THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, December 9, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:03 p.m. [ET] for its study on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act; and in camera for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator René Cormier(Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: My name is René Cormier, a senator from New Brunswick, and I am the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.
Thank you all for your cooperation.
[Translation]
I would now invite committee members to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
The Chair: I wish to welcome all of you and viewers across the country who may be watching. I would like to point out that I am taking part in this meeting from within the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
[Translation]
Tonight, we welcome the Hon. Anita Anand, President of the Treasury Board, to discuss the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s 2022-23 Annual Report on Official Languages. She is accompanied by an official from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Carsten Quell, Executive Director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, Office of the Chief Human Resources. Officer.
Welcome.
[English]
Thank you, minister, for being with us and welcome to the committee. We will now hear your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from the senators.
[Translation]
You have the floor, minister.
Hon. Anita Anand, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Transport: Before I begin, I’d like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishanaabe people.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss the 2022-23 Annual Report on Official Languages with you. I am accompanied today by Carsten Quell.
The Official Languages Act, which was modernized last year, demonstrates our commitment to protecting and promoting the French language in Quebec and Canada, while supporting the vitality of our official language minority communities.
Our monitoring of the federal government’s implementation of its official languages obligations, and the periodic reports we produce on this subject, underline the importance of preserving and strengthening our linguistic duality.
I’m very proud to be here with you today to talk about this essential work.
Mr. Chair, allow me to highlight a few points from the annual report. The report identifies achievements and areas for improvement where federal institutions can do more to support the equal status of both official languages in the public service.
Importantly, the report shows that federal institutions continue to have a strong capacity to provide services to the public and to public servants in the official language of their choice.
While we’ve come a long way in promoting bilingualism in the federal public service, there are still challenges ahead. Here are some areas for improvement.
In particular, we must ensure that contracts and agreements with third parties contain official language clauses; always offer services in both official languages; provide staff with the tools they need to succeed linguistically; and maintain a work environment conducive to the use of both official languages.
We have implemented a number of new measures to meet these challenges. In particular, my department has launched several initiatives to strengthen the compliance of federal institutions with their obligations. These include the Official Languages Accountability Framework, which I published last June. That framework sets out in detail the roles and responsibilities of federal institutions with regard to the implementation of official languages activities.
In addition, the Treasury Board Secretariat, or TBS, now has an enhanced monitoring, audit and evaluation role to ensure that federal institutions comply with the requirements of the Official Languages Act.
TBS is also helping institutions implement Part IV of the amended Official Languages Regulations, so that more services can be offered across the country. This exercise will enable some 180 federal institutions to update the linguistic designation of some 10,000 federal offices across Canada. Ultimately, there will be some 700 newly designated bilingual offices. As a result, more Canadians will be able to obtain federal government services in the official language of their choice.
All federal public service employees have the opportunity to learn and use both official languages in the workplace, to improve their language skills and to serve Canadians in English and French.
I am firmly committed to ensuring their promotion throughout the country.
Carsten and I are now prepared to take your questions and comments. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister.
We will now begin our question period. Given the time available to us, each senator will have five minutes for their question and the answer. If I may, honourable colleagues, I’d like to start by asking my two questions.
I reread the report very carefully, minister. Some of the findings are rather troubling. For example, the proportion of bilingual positions fell slightly in 2023. The pool of bilingual employees has been falling steadily over the past four years, from 43% to 38%. The proportion of incumbents of bilingual positions who meet the language requirements of their position fell slightly in 2023.
I have two questions for you. The first concerns Part V, on the language of work. With regard to the implementation of Part V of the act, which deals with the language of work, it reads as follows:
[...] too few employees feel they can exercise their right to prepare documents, participate in meetings or receive training in the official language of their choice.
That’s cause for concern in 2024. I’d like to hear what you have to say about that. What are you doing and what do you intend to do to remedy the situation?
