Official Languages Committee on May 6th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Good morning, and welcome to this 30^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. It is my pleasure to welcome you to this meeting, which will be divided into two parts. To begin with, we'll hear from witnesses about the language skills of exempted management staff, pursuant to our orders of the day. Then, we'll discuss motions which may have an impact on our schedule.

First, I'd like to remind committee members that they were supposed to provide a witness list this morning for our post-secondary education study. But don't worry, I'm going to extend the deadline because we still have a lot of other work to do beforehand.

Without further ado, we'll move on to the first part of our meeting, the discussion on the language skills of exempted management staff. Mr. Cashman, from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and Ms. Ellis, from the Public Service Agency, declined our invitation. We are pleased however to welcome Ms. Barrados, who was not able to appear before us as part of our study on the Official Languages Action Plan. However, her colleagues were in attendance. This morning, she is able to join them.

Madame Barrados, welcome to the committee. I invite you to make a short presentation, and then we will proceed to questions from the members.

[Maria Barrados, President, Public Service Commission of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before your committee to discuss the work that we do at the Public Service Commission to support the official language requirements of Canada's public service.

I have with me this morning Mr. Donald Lemaire, Vice-President, Staffing and Assessment Services Branch, and Dr. Henry Edwards, Director, Research and Development.

In my remarks this morning, I would like to talk about second language assessment in the federal public service. I will also provide the committee with an update on the modernization of the second-language evaluation tests.

I would like to begin by briefly outlining the goals and responsibilities in the area of official languages.

The Official Languages Act directs that members of the public must be served in the official language of their choice and that public service employees have the right to work and be supervised in their preferred language in those regions of Canada designated as bilingual for work purposes.

The Treasury Board Secretariat, as the employer, sets the official languages policy.

Using Treasury Board Secretariat policies and directives, departmental managers are required to assess the duties and identify the linguistic profile of each position. Those managers are also responsible for determining where the positions will be staffed on a bilingual imperative or non-imperative basis.

The Canada Public Service Agency sets the standards that determine the language proficiency levels A, B and C. The Canada School of Public Service is responsible for language training.

The Public Service Commission is responsible for developing instruments to test individuals' proficiency in their second official language against the standards. These skills are evaluated by the English or French versions of three Second Language Evaluation tests.

Testing is usually undertaken to assess the second language proficiency of candidates as part of the appointment process. Public servants who have completed language training are also tested. The tests are designed to measure whether or not public servants can fulfil the language requirements of the positions they occupy. The scores received on these tests are valid for a five-year period. After five years, public servants are required to be re-tested to confirm their language proficiency if they are appointed to a new position.

If candidates have obtained level C for a particular proficiency--reading, writing, or oral interaction--and their results are especially strong, they are granted an exemption from further testing in that proficiency. These are cases in which the strength of the test results indicates that those candidates can be expected to maintain level C.

I understand there is some concern that some public servants who have been exempted may not maintain their level of second language proficiency. According to the attached chart, which shows statistics for the EX group during the years 2003 to 2007, for those tested in English, 76 candidates attained level C on the oral interaction test, and 51 candidates--40%--attained an exemption. For those tested in French over the same period, 1,263 candidates attained a level C on the oral interaction test, and 42--or 3%--attained an exemption.

The approach on exemptions is consistent with the practice in other bilingual institutions such as the University of Ottawa, where there is no retesting. Mr. Chairman, the use of exemptions is certainly an area we could examine more closely if it is the wish of the committee.

In your recent report “Leading by Example: Bilingualism in the Public Service and Renewal of the Action Plan for Official Languages”, the committee made a series of recommendations related to bilingualism in the public service. I would like to take this opportunity to bring you up to date on the initiatives taken by the Public Service Commission to modernize its second language evaluation tests.

The renewal is being undertaken to ensure that our tests continue to be valid and relevant. We are also able to consider the latest research and advancements in the study and application of assessments. In October of last year, the commission implemented a new second language evaluation test of written expression. When Mr. Lemaire and his colleagues met with this committee on February 12, they provided information on the preliminary results that showed lower success rates on the French test, particularly for level C. We assessed those results, and the test was confirmed to be a good measure of the A, B, C language standards.

Feedback gathered as part of our professional best practices approach revealed that candidates found the test fatiguing. We also learned that it was difficult to administer both the new writing test and the existing reading test in the same half-day period. Based on this feedback and additional study, the written test has been modified. The number of items has been reduced from 80 to 65, and the administration time has been reduced by 10 minutes. The new version of the test will be implemented in early June.

We also plan to roll out a new second language evaluation test of oral proficiency later this month, and a new second language evaluation reading and comprehension test will be implemented in the fall of 2009. Our approach to modernizing these tests has been guided by what we heard during extensive consultations throughout the public service. As we move forward, we will continue to monitor the results of our new tests to ensure they are working effectively.

