Evidence of meeting #13 for Official Languages in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was training.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
How many of you have taken courses at the School of Public Service to become bilingual? Was it the school that made you bilingual, or were you already bilingual when you started working for the public service?
10:10 a.m.
President, Language Industry Association
I'd like to clarify certain points regarding the School of Public Service.
In 1999, the School of Public Service conducted a pilot project with the private sector for the first time in its history. The success rate of that pilot project raised the pass rate of the School of Public Service by 20%. Currently, the pass rate under contracts that go through the School of Public Service is virtually double what it was when training was given internally. So this is team work. It isn't a question of knowing what is better for me or for you. It isn't a question of division.
I'm sure that the public service's problems are also industry dilemmas. Today, an article will be published in Halifax on a language school that has invested a great deal and has been giving courses to government employees for 20 years. And yet no one is attending that school right now. There's a picture of an empty room.
I don't agree with Mr. Godin. It isn't just a question of money. The people working in the language industry are former teachers, translators, people who believe in what they do. That's why we're here. It's true that there are bilingualism problems in the public service.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Peralta, I'm married to an Anglophone, and my children are all bilingual. I have a daughter who is arriving from Spain, where she has learned Spanish; she speaks three languages. My second daughter is going to Germany to learn German. So the idea of “two plus one” is something I sincerely believe in.
Wouldn't it be preferable to hire a bilingual public servant at the outset, rather than try to teach that person a second language for 10 years? I saw my children learn a second language from birth; at four years of age, my children spoke two languages fluently without accents. I come from Chicoutimi, and, even today, I find it hard to learn English properly and to speak it well. That's one of my regrets. Even though I'm virtually in immersion here, it isn't easy for me. I often can't find the word that would really convey my meaning.
Wouldn't it be better to pay special attention to this at the time of hiring? Do you give mathematics courses to public servants who want a promotion and who have to pass Mathematics 536? Does the government give public servants mathematics or history courses? I don't believe so. On the other hand, with regard to the official languages, we know from the outset that the position is bilingual. If someone applies for a bilingual position without being bilingual, I don't see why the union would try to protect that person who doesn't have the skill; I don't understand why it would be up to the government to enable that person to acquire that skill.
I'm trying to understand why it's the government's responsibility to teach that person a second language, whereas it isn't responsible for teaching courses in history, mathematics, chemistry or physics. I'm sincerely trying to understand why, when a bilingual position is opened and a unilingual person hired, the government is responsible for teaching that person the second language.
Mr. Vaillancourt has a university degree and has teaching skills; that's his primary mission. It isn't the government's role to teach languages. It provides money to institutions like Mr. Vaillancourt's to teach English, French and all the other languages. I'm trying to see in what respect it is the government's responsibility to teach that second language, since we can all go to Mr. Vaillancourt to learn another language.
Can someone enlighten me on that subject?
10:15 a.m.
Chairman of the Board of Directors, Language Industry Association
In fact, we should go back to basics. It's important to value the fact that we have two languages in this country, and that's occurs at a very young age. As a Francophone immigrant, I learned English in the street at six years of age, when I came to Canada. People spoke English, and I saw an advantage in speaking both languages as a young boy; otherwise I couldn't speak with the people I was playing with.
We have to find a solution to the mandatory learning of languages, rather than voluntary learning. The education system has to give people a reason to want to speak the two languages of this country and to be proud of them. That's what we're doing in the industry, with the assistance of the universities. We want to show people that bilingualism brings pride and a significant financial advantage in Canada and in the world.
I don't really want to talk about this point in particular, but I would especially like to say that we have to go back and look at children three, four or five years of age. How can we interest them in language? How can we encourage them to want to be bilingual?
We have to work with older youths to show them the opportunities.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Thank you, Mr. Chamsi.
Mr. Harvey raised a very interesting question, but I must unfortunately stick to the time that was allotted to him.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, if you ask committee members to allow a minute or two—
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Let me state my point of view, please.
I think that, if you asked committee members to allow a minute or two more for the union representatives to answer Mr. Harvey's question, you would definitely have my consent and that of the members on this side.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Ms. Demers, I would like you to answer Mr. Harvey's question. I'm going to sacrifice my speaking time, because I think it's important to get your perspective.
10:15 a.m.
President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Harvey, I consider myself privileged to have learned this country's second official language in the street when I was very young, as the gentleman here did. I had that privilege. Many people elsewhere in the country don't have that privilege. They live in a unilingual environment, either Anglophone or Francophone, and their education system or immediate environment doesn't facilitate the learning of a second language.
Until that's possible through the school system, the federal government has a responsibility, under its own act, that is section 39 which I read to you earlier, to ensure that no one is adversely affected in the area of employment or advancement within federal institutions. There follows an obligation for the government to provide language training.
That said, our institute feels that the responsibility is shared and that the government must do its share. Individuals must also accept responsibility for maintaining and preserving the linguistic profile they have acquired and that they need to work in the public service.