Ms. Anand: First of all, thank you for the question. Of course, I take that issue very seriously. I’d like to mention that, according to the statistics we have, 95% of employees in bilingual positions meet the language requirements and 25% of employees indicate that French is their first official language, which corresponds to the percentage of the Canadian population.
We’ve done a lot of work, but as you said, of course, we still have much work to do in the future. In my capacity as President of the Treasury Board, I would like to open up opportunities to work in both official languages. We also need to offer government services in both official languages. It’s a process, but as our figures show, we’ve made progress in that regard.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. My second question concerns Part VII. Let me just start by saying that, obviously, we’re talking about the 2022-23 report, but with the modernized act, Treasury Board’s responsibilities have been enhanced. Let me remind those listening that you’re responsible for the implementation and overall coordination of the Official Languages Act. You’re responsible for the application and monitoring of Part IV, which deals with services and communications, Part V, which deals with language of work, and Part VI, which deals with equal opportunities for Canadians to work in the official language of their choice.
You’re also responsible for making regulations concerning Part VII, which aims to enhance the vitality and support the development of official language communities, and to promote the full knowledge and use of both official languages. You have new responsibilities in relation to Part VII. You’re responsible for positive measures and language clauses. Finally, you’re responsible for issuing the Order in Council for the coming into force of the new act on the use of French in federally regulated private businesses, and for the coming into force of the Commissioner of Official Languages’ powers to impose administrative monetary penalties. You have enormous responsibilities. We recognize that those responsibilities present a major challenge in terms of implementation.
There’s concern at the moment about the regulations and the information we’re receiving on that subject, minister. I’d like you to give us as much information as possible on the timetable and steps involved in adopting the long-awaited regulations for the application of Part VII.
In other words, here are my sub-questions: at what exact stage in the regulations development process are we? When exactly will the draft regulations be submitted to Parliament? What kind of consultations, for example, are you holding with indigenous peoples, who are very important? Whom are you consulting, and for what purpose? Finally, we don’t know when the next federal election will take place, but the question arises: will the regulations be fully in force before the next election, the date of which we don’t know, of course, other than next October?
Minister, I’ll give you time to respond to those numerous questions. Thank you.
Ms. Anand: Thank you again for your questions. I could start by saying that we have already had a lot of consultations not only with the provinces and territories, but with many stakeholders. For example, I was in Halifax, Nova Scotia, last summer with my counterparts from the provinces and territories for those consultations, to hear their views on the regulations.
As you know, under Part VII of the Act, every contract and every clause in every contract must include both official languages. There have been many questions from my counterparts in the provinces and territories. How can we confirm our approval? We need to know how we can work in both official languages when it comes to contracts. That’s the conversation I’ve had with my counterparts. We’ve had similar consultations in the past.
Now we’re preparing the regulations for publication in the new year, and we’ll continue to work on them. I know Carsten and his team are working very hard, but it’s a long process and we have to be careful with the feedback we’ve received. Before we publish the regulations, we need to be systemic in our approach. That’s just around the corner, early next year — before the end of March, I hope. I’m pushing my department now, as Carsten knows. I hope the regulations will be published early this year. I don’t know if Carsten wants to add anything.
The Chair: I’d like to clarify something, Mr. Quell. You mentioned regulations. Are we to understand that all three regulations will be issued at the same time? I’d like some clarification on that. The minister responsible for official languages at that time seemed to be telling us that everything would be done simultaneously. We really need clarification on that. Thank you for answering this question, Mr. Quell.
Carsten Quell, Executive Director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: As you just said, there are three regulations under consideration. Two fall under the responsibility of Canadian Heritage, and one on Part VII falls under Treasury Board’s responsibility. As the minister just mentioned, we held pre-consultations with all the stakeholders: francophones outside Quebec, anglophones in Quebec and the Commissioner of Official Languages. We are currently in the statutory consultation period, and plan to table the regulations at the same time. Work is progressing, and that’s our plan at the moment.
