Official Languages Committee on Dec. 14th, 2010

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses today.

My first question might be a bit more of a clarification than anything. In the report, there was a comment by the commissioner that:

[m]any problems are still hindering the use of English and French as languages of work in the federal public service.

[However]...the 2008 Public Service Employee Survey found a significant increase in English-speaking employees’ satisfaction with the status of English in Citizenship and Immigration Canada offices in Quebec. The percentage of workers satisfied with the situation rose from 59% in 2007–2008 to 86% in 2008–2009.

In the last sentence, does the percentage of workers refer to French speaking and English speaking? The sentences that precede it seem to focus on English-speaking employees' satisfaction.

[Neil Yeates]

Mr. Chair, I think the anglophone and francophone staff were separated out in terms of assessing the survey results.

If I could speak briefly, we did undertake some significant efforts in the Quebec region to improve this situation, and we did see a dramatic improvement between the two surveys.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Was that overall, Mr. Yeates?

[Neil Yeates]

Overall, the results, we felt, were pretty good, but we've seen dramatic improvements in results for anglophones in the Quebec region, when you separate out that portion of the response.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Out of curiosity, what would be the discrepancy between the numbers for English speakers and French speakers? Do you happen to know that?

[Neil Yeates]

They were very similar, actually. I think the average for the department was 86% for anglophone employees in Quebec. The average for all departments was 74%, so that was high.

I'm just looking for the overall CIC number here. Sorry, I'll have to find that.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

That's fine. You can get back to us. Thanks.

The report states, “According to information gathered by the Office of the Commissioner, Citizenship and Immigration Canada is one of the federal institutions that are most successful in taking into account the development of official language communities when implementing key intervention programs.”

It also says you are working in cooperation with the Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité. How are you doing so?

Also, what have you done to study the hiring needs of businesses outside of Quebec with respect to French-speaking immigrants?

[Neil Yeates]

Thank you. Mr. Linklater is our champion.

Go ahead.

[Les Linklater]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I said earlier, we work very closely with the FCFA and with minority communities across the country.

As part of our work plan, we cooperate with the RDÉE, since their people work with Human Resources and Skills Development in order to determine specific employers' needs and to help us match employers' needs and those of specific immigrants who want to work in Canada.

This initiative on our part corresponds to employers' needs. At the same time, every year overseas with Destination Canada, potential immigrants from Europe, Africa and the Middle East are matched with employers from the provinces and territories, and a pool of potential immigrants is developed to fill the positions available here in Canada.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Linklater.

Mr. Yeates, your department received an overall rating of “C”. As you pointed out, you received an “A” regarding parts VI and VII of the Official Language Act.

I have two questions.

You have worked in many federal and provincial government departments and ministries. Regarding the areas in which you received a “C” rating and in the other departments—

consistently at this committee we're dealing with--or at least my line of questioning is focused on--the things you have done that are good in areas where the commissioner has recognized as much with a grade, say, of an A, and how those things can be transportable to the areas where you didn't perform as well. And perhaps, very briefly, Mr. Yeates, is there best practices stuff in here that we can transport to other departments in the government? We're having trouble getting answers to those questions. We've had other departments that face other challenges. I realize there is some uniqueness or it's nuanced. Can you comment on that as somebody who's worked in, at least as far as I can see, perhaps six to ten different departments?

[Neil Yeates]

Yes, thank you.

I can identify a number of things that I think have been important. Part of what we've worked hard to do in Citizenship and Immigration is to recruit a very diverse workforce. That has been very important for us, and it includes a strong francophone representation in our workforce.

We've located our national call centre in Montreal, which is a very good population to draw from in terms of bilingualism. The staff there are very strongly bilingual, so that was a good place to locate a national call centre. That's been important for us.

Beyond that, we've identified people to champion specific initiatives—and Mr. Linklater is doing that with the francophone minority communities. We undertook special efforts, when the results came out with respect to anglophones in Quebec, to establish some special initiatives there. One example, which has been quoted in some reports, is the use of a buddy system to team people up with a supervisor or a colleague who works in the other language to allow them a better opportunity to practice their language skills.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Would you recommend that practice overall in departments?

[Neil Yeates]

Yes, we think that's something worth looking at. Those kinds of things can make a difference in the scheme. In fact, they're small things. It's largely a matter of creating a culture where people are more attuned to these issues and working on them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Rickford.

We'll now begin our second round.

We will begin with Ms. Zarac.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello. I am very interested in the lowest rating you scored, 29%, for telephone service. You seem to be saying that the commissioner's observations were inaccurate. Does your interactive response system ask clients what language they prefer?

[Neil Yeates]

I think so.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

At what point?

[Claudette Deschênes]

At the very beginning of the call.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Okay. Did you discuss the 29% rating with the commissioner?

[Claudette Deschênes]

We began discussing it. Before the report was released, we did not discuss the methodology.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

No, I mean after the report was released.

[Claudette Deschênes]

We are working with him at this time. He just sent us his methodology last Friday. We will be having other meetings with the commissioner.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Okay. I am looking at the reasons you gave and I would like to come back to the table that indicates the 29% rating. The paragraph explaining the rating is on page 10 of the commissioner's report. It states:

Citizenship and Immigration Canada obtained a much lower score in this area than the other 15 institutions. The department answered less than one third of all calls from English-speaking Quebecers and French-speaking Canadians in other provinces in the official language of their choice.

It does not say that callers did not receive a response; it says that they did not receive a response in the official language of their choice. Is that how you understand it?

[Claudette Deschênes]

That is not what the research table we received on Friday tells us. That is why we want to follow up on it. That is not what is understood from the table.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Okay. From the report, I understand that Canadians did not receive an answer in their language. This must be clarified, because this would require different remedial action. In light of that, did you verify your interactive response system again to make sure it was sufficient, that it was meeting clients' needs?