Official Languages Committee on Feb. 7th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Good morning and welcome to the thirteenth meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. This morning, we resume our study of the Action Plan for Official Languages.

We are pleased to have with us the representatives of four organizations, to whom I wish the warmest of welcomes. Some of them are not visiting the committee for the first time, but it is a renewed pleasure for us to have them. Without further ado, I'm going to turn the floor over to our witnesses. First, I ask our guests to introduce themselves and briefly to introduce their organizations.

I now invite Messrs. Peralta and Chamsi to begin this series of presentations.

[Gonzola Peralta, President, Language Industry Association]

Thank you very much. We represent the Language Industry Association, the only national organization working at the industry level in the language field. We would like to start by giving you an overview of who we are and who our members are. Then we can answer some of your questions and offer some proposals.

The industry comprises three sectors. Canada is the only country in the world that has brought these three sectors together to form an industry. There is translation, language training—the language schools—and, lastly, language technology businesses.

These three sectors are essential for Canada. Without translation, without language training and, in our modern world, without language technologies, Canada would not exist. We think this is a very important industry.

We have been in existence for five years. We came together for the first time six years ago through the efforts of Industry Canada. The government subsequently recognized our importance and devoted a chapter to us, Chapter 6, in the Action Plan for Official Languages. Since then, and with some funding—less than $3 million in five years—we have really worked hard and have made enormous advances. Canada is currently the only country that has brought together these three sectors which work together.

Today, some of the questions that were forwarded to us concerned the action plan: how are things going in that regard, and so on? I would especially like to emphasize the fact that we make a real, direct contribution to the action plan's objective, in the education sector, for example. Our work method is always comprehensive.

Our offices are located in the language technology research centre, in a building of the UQO, the Université du Québec en Outaouais. We are well located. We work very closely with the education and community development sectors. We are in direct and constant contact with groups from all countries. We do a great deal of work with the Government of Canada; that is an aspect that is really essential.

The Government of Canada is the biggest client for language products and services in the country. In fact, it is one of the biggest clients in the world in terms of language services. We have described some of our contributions in two documents. There is a presentation document entitled “The Canadian Language Industry: Creating a Linguistic Legacy” and a support document entitled “Canadian Language Industry: Cornerstone of Canadian Identity — Springboard for the Canadian Economy”. Those documents are of course available in both official languages. You may use them as reference works.

Now let's talk about our successes. Previously, there was no place where industry players could meet. Now there is: finally there is a place where we can meet. Why is this important? Because, otherwise, there would really be no way for the industry to work with government. The government of course awards contracts to businesses, but a business cannot represent an industry. We are here to do that.

Now, for the first time in history, an industry group is sitting down with the government to take part in changes to supply procedures.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

You mentioned two documents. Can you show them to us?

[Alain Chamsi, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Language Industry Association]

Yes. These are two similar documents. There's this one, and there is another one as well: “Canadian Language Industry: Cornerstone of Canadian Identity — Springboard for the Canadian Economy”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

We'll ask the clerk to distribute the second document.

[Gonzola Peralta]

One of our strengths is that we forge alliances with many associations. We bring together representatives and associations. We are really the only ones doing this. For example, what is important for Canada, and for the government in particular, is the shortage of translation services. We don't have enough. If we continue down the road we're on now, in five years, there won't be enough translators in the country for our services.

The largest translation business in Canada is “importing” translators from Europe and North Africa because there aren't enough. The Language Industry Association is the only association really working to solve these problems. We represent stakeholders, and, after conducting studies and gathering data, we are working on a strategic plan to avoid these problems.

We currently see this as a problem, but it is in fact a great strength. The current trend in Europe is that two languages are not enough. All educated individuals speak at least three languages. Everyone who possesses any kind of privilege speaks at least three languages. That's the world of the future.

We have always worked on our history and heritage in a defensive manner, but today, given the situation in the world, this could be a major asset. Having two languages—some would say there are more than two languages because our society is becoming multicultural and multilingual—is an asset for Canada.

