministers responsible for the Francophonie. But if you had a magic wand that would increase the success rate for immigration, in the light of your knowledge and skill working inside the government apparatus, which three actions would you prioritize?
Mr. Manicom: That is a very big question. I will ask Ms. Prince to add her comments. A partnership involving all sectors of society must absolutely include a complete and specific network with several dozen communities, with employers and with the support of their provincial governments. If I had a magic wand, I would add a program entirely focussed on our objectives in all provinces, in many large cities across the country, and in various sectors of employment. Integrating those components is extremely important. In the modern world, you do not retain people with 160 acres of land. They need a job and a welcoming community where the entire family wants to stay. As soon as a job offer comes from Toronto, a newcomer says that he feels at home, that he is happy at school and in his community. In my opinion, programs designed to create welcoming communities and aggressive promotion and recruitment programs must go together with integrated efforts in cities with employers and provinces. That is the big dream. We can see that progress is being made. Perhaps the historical trend will see a change in the decrease of French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you for that answer.
Ms. Prince: I would just like to add that, if I had a magic wand, here are my three priorities. The first we may have already accomplished thanks to the federal-provincial-territorial action plan with the department of the Francophonie and the department of immigration. That is very important. It is historic for Canada. We are very hopeful about its success.
Second, I believe that the definitions are not solid enough. In some cases, they do not exist in the current act, especially in Part VII. What is meant, for example, by “enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities” and “fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society”? This is a very important factor.
Third, there is the Portuguese model. Portugal has a ministry of immigration to which all other ministries responsible for other issues in the country report directly if they have to deal with anything that affects immigration. A magic wand might establish that model for the department of immigration in Canada.
The Chair: Thank you for those suggestions and clarifications. They give us a better understanding of the issues and of the way in which immigration can be included in the Official Languages Act. This is an idea that we have frequently heard from witnesses.
Senator Gagné: We could put the same question to the officials from Statistics Canada. Should we include in the Official Languages Act the important role that Statistics Canada plays in the support provided to official language minority communities?
Mr. Corbeil: That is an excellent point. Of course, Statistics Canada’s role is to illuminate the public debate on these realities. We have shown on a number of occasions that immigration is the main engine of population growth. Currently, it is also the main engine that is resulting in a language imbalance in Canada’s demographics, precisely because of the immigrants’ marked tendency to use English outside Quebec.
However, I would say that Statistics Canada plays, or can play, a key role inasmuch as there are things that the act can do, but there are also a lot of things that the act, any act, cannot do. There are basic sociological, political and sociopsychological realities that are absolutely fundamental and that can encourage the integration of immigrants. In Quebec, for example, English-speaking immigrants actually make up one third of the English-speaking population. Those immigrants face many challenges in integrating into the workforce, because of the possible discrimination they experience, as all immigrants do, in fact. Of course, the data and the statistics we have at our disposal shed light on the forces that are working for or against their integration, and allow us to better understand them. I really do believe that Statistics Canada has tools that can support our federal and provincial partners in developing policies and programs, by making it possible for them to better understand the issues.
Let me give you another example, that of New Brunswick. We know that francophones in New Brunswick represent one-third of the province’s population. However, in the last census in 2016, only 12 per cent of immigrants had French as their first official language. That is a major challenge. No magic wand will solve those issues. We know, for example, that northern New Brunswick is also experiencing an exodus to the more dynamic socio-economic regions in the south, and immigrants do not tend to settle in the north where the economy is less dynamic. Those populations are aging, and it is important to better understand the phenomena that may hinder or promote community development. Of course, Statistics Canada is, first and foremost, an agency that can inform public debate on the issue.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
The Chair: My question is for the official from Statistics Canada. Perhaps you have already answered this. Do you plan to add a question to the 2021 census to identify rights holders? Do you plan to add a question to the long form or the short form?
