Official Languages Committee on March 22nd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I'd like to welcome everyone to the 53rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

This morning, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f), we have the 2009-10 annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which was referred to the committee on Tuesday, November 2, 2010.

We are pleased to have with us officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I would like to welcome to our committee the Deputy MInister, Mr. Morris Rosenberg. With him is the Director General and Official Languages Champion, Ms. Roxanne Dubé, whom we have met with previously. We also welcome Ms. Monica Janecek, Diector, Corporate Resourcing Division.

Without further ado, I invite you to make your opening statement, Mr. Rosenberg.

[Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Honourable Members of Parliament.

It is my pleasure to be here today to answer your questions regarding the Commissioner of Official Languages' Report Card on the application of the Official Languages Act at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

I understand that you have already heard from Susan Gregson, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources as well as from Christine Desloges, the Chief Executive Officer of Passport Canada. I also believe you have received a series of documents on the work being carried out by our department in the area of official languages.

In November 2010, for the first time, the department was the subject of a report card. We recognize that the overall rating of E is very poor and that we're one of three institutions to have received this rating. We're concerned, and we are already taking concrete steps to improve those areas requiring attention. You have my commitment that we are taking this seriously.

Our first step was to invite Graham Fraser, the commissioner, to present to our executive committee to discuss the report card results. That meeting took place on December 20, 2010.

I'd like to now address each of the five measures that made up the overall report card result and explain what corrective action we're taking.

First, we received an A for Part VI of the Official Languages Act - Participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. We presently have a francophone workforce that exceeds the rate of the Canadian population.

The reality is that 36% of our workforce is francophone, while the Canadian francophone population is 25%. I believe this feature, combined with the importance DFAIT personnel accord to actively representing our linguistic duality abroad, is a strong foundation on which to build our corrective action on official languages.

For the measure concerning overall management of the official languages program, we received a D. Although we were recognized for our good overall management of the official languages program in areas such as policy development, employee awareness, and complaint resolution, we lacked mechanisms to promote understanding of part IV, communication with and services to the public, and part VII, the minority language communities. Our action plan was considered to have ill-defined objectives and unclear monitoring mechanisms.

To rectify this, we're finalizing the development of a comprehensive new official languages action plan for 2011 and onwards. The plan is an important part of our corporate planning and is in keeping with our report on plans and priorities for 2011-12, which commits to an active promotion of the use of official languages in the workplace. The plan includes the implementation of strategies and monitoring mechanisms to improve the management of the official languages program and to increase the visibility of official languages in the department. It will be brought for review and approval at the executive council in May, following ongoing consultations within our headquarters, regional offices, missions abroad, and key partners with respect to part VII of the act, the official language minority communities. I'd be pleased to forward a copy to the committee once it's completed.

To ensure a broad and coherent planning and implementation process, we have accelerated the work of our Network of Official Languages Coordinators which represents HQ, regions and all our missions abroad, that is over 150 offices. The network holds quarterly meetings, chaired by our Official Languages Champion.The action plan will take further steps in response to the concerns voiced by some members of this committee with respect to the active offer of service in both official languages by our missions abroad.

This relates to the third measure evaluated by the Commissioner: Service to the Public (Part IV)(3), for which we received a C. The Commissioner acknowledged that the service we provided by e-mail was available 100% of the time in the official language of choice and that visual active offer was present 97% of the time. The Commissioner found, however, that service in the language of the minority was available 92% of the time.

However, we recognize there's work to be done to improve active offer of service in person and by phone. This was only done 56% of the time and 69% of the time respectively.

To address this, and with regard to the specific cases raised by members of this committee, we wrote to all our heads of mission and asked them to provide us with measures they have implemented to ensure bilingual service to the public. Missions responded with several positive proactive measures to ensure linguistic duality in services offered by all relevant sections of our mission. An example is the immigration section, which I take it was the subject of some discussion here.

Allow me to make reference to a few of the good practices they noted, such as maintaining a roster of bilingual staff available to provide services in both languages, conducting surveys on the quality of consular services offered to the public, reminding employees of the importance of offering an active offer of service in both languages, and ensuring that locally engaged employees receive training to maintain a level of bilingualism.

I'd like to note that since we have more than 5,000 locally engaged staff in our workforce, some considerable effort is required to ensure an active offer of bilingual service is systematically given in certain locations.