Ms. Anand: We held consultations with indigenous peoples and we continue to do so. Second, we’re working in close collaboration with Minister Petitpas Taylor.
The Chair: Can you tell us a little more about your consultations with indigenous peoples? What is the nature of those consultations and how did you go about them? Can you give us a bit more information?
Mr. Quell: I can’t give you many more details, but contact has been established. It’s all being managed by our colleagues at Canadian Heritage. They’re in the process of preparing the engagement with indigenous groups.
The Chair: Thank you for those answers.
Senator Moncion: Welcome, minister. How many languages do you speak?
Ms. Anand: Thank you for the question. It’s not a question I get very often. First of all, I speak French and English. My father and mother had three daughters; I don’t know why, but they decided that I should be the one to learn French. They sent me to Switzerland and France when I was young to learn French. Now I speak both languages every day as a minister and as a member of parliament. I’m also able to speak other languages, the languages of India, but I’m not bilingual in those other languages, which are Punjabi and Tamil.
Senator Moncion: Thank you very much. You speak French quite well. We know that, quite often, Europeans can speak far more than two languages; they often speak three, four or five. In Canada, I find it’s often very difficult to have bilingual Canadians from coast to coast, whereas in Europe, it’s very widespread and people speak more than one language.
I wanted to congratulate you on the quality of your French, and I was certain you spoke languages other than English and French. Here are my questions. In June 2025, new legislation on supervisors and managers will come into force. Going forward, all employees will have the right to be supervised in the language of their choice in a region designated bilingual for language-of-work purposes, whether or not their position is designated bilingual. Here’s what I’d like to know, minister: how are you going to implement that measure to ensure compliance in the various regions?
Ms. Anand: Of course, you’re right, because all our government officials are with me at Treasury Board. I’m also responsible for all staff in terms of both official languages. The government and I are going to implement a series of measures. We have already announced them as part of the official languages reform to strengthen bilingualism in the public service. For example, departments and TBS have launched the first-ever second official language training framework and accompanying guidelines.
In addition, in September 2024, I approved an increase in the minimum second-language requirement for bilingual positions, which involves supervising public servants in bilingual regions. I also travelled last year; I met many public servants, discussed this issue with them and asked them what they needed to learn French and to work in both official languages. It’s difficult, but it’s not impossible; they want support and we want to give it to them. It’s a complex process, of course, but as I said, 95% of public servants can work in the language of their choice.
I really appreciate this question, because it’s all part of a process. We have to be committed to pushing the issue every day with public servants and everyone else. We have to be serious about this obligation; as an anglophone, it’s very important to me not only to work in both official languages, but also to ensure that everyone, everywhere in our country, has the opportunity to do likewise.
Senator Moncion: My second question is on the same subject, but rather more in anticipation of the implementation of that new measure. Has any thought been given to measures or sanctions to be taken if there is discrimination against staff who, for example, don’t necessarily meet the criteria on language spoken or on supervision in the language spoken? I’m referring here to a complaints process; are you considering putting such measures in place too, at the same time as that measure becomes official?
Ms. Anand: We know that’s a possibility, but we’ve taken steps to make sure we can respond if we see that happening. We know the new requirement will come with opportunities, as well as challenges. Personally, as a racialized woman in our government, I know we’re going to have to make sure that everyone, at every level of our system of government, takes the issue very seriously. I say that often, and I know Mr. Quell knows that we have to be firm on that point. I’m going to turn to him to share his views with us on that subject.
Mr. Quell: Thank you. TBS has certainly begun laying the groundwork for the implementation of the two new requirements. The first one affects employees in bilingual regions, who will have the right to be supervised in the language of their choice; the second, as the minister mentioned, raises the level from BBB to CBC. We’re talking about the institution’s obligation to ensure bilingual capacity to respect employees’ rights.