Mr. Corbeil: It’s a long discussion. In fact, Ms. Badets mentioned that Statistics Canada is committed to taking this request seriously, but as you know, determining the content of the census is extremely complex. Statistics Canada received about 3,000 different requests to add questions to the census, whether it was indigenous peoples, transgender people, measuring rights holders, and so on. What we know about the content right now is that two questions in Quebec and three questions outside Quebec will now be part of the census test to be conducted in May. Clearly, a comprehensive analysis must be conducted to assess whether the results are there, whether the data are of high quality, whether the response rates are satisfactory, whether there is no negative impact on the other questions or modules. So before making any decisions or recommendations to cabinet, Statistics Canada must conduct all those analyses.
It is too early at this time to decide whether or not there will be a question, either in the long form or the short form. Right now, in the census test, questions on rights holders represent, in addition to the current language questions, almost 60 per cent of the questions asked in the short form questionnaire. We therefore need to assess the potential impact of such a situation on all respondents across the country.
The Chair: Would it be realistic to require that it be enshrined in the legislation? Witnesses have suggested it.
Mr. Corbeil: Are you talking about the Official Languages Act?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Gagné: The way they are counted.
The Chair: Yes, the way they are counted.
Mr. Corbeil: We must also take into account the provisions of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution, although they are not part of the Official Languages Act. However, from another angle, counting the rights holders can certainly promote the development and vitality of communities by providing more up-to-date information. This remains to be seen, because the question is always whether the census is the best tool. We know that Statistics Canada collects data annually from provincial and territorial administrative records on current enrolment in minority schools. Are there not other solutions that would allow us to work with the provinces so that, in a long-term perspective, it would be possible to gather information on the subject? Saying that one aspect of the legislation specifies that the question must be in the census is one thing, but in an act, we could say that there is a need to count that population on a regular basis, and the way to achieve that objective may vary depending on the needs and on the agencies and institutions involved in that work.
The Chair: On that note, gentlemen, ladies, thank you very much for your presentations and for this very informative discussion.
For the fifth part of our study on modernizing the Official Languages Act, which deals with federal institutions, we are pleased to welcome two representatives from the Canada Infrastructure Bank: Pierre Lavallée, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Frédéric Duguay, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary.
Pierre Lavallée, President and CEO, Canada Infrastructure Bank: Good evening. I am pleased to join you this evening in Ottawa, a city I know well from growing up here, pursuing my post-secondary education at the undergraduate and graduate levels, and beginning my career, first as a parliamentary intern and then as a trade commissioner at what was then the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
I would like to begin by pointing out that we are meeting today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. I would like to introduce my colleague Frédéric Duguay, who, in addition to his duties as General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, is the Official Languages Champion at the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB).
We would like to thank you for the opportunity to talk about how the Canada Infrastructure Bank fulfills its mandate and to share with you the measures taken to strengthen our capacity to ensure the promotion of and respect for official languages in the bank’s activities.
I would like to mention that, for me, it is essential to ensure that the promotion of and respect for both official languages are high priorities and an integral part of CIB’s activities and organizational culture.
I am well aware that linguistic duality is an invaluable asset to Canada and that we must not take it for granted. This becomes apparent when we live in a minority setting, like some of you I have just met and as I did for two years in British Columbia and as I have been doing for more than 25 years in Toronto. My experience in British Columbia is what inspired me to pursue my university studies in French at the University of Ottawa.
As President and Chief Executive Officer, I bring to the bank more than 30 years of experience in the federal government and in the business and investment community. CIB’s mandate is to invest $35 billion over the next decade in new infrastructure projects that generate revenue, attract private capital and serve the public interest. Our mandate is both ambitious and achievable. We take the utmost care to assemble an experienced team of investment and infrastructure professionals to ensure that we achieve our objectives.
Our commitment to both official languages is reflected, among other things, in the people we have appointed to the executive team. Among our six most senior employees at the bank, we have three francophones, including our head of project development, our general counsel and myself.
I must admit that, in the first few months of the bank’s short existence, we faced some challenges in meeting all our obligations under the Official Languages Act. We have put in place a clear action plan, including the appointment of our general counsel as Official Languages Champion. My personal commitment is clear and serious. I have unequivocally communicated this to our minister in charge, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, and to our board of directors.