We can't deny the language industry its place. If we do, it will be impossible for us to occupy our rightful place in the world. It isn't going on just in Canada, but on the world scale as well. So we have to look at the future strategically. Our policies, our Constitution and bilingualism constitute an asset, a strength that we should exploit.

The list of our successes is so long that sometimes it occurs to me to say there are too many. We have reached a point where we are starting to bring stakeholders together and conduct research that will have a strong, direct impact. We are the only ones in our history to date to have managed to do this. I believe this is the answer.

Has our contribution to the action plan been a success? Yes, absolutely. The government has invested $800 million in the past five years. There have been other very strong and very positive initiatives, but I can assure you that we have had incredible success. You can check with our partners.

We have participated directly in the consultations conducted by Mr. Bernard Lord. We strongly believe in the future of language in Canada. We strongly believe in bilingualism. We strongly believe that the language industry should occupy a privileged position and that the country should exploit this industry. This is an advantage for us.

Sometimes we don't realize certain things. In Great Britain, one study has clearly shown that businesses that export—

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have one minute left, Mr. Peralta.

[Gonzola Peralta]

— and that invest in translation and language training in the right way make more money. It's not just a social issue, a right that we have as a people; it's a also an economic issue.

I would like to close by asking you to read the official proclamation of the Canadian Year of Languages, on page 6. We strongly believe that this is the time to start working strategically and to celebrate what we have here in Canada. We're proposing a project, which we have already submitted to Canadian Heritage, designed to establish the 2010 Canadian Year of Languages. The Year of Languages would be a year in which we could celebrate, conduct research and raise the profile of our linguistic reality in a strategic manner.

This has been done in the United States, Europe and Great Britain. The year 2008 has been proclaimed the International Year of Languages. It would be truly sad if Canada, one of the countries recognized as a linguistic force at the global level, did not follow suit. We believe that it is these groups of representatives, which obviously have a direct interest in bilingualism and languages, that should propose this to the representatives in the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Peralta.

We'll now move on to the second group of witnesses, the Professional Institute of the Public Service.

Ms. Demers.

[Michèle Demers, President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada]

Good afternoon, everyone.

On behalf of the Professional Institute of the Public Service, I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to come and talk to you about the official languages challenge, more particularly the perspective of the federal public service.

First of all, allow me to reiterate to you the Professional Institute's unconditional commitment to the fundamental principle of official languages in Canada and bilingualism in the public service. That said, you will understand that this subject is extremely delicate for the members we represent. A large proportion of the members we represent are obviously bilingual and occupy bilingual positions. But we also represent a large percentage of unilingual Anglophone and unilingual Francophone members.

The expectations and implementation of official languages policies for all classes of employees have taken on very different proportions and dimensions. Those classes of employees expect their union to protect their right to apply for employment and to enjoy career advancement in the public service within the currently imposed official languages framework.

It should also be noted that there has been an apparent withdrawal by the machinery of government from the promotion of official languages and official language training, and from funding of the departments to which responsibility for language training has been delegated, because the School of Public Service no longer offers full-time training to public service employees.

I don't intend to read my brief. You have it before you, and I'm sure you'll be reading it with great interest, as bedside reading, before you go to bed at night. However, I'd like to talk to you about what is currently going on in the federal public service, from our point of view, and to share our recommendations, which appear in the brief.

We understand that the challenge of creating a fully bilingual public service is a difficult one. In the long run, the government-wide Action Plan launched in 2003 was a useful beginning. That plan was built on three pillars of development: education, support to communities in the official language and minority situations and bilingualism in the federal public service. However, in order for these objectives to be achieved, most of the responsibility lies with the public school system, which should ensure that Canadians have a good mastery of both official languages before they receive a high school diploma.