As the minister just said, 95% of incumbents meet the language requirements, but some are still in language training and will have a period of two years to acquire the knowledge. During that period, departments are required to offer or take the necessary administrative measures that will both ensure employees’ rights are respected and that individuals can acquire the necessary knowledge to eventually perform the duties associated with their position. Such cases are rare, and in view of the changes that are taking place, the legislator has seen fit to protect the incumbent rights of current employees. As a result, employees who occupy a position as of June 20, 2025, will be offered language training, but their position level will not be increased until the position is vacated and a new person occupies the position.
Ms. Anand: I’d like to add something. I’d like to thank the Commissioner for his report, because one of the things he said was that we need training. I totally agree with him: we need training, not just here in Ottawa, but across the country.
That training will be offered so that everyone has the opportunity not only to speak French, but also to really learn it.
The Chair: Thank you for your answer, minister.
Senator Mégie: Thank you for joining us, minister and Mr. Quell as well.
Normally, all federal institutions are required to report annually to your department on their state of bilingualism. Today we learn that it’s a self-assessment, which is quite subjective. Someone may claim to be bilingual, but when you listen to them speak, you realize that they haven’t really mastered one of the two languages. When your department writes its annual report, how will you judge that? Is there any way you can advise them to make some kind of positive change in that regard?
Ms. Anand: Institutions have an obligation to comply with the act. It’s not just for one employee, but for the entire institution. It’s a summary of the entire institution’s capacity. It’s not really accurate to say that it’s subjective, because each institution has to do a review before writing its report, and each department has to send us its report. Once they do, we get a full report.
You’re right: we need to be transparent. That’s undoubtedly the approach you want to take. It’s important to not only monitor transparency, but also to ensure that the law is properly implemented. That’s our government’s responsibility. Each department must meet its objectives. We want to improve our process. At the same time, it’s a process that works.
Would Mr. Quell like to comment?
Mr. Quell: Thank you.
Around twenty of the largest federal institutions are asked to provide annual reviews. In the past, other institutions were asked to provide information on a three-year cycle. With the passage of the new law, the cycle will be biennial.
You also mentioned self-assessment. It’s true that the departments give us the information. However, we ask for supporting documents. They have to justify themselves. We often ask them: “Do you have action plans? Do you have any evidence to back up the claims you’re making in these assessments?”
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
The Chair: Pardon me.
I just want to say that we’re surprised. There are always major discrepancies between the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada and the reports we receive from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Perhaps you don’t use the same criteria. The discrepancy between the two is a concern.
Senator Mégie: Since your arrival at the department, minister, have you had to intervene in specific situations at any federal institutions in particular? If so, under what circumstances?
Ms. Anand: Firstly, I’d like to respond to the point raised by the Chair. I don’t agree with your statement. I don’t think there’s any discrepancy between the two reports. It’s natural to have different approaches; we do. As I’ve said before, I greatly appreciate the Commissioner’s report. It’s important to have an independent commissioner. I want to have his comments.
Personally, I don’t have any difficulty or differing opinion on those reports. However, it is possible that Mr. Quell does.
Mr. Quell: I can give you an example. The commissioner makes an interpretation of the law. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s instruments make an interpretation that directs federal departments and institutions. Sometimes, there may be differences. However, there aren’t many.
In terms of information, for example, we’re currently conducting a survey of federal public servants. That survey contains language questions. These objective answers are used by both the commissioner and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. However, it’s clear that, sometimes, because of the commissioner’s role, interpretations and conclusions may differ.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
I have one last question. With regard to ensuring senior managers at federal institutions uphold the official languages, have you ever thought of a way to make them more aware, or even to compel them to require bilingualism as a selection criterion when the time comes to select senior managers at these important institutions? Is that something you’ve considered?
Ms. Anand: Thank you for the question. Senior management in the public service must speak both official languages. It’s a requirement.