The measures taken by the CIB include strengthening our ability to communicate and offer our services to members of the public in the official language of their choice. Our Official Languages Champion is currently developing an action plan and a policy on official languages, which seeks to articulate and communicate the values, administrative roles and processes related to official languages within the CIB. Our Head of Public Affairs and Communications is building his team right now, and bilingualism will be the order of the day for communications and external relations positions.
As we make the necessary efforts to achieve our objectives, we are building our team. The CIB continues to recruit a diverse and bilingual workforce. As a new Crown corporation being structured and implemented, we take our obligation to operate and communicate in both official languages very seriously. Measures taken to that effect include implementing bilingual services, in person or by telephone, and holding a public meeting in English and French last November.
The CIB has a bilingual website. It manages its social media activities in both official languages and continues to build its capacity for interaction with clients to provide services in both English and French.
The CIB collaborates with its government partners at all levels and with private and institutional investors. We are working with the federal government, provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous communities to support the planning of their infrastructure project priorities and to understand their short and longer-term plans.
Our mandate also includes codifying and disseminating global best practices, creating an inventory of Canadian infrastructure projects and synthesizing information to support better evidence-based decision-making. We want to fill the gap that might prevent projects from being created or to structure ourselves in the best possible way to attract private capital to build more infrastructure across the country.
Our team is currently involved in about ten projects. The leadership of our interim Chief Investment Officer, Bruno Guilmette, has enabled us to finalize a first transaction, an investment of $1.28 billion in the Réseau express métropolitain (REM). The REM will substantially improve urban transport services in Montreal. This is a good example of the significant contribution of private capital to a transformative project. It also clearly illustrates what the bank seeks to offer: tailor-made solutions for each of the projects under its mandate. This is how we will support REM’s first steps. However, we expect that, within 15 years, it will be refinanced in private markets and will repay our loan.
Together, we want to create more infrastructure for Canadians, while creating the best infrastructure market in the world. We believe we can make CIB an example of innovation that other countries will seek to emulate. We intend to achieve these objectives by fulfilling our commitment to serve Canadians in the language of their choice, with an organization led largely by experienced leaders who possess skills in both official languages.
Thank you for inviting us here tonight. We will be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lavallée. We will begin our discussion with the senators.
Senator Poirier: Good evening, and thank you for joining us. Since the government created the Canada Infrastructure Bank, you have had great difficulty meeting your official languages obligations. One of the shortcomings we found in this study was a lack of leadership. Has Minister Joly met with you to guide and support you when it comes to your official languages obligations? If so, how many times has she met you?
Mr. Lavallée: We have not met with Minister Joly on this issue. However, we did interact with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the people with whom we work at the Department of Infrastructure and Communities to take the necessary steps to meet our obligations.
Senator Poirier: What sort of guidance, if any, has the government given you to help you meet your official languages obligations?
Mr. Lavallée: Could you repeat the question?
Senator Poirier: What sort of guidance, if any, has the government given you to help you meet your official languages obligations?
Mr. Lavallée: In collaboration with officials from the Department of Infrastructure and Communities, we received advice on the various aspects of the obligations of each Crown corporation, including the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We used that advice to put in place the bank’s current procedures and rules.
It is important to keep in mind that the bank is brand new. Some of the difficulties we had in meeting our obligations, which we do not deny, occurred when the bank had only a few employees, even before I arrived. Since our general counsel and I arrived, we have been able to put in place more specific and comprehensive policies and processes. Those measures have been implemented over the past few months.
Senator Poirier: If you have not met Minister Joly, then she’s not the one who told you about your official languages obligations.
Mr. Lavallée: Correct, since we have not met with Minister Joly.
Senator Moncion: Right now, what is the language of work in your organization, which is located in the heart of Toronto?
