Official Languages Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2010

[An hon. member]

Is it mandatory?

[Donald Lemaire]

No, that is to say that we offer it on an optional basis. We can't impose it on students, but its purpose is to urge them, encourage them to take second-language training so that, at the end of the program, they are able to meet the requirements of a bilingual position in the federal government.

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

Do you encourage—

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

We'll come back to that, Mr. Godin.

We'll now give the floor to Mr. Rickford.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks to all our witnesses.

Ms. Barrados, I have a number of questions. Today I'm going to refer to the proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I'm very much interested in two things.

There is the testimony that you gave at the Senate hearings a year ago, and there is the testimony of Justice Bastarache. His reference, of course, was principally to Desrochers, but I thought he had some insightful commentary on some of the issues that we're grappling with here today.

My concerns are these, but first of all, congratulations for the great work you do.

The objectives of the Public Service Commission of Canada for next year are clear. You are no doubt more advanced with regard to the objective

overall of our government to have a more meaningful sense of what Justice Bastarache describes as the distinction between a formal equality and a substantive equality.

So my questions are these. You may take the last couples of minutes to answer them.

Clearly, in the commissioner's report, he identified that you had several activities that we could draw from. The Public Service Commission is unique, unlike other departments, and there may be a disconnect there, because those public servants work in those departments and we have departments that haven't fared that well. And we have an overall budget with respect to our investment in official languages that has so far been unparalleled.

Addressing Justice Bastarache's comments there, what are the important next steps for us in going from formal equality to a substantive equality in the context of the kinds of training available to public servants and the situation you have as a watchdog in this regard? What recommendations would you make in taking us farther along in that process?

[Maria Barrados]

I'm going to answer in two ways. I'm going to answer first as the head of an organization that I'm responsible for, and then as the president of the Public Service Commission.

First, as the head of an organization that I'm responsible for, I am somewhat frustrated by the individuals who I invest in with a lot of language training. They pass their tests and I don't hear another word of French.

I believe we all have an obligation to encourage people and perhaps as well to ask them to use their training.

Because of the number of francophones I have around my executive table, my language skills have increased dramatically since I have been at the commission. My lawyers insist on having the technical legal debates in French and of course I have to understand that. They stay in French and they will repeat things for me and explain more slowly. So I think a big step for management and the organization in the federal government is actually a much greater utilization of the language.

I think that has two parts. I think francophones should stick with speaking French and I think the English people should be encouraged. Sometimes that's vice versa. I have the odd francophone who is terrified of speaking English as well. So I think that's an important element of where we're not yet at.

In my role as the guardian of the staffing process, we will continue with the language testing. We will continue to renew those language tests. We will renew and have more information about what the language test means, because that has gotten out of date. So we will do that and we will continue with our insistence on enforcing that language is an essential element of the merit test.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rickford.

Ms. Barrados, you know that the committee conducted a study in which it was found that 5,000 bilingual positions had to be filled in the public service.

Do you have the total number of persons hired by the Canadian public service for 2010? How many of that number were bilingual?

[Maria Barrados]

We have those figures and we can provide them to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Excellent. Thank you very much.

We're going to begin our second round with a former committee member who is with us this morning.

Welcome, Mr. D'Amours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure you're pleased that I'm here this morning.

Thank you for being with us, Ms. Barrados and Mr. Lemaire.

I'm going to make an observation, Ms. Barrados. Roughly speaking, you at the Public Service Commission are responsible for administering the Public Service Employment Act, which includes monitoring the official languages file. Your organization has received disturbing marks, an overall mark of C. However, it should have gotten an A.

How can we ensure that the public service as a whole gets an A if those responsible for enforcing linguistic and employment requirements in the public service are ultimately unable to get an A? Perhaps the idea of getting an A is dreaming in technicolour. Perhaps you could get a B because B generally seems to be the highest mark among all those we checked. It's a bit disturbing to see that you yourselves aren't able to achieve a level of excellence, whereas the others which you provide with employees are required to achieve a level of excellence.

[Maria Barrados]

That's a very good question. I wasn't pleased about getting a C either. I must say I believe the commissioner's standard was higher than usual because a C corresponds to a mark of 60 to 69, whereas, for the commissioner, a C means a mark of 70 to 79.

We lost the largest number of points on aspects of Part VII, and we achieved a very high level on virtually all other measures, except with regard to matters pertaining to the lack of recent plans. Marks were very, very high on other measures, in a number of respects, except with regard to Part VII.

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

Ms. Barrados, in fact, you are there to enforce the language provisions. That's your mandate. And you were only able to get the same mark, C, on language of work. There's no excellence at that level. I don't want to take anything away from the fact that there are champions in the various departments, but that, at some point, is the target.

You may be disappointed at getting a C, but we can ask ourselves the question: why were you disappointed after seeing the results? That means that some things didn't go well at your department in recent years for you to come up with those results. You're not even able to achieve a level of excellence on language of work, and it's you who must enforce the language provisions in the public service.

