Official Languages Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

[Donald Lemaire]

That is what we did during the first phase of the Action Plan. Under what we described as an awareness program, we went into schools, universities and colleges and gave presentations about the language requirements, bilingualism in the federal government, and how to access it. One of the things involved was making students aware of the importance of bilingualism, of acquiring and being proficient in a second language.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

We have universities that train doctors, nurses, engineers. Can the government not let them know that it needs bilingual candidates?

[Donald Lemaire]

We let them know that we need bilingual candidates. We do that as part of what I call promotion, raising awareness and providing information to potential candidates.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Has the Commission never thought of telling the universities that it absolutely wanted a course to be offered?

[Donald Lemaire]

We are doing some outreach in that direction, for example with the Université Sainte-Anne. We need bilingual administrative personnel, and that university provides bilingual education. We are setting up an initial work-study program, the first co-op program. We are going to facilitate access to the public service for these people by letting the departments know that there is a pool of bilingual candidates there who have taken their degree in a work-study program, and that they would be good candidates for the federal public service. We are currently trying to determine what kind of partnership could be established with educational institutions to encourage bilingualism and make it easier to recruit bilingual candidates.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I don't know whether you also have this impression, but when I go into the schools, English and French, I see how intelligent these kids are and I think how we are missing the boat at the outset. We are letting them go along as if they did not need to become bilingual, but later we tell them they have to be. Then they have to learn a second language and a new job all at the same time.

More efforts should be made to enter into agreements with universities and secondary schools all across Canada. In this committee, we have talked about how the public service is one of the biggest employers in the country, that bilingualism is one of the requirements, and that we have to expect that requirement to be honoured. For a unilingual person, the only way to get around this is to apply for a deputy minister position. That way you're excluded for life.

[Donald Lemaire]

When it comes to the work you are talking about we are in complete agreement. That is what we did, in part, in the second phase of the Action Plan. Under the decision that will be made regarding the second phase, we would like to go farther in that direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Lemaire.

We will now go to the government side.

Mr. Pierre Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your presentation. I would first like to congratulate you on the number of tests you administered last year. It is continuing to go up, and that is good news. Last week we had representatives of the language school appear before us. They told us that the number of students who were able to take courses at their school had risen. I find that encouraging.

I would now like to raise two points.

I often receive comments regarding access, people being able to access positions. I call that the entry level, people who want to enter the public service. Sometimes they feel there's a wall there based on language requirements, particularly if they're unilingual anglophone or unilingual francophone.

When people are bilingual, it is easier.

Then there's progression within the public service.

In figure 3, it shows about 18,000 positions for 2006-2007, but it is difficult to see the difference between entry level positions and higher positions.

I'm wondering if you track, as a commission, the accessibility of Canadians to join the public service based on language requirements and their ability to then progress once they're in the public service and have access to language training. Before they enter, they don't have access to the services of language training through the public service. Do you track those types of numbers?

[Donald Lemaire]

We track the number of new entrants to the public service from the official language. Figure 3 basically shows the positions. Of those positions, 58% require English. So someone unilingual, or it could be someone bilingual, could apply for these positions. So we do track at the entry level.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I guess what I'm asking is this. Of the 10,000 positions, or the 58%, do you track how many are entry level positions and how many are progression-type positions?

If the number is very small, for example, on the entry level, then unilingual anglophone or francophone people would say they can't get through the door because it's a very small door. Once they're in the public service, though, they have access to training facilities, training programs, and testing, and also see all the positions in the public service and are able to say which ones they want to apply for, based on their requirements.

Just taking that as an example, of those 10,000 positions, do you know which ones were entry positions and which ones were progression—you know, not CR-2 but CR-4?

[Donald Lemaire]

I'm sorry, these are all entry to the public service.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

These are all entry positions?

[Donald Lemaire]

Yes.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Okay, that's good. Thank you.

I noticed in figure 2 that the number of employees who do not meet the requirements when appointed has also been dropping. It was at about 354 for 2006-07. One of the questions I have is this. After their two years, do you track how many of the 354 meet the requirements and how many don't meet the requirements? Can you comment on that?

[Donald Lemaire]

I would ask my colleague to answer that.

[Edward Poznanski]

Yes, we do. Since 2003-04, that fiscal year, we've introduced a monitoring system. We require departments to report on the situations of people they have appointed to bilingual positions on a non-imperative basis, so that we can track to make sure the extensions that are required are done in accordance with the exclusion order and that these people do eventually meet the language requirements.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

In that case of 354, are you able to comment? After two years, how many meet their language requirements? I guess in 2006 and 2007, you can't comment on that one. But from two years ago, for example, under the 454, are you able to comment on how many were able to meet the language requirements after having access to training?

[Edward Poznanski]

I can't tell you exactly how many met the language requirements, but people either had their exemption period extended or perhaps they received an exclusion on the basis of a medical reason. That number can go down for a number of reasons. Either they eventually meet the language requirements, or they move to another job, or they are excluded for another reason.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have one minute left, Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you.

I also noted that you have made changes in the tests. I would like to know why you changed the oral and written tests.

[Donald Lemaire]

Mr. Edwards will be happy to answer that question.

[Henry Edwards, Director, Research and Development, Personnel Psychology Centre, Staffing and Assessment Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada]

We made the decision to change the tests three years ago, one reason being that even though the tests were still valid and reliable, they dated from 1984-1985 or thereabouts. The way language is used in the government has changed since then. For example, on the written test, obviously the use of electronic mail has changed a lot of things. The style of language has also changed: it is less formal now. There is also the whole language of technology, and so on.

Because of that, the tests had to be modernized and we had to be sure we had tests that were as valid and reliable as possible, based on the best testing practices that apply today.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

You have noticed that the results have gone down slightly. You are doing a study at the moment to find out why, but do you already have an idea of the reason why results may have gone down?

[Henry Edwards]

There are several possibilities. If you take a look at the graphs we have provided, you can see that in the case of the same test, over the years there have been ups and downs, sometimes significant, which are attributable not to the test itself, but rather to the characteristics of the population being assessed. Those characteristics change. Recently, for example, the introduction of a national area of selection may have had an influence. There is more diversity in the population that is applying. That might have had an influence too.

With respect specifically to the written expression test, the test we started in October 2007, even though it reflects the same standards as its predecessor, it is a different test in that more emphasis is placed on written language in a particular context. It is a test that also takes the work context into greater account. I think it is a test that gives a more complete evaluation, based on the standards, and this could be one explanation. But of course we are waiting for the results of the study.