Mr. Lavallée: Having spent a few years at the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board before joining the Canada Infrastructure Bank, I can tell you that the current language of work in the investment industry, in Toronto, is English, of course. When we have the opportunity to work with francophone colleagues, we can work in French, which does not prevent us from working internally in both official languages—which is quite common. It would be a little strange for Frédéric and me to communicate with one another in English, or with Bruno Guilmette, with whom I collaborated for several months while he was our acting head of investments.
It is also important to remember that the bank is the Canada Infrastructure Bank and not the one in Toronto. We have provincial partners who prefer to work in French rather than in English, and it is our responsibility, at CIB, to be able to work with them in the language of their choice, which we were able to do in the REM case with Bruno Guilmette leading the effort and, of course, with the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec on the other side. You can understand that the language of work was predominantly, but not solely, French.
In our field, even if all the participants around the table are francophone, much of their investment experience has been in English, so sometimes people fall into English. It isn’t necessarily our choice. Other times, there are expert advisers who are brought to the file by one of the other parties who work in English, so we need to adapt. The important thing is to be able to offer both choices so that our counterparty can use the language of his or her choice.
The Chair: The senator made it clear that your organization is in Toronto, and the Canada Infrastructure Bank has no obligation under Part V of the act to create a work environment conducive to the use of both official languages. So there are several witnesses who are asking to expand the list of designated regions for language of work in the act to increase or strengthen Part V of the act.
Do you see such a change as an opportunity to foster a work environment where both official languages have equal capacity to thrive within your organization, or do you see it as a challenge? In Part V of the act, there was this issue of expanding bilingual regions.
Mr. Lavallée: We are doing it today, not because we are forced to do so under the act, but because it is part of our morals. Similarly, when we meet as we did last week with an English-speaking, but bilingual, colleague, two-thirds of the time, we work in French. So we do it because it works well rather than out of obligation.
Expanding the list would provide a better understanding of what this means in terms of the target population base for us as an employer. It isn’t always easy to recruit francophones in Toronto, having done it now for 27 years, because before the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, I was a strategy advisor with a pan-Canadian office, but with a need to work across the country. So I did the recruitment there, too, but it isn’t easy. We must realize that it isn’t easy to recruit 40 per cent, if not 50 per cent of the workforce that would be francophoone or bilingual. It isn’t just a matter of being bilingual, but you have to be bilingual enough to work in the language, which is another level. I admit that this could be a challenge for us. Perhaps I should ask you this: In the obligation that would be imposed on us, if Toronto were included in the list of Part V regions, would it be a question of determining the proportion of our employees in relation to the proportion of our activities?
Senator Gagné: What I understand is that employees have the right to work in the language of their choice. That’s what is indicated in Part V of the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Lavallée: If it isn’t a question of requiring that part of our workforce be bilingual, it is an employee-related issue, as is the case today. Right now, if anyone wants to work in French, they can. So in that regard, I don’t see how that would impose a heavier burden on us than our current practice today.
Frédéric Duguay, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Canada Infrastructure Bank: Since the CIB is new, it’s an opportunity for us, too, because we are in a growth mode and we are hiring new employees. As Mr. Lavallée said, when we are looking to fill positions where we need someone who can provide services in the public’s language of choice, whether in communications or at the reception desk of our office, these are positions where we recruit in both languages. I would say that, as it is still early days at the CIB, we can see it as an opportunity. However, if we were a more mature organization with some hundred employees, and if the requirements of Part V were imposed on us, the situation would be different for us.
The Chair: I understand that this is easier for you to do because you are in development, or is it less feasible?
Mr. Duguay: We can see it as an opportunity.
Senator Poirier: Could you tell me what percentage of your staff is bilingual?
Mr. Duguay: Since I took the position in November, our staff has doubled. I don’t have statistics on our employees because we have issued offers of employment, and new staff will be joining us. I will have to get back to you on that.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for sending this information to our clerk.