Mr. Chairman, on April 29^th, we were honoured that parliamentarians joined us to open a special exhibit at Library and Archives Canada to mark the centenary of the Public Service Commission. As we reflect on the achievements of the Public Service Commission during the past 100 years, we take great pride in our contribution to implementing Canada's official languages policy.

We look forward to continuing to work with parliamentarians to ensure a professional, non-partisan, and representative public service that is able to serve Canadians in both official languages.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy now to respond to any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Madam Barrados, for this introduction.

We will now proceed with some questions and comments from the members.

Mr. Coderre will start the first round.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Good morning, Ms. Barrados. It's always a pleasure to see you.

I would like you to explain to me in what way these tests are too exhausting for public servants. Aren't they preparing properly for the tests? What is going on in their heads? I see that you have the director of the psychology centre with you. Are francophones and anglophones experiencing the same problem?

[Maria Barrados]

Thank you very much.

We have observed a problem with both francophones and anglophones when it comes to level C. We have considered the possibility of overhauling our testing process. However, we're convinced our tests are a good way of evaluating levels A, B and C. On the other hand, we have noticed that the length of the tests is perhaps an issue.

Mr. Edwards can elaborate on this since he is an expert in the testing process.

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

Thank you.

I do agree entirely that the situation is identical for both francophones and anglophones. Most candidates sit for the written expression and the written comprehension tests at the same time, that is over the course of a half day of testing. Each test lasts about an hour and a half and requires concentration. Testing is either paper- or computer-based. There is a short break between the two tests.

When we developed the new test, we added a number of sections. We realized that that required an additional period of concentration and effort without a break and that it meant that the break between the two tests ended up being shorter. Many candidates told us that it was more tiring and stressful than it used to be. Moreover, the test administrators told us it was difficult to administer the tests in the most efficient manner, that is over the course of a one half day.

That's why we considered cutting back the length of the written expression test without making it any less reliable or valid. We discovered that the testing was extraordinarily reliable. In fact, the reliability coefficient was one of the highest I have ever seen over the past 40 years. We then conducted empirical studies to determine just how many sections of the test we could cut out without affecting the test's reliability or validity. We discovered that we could reduce the test to 65 items without running the risk of jeopardizing its relevance, value, and validity.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Are our public servants stressed because the test is too long and it is causing them problems in terms of concentration?

[Maria Barrados]

It's the length of the tests that is the problem.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

And the fact that candidates sit for both tests at the same time.

[Maria Barrados]

They do indeed sit for both tests over the same time period. We have to make sure that it is a true measure of their proficiency. If we're able to measure this reliably over a shorter period, we'd be prepared to do so.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

As far as validity of the tests is concerned, you need valid empirical results. When it comes time for them to re-sit a test, is the stress attributable to the fact that it is a re-evaluation? Or is it possible that it's more of an issue to do with lack of preparation or the environment in which these individuals work?

[Maria Barrados]

We've observed that sitting for such tests and evaluations was stressful for all adults regardless of which language the test was done in. It is up to public servants to figure out how they're going to prepare for tests. Some of them get lessons, and others prepare by themselves.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I imagine that age is a factor and it must be harder for some people than it is for others.

[Henry Edwards]

Of course, there are statistics on age, but based on the data I've seen, age is more an issue in terms of language training and when it's done. In other words, if someone has learned a language at 30 years of age and is evaluated at 60, they've probably maintained the language and won't necessarily have much trouble. On the other hand, someone who starts language training at age 60 is going to have more trouble.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

So it's not the same.

[Henry Edwards]

It's more of an issue when training—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

So age only really has an impact in terms of when you do training, and that's it.

[Henry Edwards]

Based on our data.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Do you also deal with organizations, such as the coast guard?

[Maria Barrados]

The Public Service Commission is responsible for the core of the public service, and the coast guard is part of this.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Go and get them to sit tests there, that will be interesting.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Coderre.

Now we'll move on to Mr. Nadeau, from the Bloc Québécois.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, everyone. I meet with public servants from the region on a quite regular basis. And here's what I have taken away from comments that have been made to me: when an anglophone passes a test in French, so in his or her second language, you don't hear that person speak in French afterwards. It's as if the individual has done what he needed to do and now that he has level C, he doesn't want to be bothered, “now we'll work in English” is the attitude, and if you have anything you want to ask that person, well then the answer will be in English.

Are there any complaints of this type from employees or from the union?

[Maria Barrados]

Using both official languages is a problem in the public service. Many departments tend to operate in one single language, which is almost always English. A few departments are far more bilingual. We've discussed this problem at length because we want to see change effected in the workplace. We want public servants who are working in a bilingual region to use both languages. And that is a challenge for several departments.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

So, there is some truth in what I'm hearing.