However, we can't tell people to learn the language on their own if they want to work, because that's not possible for everyone. It's a bit superficial to simply say to ourselves that we're going to hire bilingual people. Those who aren't bilingual are adversely affected, according to your way of thinking.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
There is another aspect to that. The public service existed when the act was proclaimed in force. We can't institute another legislative framework without there being an adjustment period to ensure that everyone has fair advancement opportunities.
Ms. Demers, I agree with some of your comments. First, as long as we continue providing language training, that should be done at the start of a career. I absolutely agree with you on that. Second, I'm interested—although I'm not saying I would draw the same conclusion as you—in studying the bilingualism bonus issue, and the government would be a good tool for doing that. Would there be a better use to be made of that money? I believe that represents approximately $50 million a year. That would interest me. I'm going to see whether we have the time to study that, if an election isn't called soon.
I want to get to your first comment, your first suggestion, that we have to start at square one, with training. I agree with Mr. Chong in that respect. As regards training and teachers, there is something to be done. I know this is a priority for the Language Industry Association. I recently had the honour of being invited to give a talk to their assembly. I really emphasized this. Since then, I've met teachers and I've inquired. In the federal government, language teachers now work in absolutely astounding conditions. Training has been privatized. They are asked to go teach in the cafeteria or in the library. Imagine giving courses in the library while others study. They're invited to go into small storerooms. The decision to privatize all language training was a mistake, as was the decision to transfer the Official Languages Secretariat from the Privy Council Office to the Department of Canadian Heritage. Those are two steps backward. We will really have to study that, to go back and start training over.
Remember that we passed an act when Ms. Robillard was President of the Treasury Board. People had to meet the requirements and they had two years to do it. However, the deadline was postponed two, three or four times. We decided to stop postponing it. That had an absolutely astounding impact, and five times as many people wanted to receive training. The waiting list got very long. At that point, $36 million was added over two years to cut it back. A change of government subsequently occurred, and that's when everything was privatized. I think that was a mistake that must be corrected.
This is also terrible for teachers outside the public service. They don't have classrooms at their disposal and teaching material is obsolete.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I'd like to know, from both the industry and your association, madam, whether you could study this aspect and make recommendations so that we can communicate them to the provinces. This is where we have to promote the profession of language teacher.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Thank, Mr. Bélanger. I ask the witnesses to take note of the question.
We'll continue, and it's Mr. Chong's turn.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I agree with you, Mr. Peralta, with regard to your testimony. My mother was European and all my cousins can speak three or four languages. It's not by chance; in Europe, the education system is very different from ours. After World War II, no one in Europe could speak a second language. Now, in countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany, all citizens can speak three or four languages. In my opinion, we can do the same thing in our country. If our country wants to engage in international trade, be diversified and meet the definitions of the modern world, it will have to have an education system that produces students who can speak three or four languages. It's good for the economy, national unity and diversity; it's good for everything.
I'm in complete agreement with you. I think your presentation was very interesting and the work you're doing is very interesting. It's encouraging to see that you're starting out and building this case to be made.
The only other point I want to make is to the representatives from the groups that represent the public service. I strongly encourage you to take another approach to promoting bilingualism in the public service. I think a lot of what you're doing is good, but in some ways you're forgetting the other part of what we need to do.
Sometimes we do too much defending of the linguistic rights of francophones and anglophones in the public service without actually doing the proactive work we need to promote bilingualism in Canada. I think in particular of the need for universities to graduate bilingual students. We need more interaction with the university community to get them to produce the students we need for the public service.
There are complaints that if you're anglophone or unilingual it's more difficult to enter the EX stream. In some ways I'm empathetic about that, but in other respects I'm not. If you're working for an investment bank you need an MBA to move up to the level of vice-president. It's rare today, if you're working for one of the banks and you don't have an MBA, to be promoted beyond that or to that level. If you're not an engineer, it's difficult to get promoted in an engineering group. If you are working for Microsoft, it's difficult to get promoted if you don't have a computer science background.
In some ways I think we need to push back on the university community and say, if you work for the Government of Canada and want to go into the management stream, you need to be bilingual. This is not an afterthought; this is something you should prepare for as part of your training before you apply for the public service.
10:25 a.m.
Rector, Université du Québec en Outaouais
Since the universities are involved, would you allow me to speak, Mr. Chairman?
When I left my native city, Quebec City, at the age of 21, I was a unilingual Francophone. I chose to do my studies at a unilingual Anglophone university. So, from the outset, I had to meet the challenge, for an adult, of learning English in a unilingual environment, but that was also an advantage.
Immersion in a unilingual environment over an extended period of time is the ideal situation for mastering a second language without losing mastery of one's mother tongue. This type of environment should be promoted as a host environment for further developing second language skills in Canada. It's true for basic training, and it's also true for the occupational development of both government employees and the employees of other businesses. We have to rethink the training model in which you make daily visits to a person in an environment where they speak your mother tongue and they teach you the second language for an hour, whereas you won't use it the rest of the day. We really have to think about that. The universities, whether they are Francophone in a bilingual or Anglophone environment, or Anglophone in a Francophone environment, can offer this kind of environment, which would foster more intense and more rapid training and make it possible to master the language. It's a bit like learning—