Mr. Lavallée: It changes every week. Of the six senior managers, three are francophones, one person is bilingual, and the other two understand French but can’t work in French. Today, four out of six people on the management team can work in French. That isn’t the norm, and I don’t want to establish it as the rule for all the bank’s employees in the future. For the moment, that is the tempo we have set for ourselves, and it’s not by chance that we’ve achieved it.
Senator Moncion: In your action plan and policies on bilingualism, based on the work done at the bank, you also mentioned service to Canadians, and therefore to the general public. However, you aren’t a mainstream service that people use to make deposits and withdrawals; you really work with a very specific clientele. So you are at the beginning of the formulation of this famous policy, and it must be functional for you. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that.
Mr. Duguay: The official languages policy is a policy that governs the governance structure within the bank regarding the use of official languages. The policy we are going to implement demonstrates the structure with respect to the management team and leadership in official languages, and the responsibilities of the Official Languages Champion within the bank. CIB takes official languages into account in the development of its strategic and corporate plans for its employees. This aspect is taken into consideration in key positions within the bank. As you say, we are dealing with a very specialized field, but nothing prevents us from setting ourselves official langauges objectives. So we have obligations under the services we provide.
In these key positions, we determine which ones require a level of bilingualism. We will encourage our employees to improve their second language skills. We will issue a request for proposals very soon to provide us with a second language development service within the bank. There is work that has been done in our internal processes to translate and revise texts before they are published online. This establishes our governance system and the processes for which we will implement our official languages policy.
Senator Moncion: Does your board of directors work in French or in English?
Mr. Lavallée: Our board of directors works mainly in English.
Senator Moncion: Have you considered the possibility of adopting a policy on simultaneous translation?
Mr. Lavallée: Not yet. This would be a decision made by the board of directors itself. Management can always suggest something, but the decision is theirs. We must respect the board’s right to governance.
Senator Moncion: When you are a francophone, and you have to express yourself continuously in English, fo rme, who still has difficulty expressing myself in both languages, I prefer to speak French because my vocabulary is much broader, and I find it easier. It is always easier for first-language francophones, even for those who are highly bilingual, to express themselves in their first language.
You probably have the possibility of doing this and inserting it into your policies so that everyone can easily express themselves in their language.
Mr. Lavallée: I’ve taken note of it, and I will talk to the chairman of the board.
Senator Mégie: Senator Moncion has asked all my questions, except one. It’s not a trick question. I welcome your promotion of bilingualism within your work and among your employees, but would you risk losing investments? The world you swim in, the world of business, is English-speaking. Would you risk losing major francophone investors if there weren’t enough staff to interact with them in French?
Mr. Lavallée: If we don’t have the ability to work with them in the language of their choice, they may choose to work with others or focus elsewhere. As I said in my comments at the beginning, the fact that Canada is a country with two official languages is an asset. Being able to work in French with Canadian investors who prefer to work in French is clearly an asset, not only because they recognize that we can then work together in the language of their choice, but because, at the beginning of the journey, it is easier to build relationships in the language in which you are comfortable, rather than in a second language.
Internationally, there are obviously French-speaking investors, and institutionally speaking, for example, there are the large French, Belgian and Swiss insurance companies. Moreover, on a personal level, based on my experience, there are French-Canadians and francophiles who find themselves in different institutions around the world and with whom we have the opportunity to do business. Being able to speak to them in French helps us. This is an asset that allows us to add to everything else in our investment proposal for our investors.
Senator Mégie: Isn’t there a risk that an investor will flip-flop and decide to go elsewhere?
Mr. Lavallée: From my personal experience — not necessarily within the Canada Infrastructure Bank, but before that, with my clients at Bain & Co. who were also investors — it is clear that there is a link when a francophone is considering an investment in Quebec or in a company that works in French, but does that same investor, when considering a company in Ontario or elsewhere in the country that operates in English, say this, “They operate in English, so I won’t stop there”? Not really. At our level, people operate in both languages or, in the case of some foreign investors, more than two languages. I don’t think we would lose them. It is more of an asset.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a question that is along the same lines. As a federal institution, you must comply with the Official Languages Act, the same way as other large institutions. You haven’t talked much about employees and language considerations in order to respect the act within your institution’s machinery, but I would like to better understand how the official languages lens is applied to your agreements and your investors.