That was in 2003. What has happened since then with regard to the official languages in the schools? To my knowledge, we have not taken any major steps forward. That's the basis; that's the foundation. If we want to achieve a completely bilingual federal public service, that's where it starts. We can continue talking about it for another 10 years. The Official Languages Act was proclaimed in 1973—

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

In 1969.

[Michèle Demers]

Pardon me. It was the policies that were established in the public service in 1973. Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

That said, we are still far from being a bilingual country and a bilingual public service. Much political will and many concrete actions are required to achieve a fully bilingual public service. Whatever the school system may or may not be doing now with regard to teaching official languages, it clearly isn't enough. According to a recent article in The Citizen, only one-sixth of all Canadians are bilingual. This is indeed a sorry state of affairs; it is also one that will take many years to fix.

You are probably familiar with section 39 of the Official Languages Act. I would nevertheless like to talk to you about it because, as I mentioned earlier, I'm talking about the perspective of the public service:

39.(1) The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that (a) English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians, without regard to their ethnic origin or first language learned, have equal opportunities to obtain employment and advancement in federal institutions;

That's a government commitment in the act. As this committee stated in its 2005 report, a comprehensive, well-funded language training program is the key to achieving a fully bilingual public service. Despite some noble rhetoric, the federal government has actually cut back severely on the funds it makes available for language training.

The government has systematically cut back on language training funding for many years now. Through the early 1990s, the government was spending around $70 million a year on language training. By 1999, this figure was down to less than $50 million. The most recent data available to us indicate a commitment of just over $36 million for the three-year period of 2003-2006. This amounts to a mere $12 million a year, or well over 80% less than the government was spending 15 years earlier, even without taking into account the effects of inflation.

To make matters worse, most of the already severely limited language training available goes to members of the Executive group, who at an average age of about 50, will not in all likelihood be around for a great many years to pay back the investment in their language skills.

Cuts of this magnitude make a mockery of the commitment to equal access enshrined in the Official Languages Act. It also flies in the face of the federal government's commitment to the public service when it introduced the revised official languages policy in 2003 with a promise of access to official language training for every new employee desiring such training for career development. If this commitment is to be more than a sham, the government must move immediately to restore adequate funding for language training.

Members of the Professional Institute feel strongly about this. At least one group--the engineering, architecture, and land survey group--has already raised the issue of language training as a demand at the bargaining table. Federal unions shouldn't have to raise this at the bargaining table. The government should be providing such funding as a matter of course to ensure that adequate levels of service are available to Canadians across the country, and to provide adequate career development opportunities for its employees.

As we suggested earlier in our brief, adequately funded language training is also necessary if the government is going to live up to its commitment to equal access and equality of linguistic communities under the Official Languages Act.

Finally, the system as currently constituted poses special problems for new Canadians, many members of ethnic minority groups, older government employees who entered the public service on a different basis, and those from regions in the country where one or the other official languages is not often used.

For those whose first language is neither French nor English, bilingual imperative staffing requirements mean they must know at least three languages in order to obtain a federal government job. This militates against the government's stated intention of increasing minority group representation in its labour force.

Having said that, the Professional Institute recommends the following.

The departments should review all criteria in positions designated as bilingual, with an eye to ensuring that the requirements it imposes are actually bona fide occupational requirements. The departments should establish an appropriate mix of bilingual and unilingual positions in bilingual regions, in order to strike an appropriate balance between Canadians' right to be served in the language of their choice and employees' right to work in the language of their choice. The government should provide appropriate funding for language training to meet the legal and policy requirements it created. The government should re-establish the role of the Canada School of Public Service to provide training to all employees who wish to require language proficiency in the second official language in the context of their overall developmental plan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have one minute left, Ms. Demers.

[Michèle Demers]

Thank you.

No doubt many of you will have your own ideas as to how best to promote bilingualism within the federal public service. This is what it should be.

What matters most is that government provide both the tangible resources and the political willpower to make public service bilingualism a reality and promote it as a positive asset, not a barrier to advancement. Canadians who use public services and the government employees who provide them deserve no less.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Ms. Demers.

