Official Languages Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2022

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Silas, thank you for your efforts. Early on in my career, I was a member of the public service for four years.

You currently have a working group focusing on second-language training and distance learning. Can you tell us more about that in 30 seconds?

What positive measures or ideas could we come up with to improve matters as you continue your consultations on second-language training?

[Alex Silas]

Documents must be sent in both official languages and managers must be able to communicate in both official languages

Information disseminated within the federal public service and to the Canadian public must be effectively communicated in both official languages. Once again, I would also mention the bilingualism bonus and access to in-house training.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Silas and Mr. Serré.

The second vice-chair of our committee will ask the next questions.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have six minutes.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

My first question will be for Mr. Normand, from the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne.

When you consider federal funding for universities and colleges, you discuss positive measures, by which I mean agreements and memoranda of understanding with the provinces and so on.

Have you also looked at all the federal grants that are provided through other channels such as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Health Canada, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. There are a lot of foundations. Have you looked into that?

[Martin Normand]

We're in touch with the major granting councils to ensure that they provide adequate funding for French-language research and research on francophone communities and that the condition that research be conducted in French across the country is adequately met.

So we're in touch with them, and that's why we hope the commitment to support scientific research will be clearer in the bill to ensure that the granting councils, which fall under the umbrella of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, are more directly called upon to take action and establish new positive measures to improve the situation of French-language research.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I don't know whether you've considered the case of Quebec more extensively, but, in overall terms, anglophone universities in Quebec receive 30% of funding, even though mother tongue anglophones represent 8.4% of the population. According to figures from 2000 to 2017, federal funding for English-language universities rose from 34.5% of total funding to 38.4% over that period.

According to the only study I've seen that deals with this, funding for French-language university services outside Quebec—I don't mean French-language universities, since there aren't many—fall below the percentage of francophones in the population

Have you looked at that?

[Martin Normand]

We looked at some figures, particularly with the Institutes of Health Research, to get a clearer picture of what's being invested in French-language research. Apart from that, what we've managed to document, particularly through the summit on French-language post-secondary education and the Association francophone pour le savoir, or ACFAS, as part of a major research project that has been conducted in recent years, is that there are systemic barriers to conducting research in French in Canada.

Apart from the money that goes to anglophones or francophones, there are barriers that put francophones at a disadvantage in the scholarship-awarding process. We see this at our member institutions. However, I can't speak for Quebec institutions. There are measures here that we could implement with the granting councils to reduce those barriers and facilitate access to research funding for our researchers, and to ensure that grant applications are reviewed fairly and French-language knowledge is also adequately disseminated.

That's why we feel that the suggestion we're making with respect to the part of Bill C-13 concerning scientific information in French is important. It would lend substance to the far more foundational commitment outlined in the February 2021 white paper.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Perhaps I'll send you some documentation. This has been under study in Quebec for some years. There's a real imbalance between funding for English-language universities in Quebec and that for francophone universities and colleges outside Quebec.

My next question is for the people from the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

According to a recent Radio-Canada study, 68% of federal public servants in Quebec are required to be bilingual compared to only 13% outside Quebec. Other studies have shown that more than 40% of francophones across Canada, in Quebec and elsewhere, aren't comfortable working in French. Do you have any measures to suggest that might alter that trend?

The Quebec government has forwarded its demands. In particular, it asks that we take measures to ensure that French is the predominant language in federal institutions located in regions with large francophone populations.

What you think of that?

[Alex Silas]

I agree with it entirely. Linguistic insecurity exists within the federal public service. We often hear that the federal public service is anglophone or bilingual, but not anglophone and francophone. The pandemic has definitely exacerbated the situation.

Francophones often feel they have to speak their second language, English, when interpretation isn't available or not fast enough, so their colleagues can understand. Anglophones, in turn, don't feel comfortable speaking French for fear of being judged.

The employer has a duty to make language training accessible and free of charge for its workers. If the government really wants to support both official languages and to address linguistic insecurity, it must expand language training in house to encourage its anglophone and francophone workers to improve their second language.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Are there any places in New Brunswick's public service where French is the common language?

[Alex Silas]

Absolutely. New Brunswick is a proudly bilingual province with a large Acadian population that mainly speaks French in the workplace and in their communities. I would add that there are francophone communities across the country, in Ontario, Alberta and Yukon. We're virtually everywhere and we should have the option of speaking both English and French, especially in the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Silas.

We will end this final six-minute round of questions with Ms. Ashton, who is speaking to us from Manitoba.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses, including my former colleague Doré Lefebvre. It's very nice to see you in this committee.

First I have some questions for the PSAC people.