I have also asked that the assessment of official languages which is part of every mission inspection be the subject of a distinct section of the report, which as you know, is made public. From now on, the inspection on official languages will be more detailed and will cover the services offered by our partner departments, such as Immigration Canada. We will also intensify periodic, unannounced, independent verification, particularly in the wake of complaints, to ensure that remedial action is sustained. I have also put this issue on the agenda of the next meeting of the deputy ministers committee on representation abroad to ensure a solid interdepartmental partnership in the delivery of bilingual services abroad.

Finally, we have reviewed our approach to the training of heads of mission to ensure additional time and material is made available to them to review our obligations with respect to official languages. I will underline the leadership role our heads of mission are called upon to play in this area when I address them this spring. A session was also held on March 8 with the managers of our regional offices across Canada on this issue.

We believe strongly that every Canadian should be able to be served in their first language in our offices abroad and at home. We'll continue to provide awareness sessions on service to the public to all our staff; to provide missions with a glossary of basic bilingual terms and phrases; to regularly remind all employees, especially replacements for receptionists, about the tools at their disposal and the importance of locating a French-speaking employee should a visitor require service in French; to increase the signage that indicates we offer bilingual services; to conduct regular verification of active offer of service; and to meet with all staff to discuss the importance of providing an active offer of bilingual services at all times.

We received an E for Language of Work, Part V of the Official Languages Act. This is due to the fact that according to the 2008 Public Service Employee Survey, only 57% of our francophone employees felt free to write in the language of their choice and only 67% felt free to interact with their supervisors in their language of choice. To address this, we have just received fresh recommendations from a senior level committee which was struck to look at language of work issues.

The recommendations are now being implemented. They deal with issues of leadership, performance management, awareness, support, and tools for employees. As a result, we're providing more awareness sessions on language of work; we just gave one on February 22, and it was well attended. Of course senior management committees are routinely conducted in a bilingual format, and senior management has proactively encouraged all employees to write their briefing notes and other documents in the language of their choice.

We have invited Monique Collette, who has led a comprehensive study on how to create and promote a truly bilingual workforce, to address our departmental employees next Monday. She follows Graham Fraser, who addressed all DFAIT managers in late 2009.

Our Official Language Champion has created a web page to provide a one-stop point of service for a range of tools and best practices on official languages.

We received an E on development of official language minority communities and promotion of linguistic duality.

Having read the commissioner's report card on part VII, I have given thought to DFAIT's approach to supporting official language minority communities. It seems to me that our actions are concentrated in three main areas: first, in projecting Canada's values abroad, we play a critical role in ensuring that our country's linguistic duality acknowledges the presence and importance of official language minority communities as an essential component of the Canadian fabric; second, in attracting students to Canada, we take into consideration the needs and interests of official language minority communities; third, we recognize official language minority communities as important interlocutors and partners in advancing Canadian interests and values abroad, both with respect to key programs such as La Francophonie as well as in shaping Canada's foreign and trade policy and programs as a whole.

To further this effort, I will be inviting representatives of the official languages minority communities to an annual dialogue to provide them with a more formal and holistic opportunity to review and comment on all of our programs and policies, as well as to provide the department, including myself, with an opportunity to listen to the needs and challenges of these communities.

We will also continue to educate and increase the awareness of managers and employees on Part VII of the Official Languages Act by continuing to provide awareness sessions.

We are reviewing our tools and procedures to better assess the impact of programming decisions on OLMCs. This will take some time and effort.

In closing, I would like to say that we are well aware that there is still work to be done, and we would like to assure the committee that we will pursue initiatives already under way and will continue to evaluate how we can improve all aspects of the Official Languages Act at our department.

I will now be happy to answer your questions, if I can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rosenberg.

Mrs. Zarac will lead off the first round.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon and thank you for joining us today.

You stated that you were in the process of developing an official languages action plan. Did you have such a plan in the past?

[Morris Rosenberg]

Yes, we did.

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

What years did the plan cover?

[Morris Rosenberg]

If I'm not mistaken, the plan covered the period from 2009 to 2010. It ended in 2010.

[Roxanne Dubé, Director General and Champion of Official Languages, Corporate Secretariat, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

The plan covered the period from 2008 to 2010.