I see that it’s possible to speak French more often at our meetings. As we’re doing now, I try to speak French with the public servants at this table today at every meeting we have. It’s clear to me that I must speak both official languages. It’s common courtesy. I have to hear the other language, but I have to try to speak both official languages. I realize that if I don’t try to speak both official languages, no one will speak French with me. We have to keep trying. If someone answers in English, we have to keep speaking French. They may want to speak French with me. It’s a process. It’s not about the law. It’s about the organizational culture. We have to keep trying to speak French. People will realize that it works and will respond in French too. As I said, it’s a process.
Senator Mégie: I really appreciate the answer. If you’re doing it, others may follow your example.
However, when it comes to federally regulated private institutions, I’m not convinced they think like you. When they’re interviewed on television, they feel very comfortable speaking in English, but they shrug their shoulders when asked to speak French. Those are the institutions I’m talking about.
Senator Aucoin: I really like your answer, minister. However, that’s not always the reality in the regions.
For example, you’re saying that Marine Atlantic has best practices. In one of my previous lives, I ended up with a customer who was arrested on Marine Atlantic property while in his truck. To make a long story short, he was intoxicated, but had no intention of travelling or taking the ferry. The workers on site tried to communicate with him, but none could speak French. They called the local police, and not a single officer could communicate with him in French either. My client was found not guilty, as he had no intention of driving.
All that to say, minister, that service in French goes beyond the moment we purchase a ticket to board a ferry; it also includes what happens on site.
What I found unacceptable at the time was that the prosecutors’ position was that services could not be provided on site, even though it belonged to Marine Atlantic, which is a federal corporation.
Can you speak to this issue, if possible?
Ms. Anand: Thank you for the question.
First, I’d like to start by saying that it’s moving to hear such stories.
You can see why it’s important to ensure bilingual service across the country. We need to change this unilingual culture. What’s more, I know the reality of some rural areas because I was born in Nova Scotia. It was difficult to learn French there, and it was my father who decided to make sure his daughters could speak French. It’s difficult, especially in rural regions across our country.
However, you’re absolutely right: that’s why this is addressed in Part IV of the act. We must try to provide services to Canadians in both official languages; it can be done. We’ve seen some progress, but it’s a big country, so we have to work very hard to achieve those goals. It is possible, because I learned French in Nova Scotia, so it can be done.
With regard to the last question, Crown corporations must take that obligation very seriously. It’s not enough just to have a minister who speaks French; it’s not even close to enough, as you said. That’s what Part IV is about. We must continue to implement that part to ensure that we don’t have these problems in the future.
Senator Aucoin: I have a supplementary question on that. Do you think that administrative monetary or, dare I even suggest, educational sanctions could be included in the new Part VII regulations?
Ms. Anand: That’s a good question.
Of course, but as you may know, it’s not a good idea for me to give you details on the regulations now, before they’ve even been published.
I’d like to mention that Canadian Heritage has the responsibility to determine the details. Since you used the words “administrative monetary penalties”… I remember my life before politics, when I was a law professor; it was a good question, but not one I could answer right now.
Mr. Quell: Thank you for the question.
Yes, the introduction of regulations involving administrative monetary penalties falls under the responsibility of Canadian Heritage. So we can’t necessarily comment on the regulations, and there are no plans to incorporate said regulations into the Part VII regulations.
Ms. Anand: Perhaps I could mention that I’ll be coming back to the committee to have that conversation with you once the regulations have been published. We can review them together.
The Chair: You’re still responsible for Part IV; it falls under Treasury Board’s responsibility. It came into effect in 2019.
Here’s the question I have for you, before I turn the floor over to Senator Moncion: how far along are you in your efforts to increase the number of bilingual service locations? In light of the 2021 census, does the estimate of 700 newly designated bilingual service locations still seem realistic? It’s extremely important for institutions to be able to communicate and provide services in both languages.
My question relates to that issue. What can you tell us about it, and how is it progressing? Let’s not forget that the changes to be made to Part IV date back to 2019 and are supposed to come into force this year.
Ms. Anand: First, I can say that 180 have already been designated, but we still have a lot of work to do. Perhaps Mr. Quell could elaborate on that.