We'll now hand over to the representatives of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Mr. Cashman.

[Ed Cashman, Regional Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Mr. Chairman, members, allow me first to thank the committee for inviting us to appear before you today.

Our union firmly supports the principles and objectives of the Official Languages Act. Respect for and the promotion of the official languages regime in Canada are essential in ensuring that all Canadians have access to federal government services in the language of their choice. They are also essential so that workers in the designated bilingual regions can work in the language of their choice.

Unfortunately, some policies implemented by the federal government in recent years betray a lack of will to help workers acquire, practise and maintain language skills in either official language. In this area, the cancellation of funding for the Court Challenges Program, which played a vital role in the defence and promotion of minorities' official language rights across Canada, indicates to us that the government is not serious about its legal and constitutional obligations respecting language rights. We can only add our voice to those of the many organizations that have called for funding to be reinstated for this important federal program.

In this presentation, we would like to address three questions: the central role of training, staffing and the importance of consulting bargaining agents, and the leadership that is required to transform the language culture in the workplace within the federal public service.

In a society where the vast majority of the population does not have a solid knowledge of both official languages, the onus is on the federal government to shoulder its responsibility for ensuring adequate language training for those individuals who are called upon to work in the federal public service.

As the employer, the federal government has a duty to set the example with regard to bilingualism in the workplace. And yet, the offer of training programs and related budgets have been decentralized, thus weakening the government's ability to develop a coherent approach to language training. Each department must now decide on its own priorities, including in the area of language training. The result is an uneven approach, devoid of long-term planning, which is at times arbitrary.

In addition, the training itself is no longer provided by the federal government, but has been contracted out, the result of uneven approaches poorly suited to workplace requirements.

In a study conducted by the federal government in 2002, we know that 17% of Anglophone employees reported that, for lack of language training, they were unable to advance as far in their careers as they had expected. Francophone employees have the same problem, but it's accentuated. Only 5% of language training is given to Francophone employees. Furthermore, managers can generally take advantage of language training programs. On the other hand, lower-level workers, more often than not members of the equity groups, do not have the same opportunities. Many of those employees are members of our union.

Guidelines must be set on access to language training so that training is not unfairly denied. Workers in the federal public sector who are denied adequate training should have an appeal process available to them. Language training should also be offered so that language skills, once acquired, are maintained.

Lastly, a progressive bilingualism allowance should be paid and considered as salary for pension purposes in order to acknowledge the value of knowledge of the two official languages.

I'm now going to say a few words on staffing. The Public Service Alliance of Canada supports the bilingualism policy and does not question the bilingual designation of certain positions. However, it is our view that the designation of bilingual positions should be done in a transparent and fair manner. Bilingualism must be a genuine requirement for a position.

For the determination of language requirements, the linguistic profile must be transparent and fair, so that positions not requiring just limited exchanges in the second language have a different profile from those for which ease comparable to that in the mother tongue is required. Although the designation of a position as bilingual is the employer's responsibility, we feel the public interest would be well served if the employer consulted the bargaining agents. We feel that more creative solutions could be developed if the employer were open to this kind of discussion.

I would also like to talk about workplace culture. The best language training cannot produce tangible results if employees cannot practise their language skills in the workplace. Managers must show leadership in establishing a workplace culture that respects and fosters the use of both official languages. That's also important for individuals belonging to a minority language community. In general, it is Francophones who usually cannot work in their mother tongue because one or two colleagues are not bilingual.

The learning and retention of both official language are thus, in everyone's best interest, a guarantee of professional advancement for some, respect for the right to work in one's language for others and, in all cases, a guarantee of better service to the Canadian public.