[Morris Rosenberg]

That's right, from 2008 to 2010. I was appointed Assistant Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in June of 2010. So then, I wasn't around when the last plan was developed.

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

The Commissioner's report card did not assign very good grades to your department. Was the plan in keeping with the department's needs?

[Morris Rosenberg]

Are you referring to the former plan, or to the one that is currently being developed?

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

I'm talking about the former plan.

[Morris Rosenberg]

In my opinion, the plan had some shortcomings in terms of measuring performance, for example. We will try to make improvements in this area in the next plan. This is the first time that the Commissioner of Official Languages has given a grade to the department and we take this very seriously.

We have carefully considered the Commissioner's comments. At the very least, the action plan must address the concerns identified in the Commissioner's report.

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

I congratulate you on meeting with the Commissioner. I think that was a step in the right direction.

I have a more specific question for you. In order to address the concerns mentioned in the Commissioner's report, did you take an objective look at your plan to determine what wasn't working so that you could then develop a new one?

[Morris Rosenberg]

I'll ask Ms. Dubé to field that question.

[Roxanne Dubé]

Thank you for that question, Mrs. Zarac.

Further to the Commissioner's comments, we met with the staff in the Commissioner's office to get a clear idea of our shortcomings in each of the areas mentioned.

Subsequently, we drew up a list of our strengths, and shortcomings, in each area. Then, based on our findings, we formulated a new action plan. Mr. Rosenberg mentioned many of the initiatives in the plan.

We are currently consulting with our staff on this action plan, and soon we will carry out an external consultation. We will be happy to provide the committee with a copy of the plan.

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

So the consultation process is under way.

When do you expect to complete your plan?

[Roxanne Dubé]

Mr. Rosenberg said it would be brought before the executive council, the department's most senior decision-making authority, in May. After that, we will be able to provide a copy to the members of the committee.

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

There is something I find a bit troubling. You said you held management meetings and that those meetings were conducted in a bilingual format. And yet, 57% of your employees said they did not feel they could communicate in the language of their choice.

How do you explain that?

[Morris Rosenberg]

I will try.

The way I see it, official languages is an area that requires leadership and the use of every possible tool, such as legislation—

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

Forgive me for interrupting, Mr. Rosenberg.

You said you encouraged employees to write in the language of their choice. If an employee gives their supervisor a French-language document, is the supervisor able to understand it or does the supervisor have to send it to translation?

[Morris Rosenberg]

Theoretically, the supervisor is supposed to be able to understand it, and theoretically, the employee has the right to use the language of their choice.

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

You said theoretically, but what about realistically?

[Morris Rosenberg]

It has to do with the culture. How do you change the culture? First of all, you change the culture by having those at the top lead by example. So we are first making an effort to conduct our meetings in a bilingual format, within our other committees, in other words, the executive council and the committees that I or an assistant deputy minister chairs.

That means that the meetings of the executive council or the policy committee that I chair, for instance, are conducted in both languages. Francophones speak French or English, and the same goes for anglophones. They are not reluctant, they use the language of their choice. Both languages are used. But that is not all. We use documents similar to decks. You are no doubt familiar with decks. They may be in English with a French translation, for example. In our department, we use a bilingual document, in other words, half English and half French. One page is in English, and the other is in French. We do that to try to promote the use of both languages.

But we realize that we cannot limit our efforts to the most senior levels of the department, even though it does send the right message. We also need to actively encourage employees at all levels to use the language of their choice.

How do we do that? We started down that path a few weeks ago, by asking our deputy ministers to spread the word that employees should communicate with us in the language of their choice, both orally and in writing.

The next step will be to ask our assistant deputy ministers to convey the exact same message to employees in their offices and to ask the director and director general to keep driving home the same message. We also need to find ways of measuring how effective that is.

What can we do to measure the effectiveness? A few things. Surveys are one way. No public service employee survey was conducted last year, but I think one will be done this year. It includes questions on the use of official languages. So that is one way.

The other way—and no decisions have been made yet, but it is under consideration—is the use of something called 360-degree feedback. It is an evaluation method where managers are assessed not only by their supervisors but also by their employees, so they, too, get a chance to give their feedback on the management style.

Obviously, with 360-degree feedback, protecting the anonymity of respondents and asking questions on the use of official languages will be key.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Ms. Zarac.

We will continue with Mr. Nadeau.