You said earlier that you are working with the provinces and that you are investing in public transit, trade and transportation, and green infrastructure is a priority. In your spectrum of criteria, do you adopt the official languages lens when you are looking for investment partnerships? Do you also take into account the reality of official language minority communities? Does this also apply to these communities or not?
Mr. Lavallée: In our investment activities, we don’t seek to build a portfolio with a specific distribution, whether geographic, sector, subsector, or something else. It is a matter of fully understanding where the public interest lies, meaning the priorities of the different levels of government, and then identifying the projects that, without our support, would otherwise remain on the shelf. We don’t have a specific role or action plan that defines geographic regions and how they are addressed. We are looking to build a team that can work across the country in the language of choice of the stakeholders.
The head of project development, who is our lead for upstream project discussions, is François Lecavalier. He grew up in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and can do business in both official languages. If people in New Brunswick prefer to work in French, for us, it’s not a problem. If people in Montreal want us to do business in English, that’s not a problem either. We deal with the expectations of our partners rather than proceeding in a systematic and more focused way.
The Chair: I want to make sure I’ve understood correctly. You don’t have any active measures. If it’s appropriate, it applies, but as a federal institution, you don’t have active measures to deal with the Official Languages Act because investor and investment concerns are economic. I was wondering if you had an upstream approach to investment strategies. Maybe I don’t understand how you work, since you’re a new institution. In the context of the modernization of the Official Languages Act, as a federal institution, that’s something that can be asked.
Mr. Lavallée: It is not a limiting factor or a factor that defines our activities. We have not yet been constrained in our activities by official languages issues. Today, we have only one office. It’s not as though we have 23 offices across the country where we need to ensure that each office is representative of the region or subregion. We don’t have this defnition of our activities.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your answer.
Senator Gagné: You are in the process of creating your human resources development plan. That’s what I understand. How many positions are designated bilingual, and how many positions have bilingualism as an asset? Have you started to think about that?
Mr. Duguay: Not every position has necessarily been defined to determine whether bilingualism would be mandatory or just an asset. At the head office in Toronto, key positions such as receptionist are bilingual. Our newly appointed head of communications and public affairs is building his team. He has designated at least two positions where the candidate must be bilingual.
I am building my legal team. The first position I filled was bilingual. The employee works in both languages. Since our work requires a lot of precision, the position must be bilingual. I will let Mr. Lavallée talk about the other groups, but that’s where we are.
Senator Gagné: Have you determined the number of positions you will need over the next five years, and of those, what proportion will be bilingual? Ideally, all positions should be bilingual, right?
Mr. Lavallée: Ideally, but in reality, we won’t be able to fill all positions with bilingual staff in our field.
Senator Gagné: From what I understand, the reality is to establish a proportion of bilingual employees in key positions.
Mr. Lavallée: Positions vary by team and interactions with internal and external staff. In any case, bilingualism is an asset, so —
Senator Gagné: There is no position where bilingualism is required.
Mr. Lavallée: No. It’s certainly an asset in all positions. However, bilingualism is required in some positions. We would need to go back and look at the specific breakdown overall as it has evolved. Six months ago, there were five of us, and now there are 20. New members are being added to the various teams at different rates, and that literally changes every week. The corporate plan for the next year is being developed. We could tell you what we anticipate in terms of numbers now and over a longer period of time. We are committed to working in both official languages and having enough staff in place to be able to deliver the goods to all teams, as we need to do with stakeholders across the country.
Senator Moncion: I would like to add a little comment. It is important to understand the requirements of the Official Languages Act at this time, while you are putting this structure in place, so that it will be there forever or for a long time.
The Chair: If there are no further questions, Mr. Lavallée, Mr. Duguay, I would like to thank you for your testimony and for speaking with us. Thank you very much.
(The committee continued in camera.)