In conclusion, these are our recommendations to the federal government: shoulder its responsibility to ensure adequate language training; ensure that funding for language training is held by the central agencies and sheltered from program reviews; provide language training to Anglophone and Francophone employees in all classes and occupational groups throughout their careers, in all regions, paid for by the employer and offered during working hours, in the workplace; develop guidelines on access to training and put in place an appeal process in case of rejection; the determination of language requirements must be transparent and fair following consultation with the bargaining agents; encourage managers to show leadership in establishing a culture in the workplace that respects and fosters the use of both official languages; lastly, provide significant financial support for interpretation and translation in order to promote participation in both official languages in the workplace and increase the number of documents available in both official languages.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cashman.

We will now go to the last, but not least, of our witnesses, Mr. Jean Vaillancourt, rector of the Université du Québec en Outaouais, UQO.

[Jean Vaillancourt, Rector, Université du Québec en Outaouais]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members, thank you for this opportunity to address you today.

As rector of the university, I would like to discuss the work accomplished in the context of the action plan that will terminate in March of this year, and especially the planning for the new phase that is beginning. I will especially be a bearer of good news, but I will also address the considerable contribution of the official languages to the growth and development of the language industry sector in the Outaouais region, as well as in Canada as a whole and elsewhere in the world.

First, I will talk to you about the bill of health of Canada's language industry, then discuss the exemplary role that the Canadian government has played in that industry's creation and expansion in recent years. I will continue by describing the recent and excellent results achieved as a result of investment under the last Action Plan for Official Languages. I will also consider the language industry's essential function at the regional and national levels, but also in our globalized world. I will continue by describing the international issues in which the government, industry and universities are taking part, as well as the priorities that we will share in the coming years.

I have not prepared a brief, but I have a few notes in French for those who would like to follow them. Those notes include a list of references for the few figures I will be giving. Lastly, I will close by linking the universities to their social and economic priorities and to the broader question of the role of languages in the transmission of knowledge and the production of wealth on a global scale.

Last week, here before the standing committee, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Graham Fraser, recalled that the action plan had three main objectives: to advance linguistic duality in Canada, to improve the delivery of government services in both official languages and the development and vitality of the official language minority communities.

I am recalling those objectives in turn today because by working as it has for Canadians and the maintenance of their linguistic wealth, the 2003-2008 action plan not only supported the country's linguistic duality, but also, for the first time in history, the Canadian language industry. This industry is a crucial lever in ensuring that action plans are effectively carried out. However, beyond its usefulness in meeting Canadians' needs in the official languages field, this industry enables Canada to position itself as a leader in this strongly growing international market of multilingual information management.

The name “language industry” is a recent one. In Canada, it embraces three industry sectors that have made considerable efforts in recent years to structure themselves and take full advantage of global growth. I'm talking about language instruction, language technologies and translation.

In this respect, we have collectively achieved progress with which we should be very pleased. It should not be forgotten that Canada represents only one-half of 1% of the earth's population. Despite that fact, Canada produces approximately 10% of the world's translation and 15% of language instruction. That's an absolutely extraordinary achievement. All other things being equal, we can only acknowledge the considerable value of just these components of the language industry, which is growing even more when you add in the figures on language technologies.

And as though this good news were not enough, you should also know that the language industry represents an economic contribution of $3 billion in Canada. Globally, this industry is growing at a rate of 18%, which means that it doubles every five to seven years. For Canada, we're talking about an absolutely extraordinary economic opportunity and a competitive advantage that must not be lost.

Outside Canada, it must be acknowledged from the outset that, as a result of the work done to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act, Canada has the best organized professional groups in the translation, terminology and interpretation industry. The language and translation training offered in Canada is cited as an example around the world. Our universities are constantly solicited by employers wishing to employ translators, revisers, terminologists, language teachers and computer specialists knowledgeable in language matters. The value of this industry and its contribution to achieving the government's mission were acknowledged in the last Action Plan for Official Languages.