I'll start off by telling you that we very much appreciate the work you're doing to acknowledge the indigenous languages spoken by public service employees. This is a measure that we support 100%, and we hope the government will establish a bilingualism bonus for indigenous workers who speak their language in the public service. This is a matter of fairness, but also reconciliation.

My question is for Mr. Silas and concerns the bill.

The right of francophones to work in French in the public service has long been threatened. Yvon Barrière, vice-president of PSAC's Quebec region, illustrated the problem when he said that deputy ministers and senior officials shouldn't be limited to being able to work in the language of their choice but should also be able to do so in the language of the employees they work with.

Although 31% of public service employees are francophone, only 19% of deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers can speak French. The Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, reacted to the tabling of Bill C-13 by observing that not many changes or improvements had been made regarding the right to work in the language of one's choice.

How do PSAC members view the impact of this bill when the measures proposed in it clearly don't address the scope of the problem?

[Alex Silas]

Thank you for that question, Ms. Ashton, and for reminding me that francophones in Manitoba also have a right to be served in French.

As my colleague Mr. Barrière noted, PSAC members tell us they don't feel comfortable speaking the language of their choice when their manager is unable to communicate in both languages. All federal public service workers should have the option of speaking in the language in which they feel most comfortable.

To achieve that goal, we must improve access to training, and that training must be provided in house. Measures must also be introduced to encourage people to improve their second language by, for example, increasing the bilingualism bonus, which hasn't been raised in half a century.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you.

I have a second question for you.

Language training needs clearly aren't temporary. Language training is a continuing need in the public service and will remain so, as you said, as long as French is still threatened. If language training is a permanent need in the public service, it makes no sense to me that it should constantly be contracted to outside suppliers.

Shouldn't the public service have its own language training provided by its own workers?

[Alex Silas]

Absolutely. We have numerous examples that show that contracting out and privatizing public services reduce service quality for both public servants and the public, and language training services are no exception. All language training and translation services should be provided in house, and that training should be provided by federal public service employees.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you for your answers.

My next question is for you, Mr. Normand.

The last time people from your organization appeared before this committee we had a chance to discuss the shortcomings of the official languages in education program. Programs like OLEP don't help post-secondary educational institutions carry out their mandates since funding isn't provided on a project basis.

In our view, the government should include in the Official Languages Act an obligation to negotiate language clauses to ensure that francophone communities receive the services they deserve, and the government should intervene in the absence of such provisions.

Failing an agreement with the provinces, should the federal government grant funding to post-secondary educational institutions that provide services to official language minority communities to help them carry out their mandate?

[Martin Normand]

Thank you for your question, Ms. Normand.

The federal government sets pubic policy objectives, and we believe that our postsecondary institutions will be allies in achieving these objectives. With this measure, the federal government could intervene directly with our institutions to support the programs, activities and services they provide. It would enable the government to meet its targets.

The federal government has set an individual bilingualism target level for 2036, and another for francophone immigration. Our institutions contribute directly to meeting these two targets. There are also targets for access to early childcare services. That will be the responsibility of our colleges. They need to provide this training if we are to have enough francophone and bilingual workers to provide services in French in childcare centres.

Our institutions can be key players if the federal government adopts appropriate public policy objectives. The federal government can take action and provide direct support to institutions.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you very much Mr. Normand.

That's it, Ms. Ashton.

We'll begin the second round of questions with Mr. Gourde.

Over to you for five minutes Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here. I'll be brief, because five minutes is not a lot of time.

My first question is for you Mr. Normand.

Are you in favour of the several amendments requested by the Commissioner of Official Languages in his brief ?

[Martin Normand]

We're here to defend the positions we put forward in our brief. The Commissioner can defend the positions he seeks to strengthen his role.

We believe the Commissioner is a key player who must have the means and resources to ensure that federal institutions comply with the Official Languages Act.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Normand, do you want to amend section 41, which does not provide a timeline for the introduction of regulations? You have said that Bill C-13 Should include a timeline. Should it be four months, six months, a year, two years? What do you think it should be?

[Martin Normand]

I don't have a specific opinion about the timing. I think we need to allow the stakeholders and the government to establish the regulations. But this needs to be done soon. The timeline would avoid the mistake that was made in 1988, meaning promising regulations that were never introduced and are still not there 35 years later.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

So you believe that it is important to establish a timeline. If the act doesn't specify one, it will likely still take a long time.

[Martin Normand]

We believe that the political will is there for regulations, but we would feel reassured if a deadline could be set so that all official languages stakeholders would have a framework from which they could work to devise, deploy and evaluate positive steps.