Mr. Quell: Of course.
The regulations were made in 2019, and we had to wait for the 2021 census. In 2022, the figures came out; in 2023, the minister approved the directive on the implementation of the regulation. There has already been progress, for example, airports in all provincial and territorial capitals are automatically bilingual; that decision was made and implemented.
All automatically designated offices have gone through the regulations reapplication process. I’m referring to the 180 newly designated bilingual offices, and that measure is already in place. We’re getting closer to our goal, and we still think that 700 is a good estimate.
Right now, we’re in the process of applying the demographic rules. Institutions examine their service area and, based on demographic data, determine which additional offices will become bilingual.
Yes, the process is well under way and on schedule.
Ms. Anand: Furthermore, those changes will add some 700 bilingual offices, increasing the percentage of bilingual federal points of service from 34% to over 40%.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Clement: First, I’d like to say that I’m always happy to see you here and that I have no doubt you’ll come back to talk to us in detail about the regulations. I also want to thank you for mentioning that you are a racialized woman. I’ve already told you publicly that this is a source of inspiration for many. You’re pretty rare in your role. Thank you for mentioning that.
[English]
I’m now going to ask my questions in the other official language. I want to come back to the consultations, but before that I want to tell you about a meeting that I had recently with staff in my office, with Gina Wilson, who is the Deputy Minister of Indigenous Services Canada. She published a piece in the “Our Languages” blog on Indigenous languages, and I want to frame it within the context of official languages and the public service.
She said we must “. . . look at official languages bilingualism not as an end, but as a beginning.” She said that changes would mean prioritizing Indigenous languages in certain federal workplaces while maintaining our statutory official languages obligations.
She also said:
I don’t see this matter as an either-or proposition. I believe we can protect English, French and Indigenous languages at the same time.
My questions are around what the Treasury Board is doing to consider the role of Indigenous languages in the public service. How are you planning to strengthen their use? How can we welcome Indigenous language speakers in the public service without requiring the acquisition of a second colonial language? Do you believe there’s enough space, enough resources for all of these languages to be protected?
Those are big questions around Indigenous languages in the public service within the context of all the obligations you have under the Official Languages Act as well.
Ms. Anand: Thank you so much for those comments and your question. I want to start off by saying that Indigenous languages are so important, and we have acknowledged that through the consultation process. I want to go back to when I first became a minister. It was just a couple of months after I was elected at the end of 2019 and the Prime Minister asked me to be the Minister of Public Services and Procurement. I had no idea what that job entailed and I said yes, I would.
But I went back, and one of the things that I discovered right away was that we had the responsibility there for translation services and that it was extremely important not only to thank the translators —
[Translation]
I want to sincerely thank all those who sit on the other side of the window.
[English]
But it was also to ensure that we had interpretation in Indigenous languages, and I saw within the first few weeks of being a minister how seriously our government takes ensuring that there are Indigenous interpreters available, translation services for Indigenous languages. Now flash forward five years and I’m in the seat of the Treasury Board.
[Translation]
I’m on the other side of this process, where we need to ensure linguistic capacity, not only in both official languages but also in indigenous languages.
[English]
That’s our commitment under truth and reconciliation, but also the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. So I would like to say that the bottom line is that we as a government take this very seriously, and I as minister, given those experiences that I outlined, take it extremely seriously to ensure that we find that way to make room and make space for non-colonial — that is, for Indigenous languages.
Senator Clement: And for federal public servants in particular who might not be bilingual in the official languages capacity but might be bilingual because they speak English or French and an Indigenous language.
Ms. Anand: Yes, and I think we see this also with the Governor General herself. She is an excellent example of someone who is learning French, who is speaking more and more French every day, and who is also bilingual in terms of her Indigenous heritage as well as the English language.