In 2003, the federal government allocated $20 million to support development of the language industry. Those efforts produced results, as Mr. Peralta told us. Supported by that $20 million, a lot of people set to work. Meaningful results can moreover be observed in the industry's structuring, and the Language Industry Association deserves great praise in that regard. The amounts granted under the Action Plan were intended to meet four major challenges facing the language industry, two of which concerned the universities, first of all: human resources renewal and the response to the need for research and development.

The achievement we're proudest of is definitely the creation of the Language Technologies Research Centre, in Gatineau. It could not have been established as quickly without the express recommendation made in the last Action Plan for Official Languages. As a result of that project, carried out in cooperation with the Translation Bureau and the National Research Council of Canada, and with the support of the federal and provincial governments, a unique centre was established.

Teams from our partner organizations are already working on major research projects. Some are designed to push back the limits of technology, and others to generate knowledge that will help improve the quality and productivity of language activities. We've understood that, by helping break down language barriers, this research will support Canada's actions in all its spheres of activity.

Working with this in view, and bringing together under a single roof researchers, academics, entrepreneurs and government specialists, the research centre is bound to become a world leader in the establishment of language technology R&D standards. Since its inception, however, the LTRC has not had the necessary funding to ensure its full emergence. We must strategically act more quickly if we want to market and spread Canadian technologies developed there for a now highly competitive global market. I'll give you the example of an institute that was created in Indiana two years ago and that has four times our research centre's resources. So the competition is fierce.

Consequently, our lack of resources limits the Canadian industry's ability to meet the needs of the linguistic communities in and outside the country. The renewal of the Action Plan for Official Languages is an ideal opportunity to give the LTRC a new dose of vitality that will enable the Canadian government to meet its commitments to the country's Anglophone and Francophone communities and at the same time to contribute to the expansion of the language industry cluster.

Numerous challenges remain for all of us. We must constantly review and improve our teaching programs, train the language experts that the industy is seeking from us, train computer specialists to create the tools of the future, train managers who can orchestrate complex multilingual projects, train researchers for the advancement of knowledge, prepare for the future, increase the number of research projects with sectoral partners and players and, lastly, ensure that knowledge is transferred quickly to the industry.

The UQO is a Francophone university open to the world. We have partnership agreements with institutions in a number of countries where we are providing courses in French, Spanish and English, in particular. We have been training translators for more than 30 years. We can boast of having established one of the training programs that best integrates the language technologies and professions. And we can do even more. For us and for Canadian society, having more resources would mean more achievements, because the Canadian government has understood the role of languages in maintaining and spreading the Canadian model for respecting differences; because the Canadian government has understood that supporting official languages also means supporting a promising industry that has not yet achieved its full development potential; and because the Canadian government is especially aware that languages are vehicles for both values and ideals that it strives to defend and that are universal.

In conclusion, as a representative of the university world, and thus of education and research, I can only invite the government to restate and enhance the support previously granted under the Action Plan for Official Languages.

We need more resources in order to train more language experts, language teachers, technolinguists and researchers. We need resources to achieve our ambitions, and the work done in recent years augurs well for what we could still achieve in the future with the support we are seeking today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, sir.

We will now begin our first round.

Mr. Jean-Clause D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks to the witnesses for appearing before us this morning.

Mr. Peralta, earlier you said that you had spoken with Mr. Lord about the work the federal government has asked him to do. I would like to ask the other witnesses whether they have spoken with Mr. Lord, whether Mr. Lord asked them to comment on the official languages situation and the work he has done for the federal government.

I would like to start with you, Mr. Vaillancourt.

[Jean Vaillancourt]

No, I wasn't approached.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see the Language Industry Association and the University du Québec en Outaouais as organizations that support the official languages, whereas I get the impression the Professional Institute of the Public Service and the Public Service Alliance do business much more directly with the citizens.

Ms. Demers, did Mr. Lord approach your institute to gather its comments?

[Michèle Demers]

We didn't even see Mr. Lord's shadow pass in the context of those discussions.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

In other words, he simply didn't try to find out what you were thinking.

[Michèle Demers]

We didn't come close to being invited.