Instead you should examine your conscience and realize that some things were taken lightly, set aside or not carefully examined. Something's wrong. Something besides apologizing has to be done after that; you have to examine your conscience and say that there are problems specific to the system that we ourselves are managing.

[Maria Barrados]

I'm going to go back to the subject of official languages champions at the commission. It's not as serious as that in our case. If we take a detailed look at the figures, we realize that a lot of things work very, very well at the commission.

We targeted areas where there was room for improvement, but the big loss for us is Part VII. As I said in response to other questions, I'm prepared to do what I can do for Part VII, but, in view of my mandate at the commission, what I can do is not very clear. Our organization really operates in both official languages. We have very good ratings on offer of service, not in accordance with active offer standards, but all other measures are very, very positive. The representation measures are positive. We clearly have to make these improvements. That's good to remember, but Part VII is a challenge for me.

Donald.

[Donald Lemaire]

I was also surprised at our result on Part VII because I thought we were doing a good job. Following the discussions, we understood that that was definitely not the case. So we have to focus on that.

Let's talk about the organization's operation: I've worked at six different departments, and I have to say that this is the organization in which bilingualism is most in effect, most vibrant and active. That's why, at times, when we look at the result—

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

That's scary. You just mentioned that you thought it was the best place. So we have a problem, sir.

[Donald Lemaire]

It's mainly in day-to-day practice, when we have our meetings and bilingualism is really in effect, that we have a more direct appreciation.

As regards the 2008 survey, as the president already said, there were excellent results.

We really have to pay attention to certain areas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much.

We'll continue with Ms. Guay.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for being here today.

As you see, there are a lot of concerns around the table. If you read the report, I think a certain amount of perspective can also be seen. You aren't pleased about getting a C, so you change the marks. I'm not in favour of that. If you got a C, you deserved it. The commissioner doesn't do that work to punish you, but rather to improve the situation. So you have to accept it and make an extra effort.

Mr. Lemaire, you say that you see the most bilingualism in the departments. However, perhaps you should also tell us about what's going on elsewhere. You can't just talk to us about the departments.

We're also talking about a bilingual public service, but the people who join the public service may be unilingual, commit to learning their second language and extend their term. If they have five years to learn the second language, that period of time can be extended and they are entitled to another five-year period. So they need 10 years to learn the second language. That will have to be corrected at some point. That doesn't promote bilingualism, and that's why you get these kinds of marks. I'd like to hear what you have to say on that.

[Maria Barrados]

I'd like to start and then hand over to Mr. Lemaire. We have an obligation to the entire country, but the country isn't bilingual everywhere. We also have to give unilingual people a chance. It's the country. We want to have a bilingual public service.

People who join the public service must want to become bilingual. It's not just the employer's obligation either. People can use other means to become bilingual. They can take courses, attend meetings and do other bilingual things. I think it's important to give everyone that chance.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I agree with you on that. I'm not at all opposed to it. I'm saying that people abuse the system. You don't seem to have any way to compel these people who occupy such important positions to speak the second official language, whether it's French or English. You don't seem to have the tools to act. Mr. Lemaire seems to have something to add.

[Maria Barrados]

We do it in the staffing process.

[Donald Lemaire]

Following this committee's 2005 report, which stated that language requirements were not being met in more than 800 cases, the commission made a commitment to follow up those files very closely, and now only 50 are left.

We also now have a new order stating that, when an individual accepts a position and makes a commitment to become bilingual in the context of his or her position, that person has two years to become bilingual in accordance with the standards of the position. There is also the possibility of a two-year extension. Consequently, an individual has a maximum of four years. At the end of four years, if that persons does not meet the language requirements, he or she must be transferred to another position. That person may not keep the same position. In addition, we now conduct an annual follow-up of these files and we are requiring departments to shift those individuals to positions where they meet language requirements.

In the past, that went on forever, but with the new order and the follow-up we've put in place, that's changed a lot. There were nearly 900 cases at first.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Do we have any time left? I'm going to let my colleague continue.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

In the second volume of this year's report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the question of the possibility of writing in one's own language was a big concern for me. If you consider all the departments, it's zero out of 16. At the press conference where Mr. Fraser made his report public, I cited an actual example. It was the example of someone who wrote his report in French and sent then it through the machine. His text was sent for translation. When it came back, it wasn't exactly what they wanted. It went back to the person who wrote it in French, who looked at the text translated from English to French to see whether the right thing had been translated. The spirit of it wasn't there for certain aspects.

What mechanisms do you put in place, or are in place, to ensure that people can write in their own language and be understood by the senior officials above them?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Nadeau, I'm going to ask you to wait for an answer to that question. We are going to go to Mr. Rickford, but we'll have time for a third round.

Mr. Rickford.