There are various ways to ensure the respect of the, French and English and Indigenous languages, but there’s more work to do. I go back to the system. These issues will not be solved with one law implemented on one day or one set of regulations implemented on one day. This is a process, and we all need to play a part in ensuring that we see more and more use of Canada’s two official languages as well as the Indigenous languages in our government services.
Senator Clement: I understand that comment. To come back to the questions of the chair around Indigenous consultations, I’m speaking about official languages now, so regulations; you’re going through parallel consultations with official minority communities but also with Indigenous communities.
What do you expect to hear from Indigenous communities on the Official Languages Regulations, or what have you heard so far? They are different processes.
When I was the mayor of Cornwall, we had to consult communities and different neighbourhoods, but we also had statutory obligations as a municipality, so I just wonder what you’ve heard, what you’re expecting to hear.
Ms. Anand: I’ll speak about engagements generally. We’re in statutory consultations right now with Part VII. We’re consulting with Indigenous communities. Primarily, that is Heritage Canada and the responsibility of Minister St-Onge. We need to ensure that the Indigenous voices are being heard. There’s no question about that.
In terms of consultations generally, I do not try to foreshadow what I expect to hear. Having been involved in consultations throughout my life on both ends of it, I know that it is very dangerous to set your expectations because it does frame the way you interpret what you hear. My own view is — and I say this to my teams — not to go in there with a list of five points that you want to hear. You go in there with a blank slate and you wait to assess what you hear once you hear it.
That’s a very general response to your answer. Maybe I’ll turn to Carsten if he has something else to add.
Mr. Quell: I would just reinforce that having gone through consultations for regulations, the approach always has to be to have a completely open mind and to find landing places for the proposals that are being made.
Even if we consult on the regulations for Part VII, many issues come up during the consultations that may not be a subject for the regulations as such but could very well be used and addressed in other ways, in directives and policies and approaches. It’s important to use that opportunity of the consultation to take on all of these suggestions, and then it’s the responsibility of the public service to figure out where they could land and how the concerns could be addressed.
Senator Clement: All bills go through statutory consultations, right? When you say “statutory,” it’s a process for every bill?
Ms. Anand: In this particular instance, the consultations are absolutely essential. The types of consultations are not similar across all bills. It depends on what the subject is, who the stakeholders are and what goal is to be achieved. On something like this, the use of languages, consultations are imperative.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. We have about three minutes left, and both Senator Aucoin and Senator Moncion have a question. I propose that both of you ask your questions very briefly, and then Minister Anand can answer those questions and it will conclude the meeting.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I yield my time to Senator Moncion.
Senator Moncion: During the development of Bill C-13, the government didn’t necessarily take indigenous languages into consideration. We’re now in the process of developing Part VII. You talk about the importance of consultations with indigenous peoples. I don’t disagree, but the fact that it could be used as a pretext for delaying the work being done to prepare the regulations under Part VII worries me.
We’re hearing that you’re consulting with francophone groups and are on your second round of consultations with indigenous groups. There are 63 indigenous languages. How many groups have you consulted in the course of your consultations? How many languages will you recognize? How far will this process go, and will it delay all the work being done on the regulations?
Ms. Anand: First, we’re looking at ways to address the specific challenges that indigenous employees may face in meeting official language requirements. You’re quite right to mention that there are over sixty different indigenous languages, but that’s not going to stop us from doing our job.
We’re going to publish the regulations in February or March, and we’ll continue to look at how we can meet the specific challenges related to indigenous languages. I couldn’t name all the indigenous languages myself, but we realize there’s a challenge. We must continue to study and examine how we can facilitate the use of indigenous languages within our government. At the same time, we have Bill C-13, which is legislation on the use of our country’s two official languages, and we’ll be publishing the regulations in the new year.
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister and Mr. Quell, for your participation; without a doubt, you’ve given us much food for thought. We certainly accept your suggestion to come back and discuss the regulations in detail.
Honourable colleagues, we’ll suspend the meeting just long enough to thank our witnesses, then we’ll resume in camera as planned.
(The committee continued in camera.)