Official Languages Committee on Feb. 14th, 2023

[Carsten Quell]

Thank you for that question.

As I explained, at present, it only affects designated bilingual regions, where the right to work in the language of their choice exists. In bilingual regions, there are bilingual teams and unilingual teams.

Take the example of Quebec. In Montreal, which is considered to be a bilingual region, we have a team made up exclusively of francophones with a francophone supervisor. At present, the supervisor does not need to be bilingual because they are supervising a team of francophones.

Under this amendment, even though the employees are in unilingual French positions, they would be entitled to choose to be supervised in English. In that case, the supervisor would have to be bilingual.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Is that clear?

Mr. Godin, the floor is yours.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Quell, you say the supervisor doesn't have to be bilingual if a francophone employee wants to communicate with them in French. However, if the supervisor wants to communicate with their unilingual English superior, there is a communication breakdown in the hierarchy of the institution.

How does that work in reality?

[Carsten Quell]

The higher you go in the federal hierarchy, the more designated bilingual positions there are, precisely because the person has to be able to convey messages in both languages and supervise a bigger team. However, in this case, the teams are smaller, are lower down in the hierarchy, and consist of employees whose positions are designated in the same language: French, for example. These employees have agreed to work in a unilingual French position.

Should the supervisor of a group of employees who hold unilingual positions be bilingual? We think the answer is no, because the supervisor is supervising only employees who hold unilingual positions.

Proposed amendment CPC-18 would require that the supervisor be bilingual in the event that an employee who held a unilingual French position chose to be supervised in English. That is a very rare case, but it is a possibility in a bilingual region. A person could get up one day and decide that even though they are in a unilingual French position, they would like to be supervised in English. That is the kind of case in issue here, and it's for that kind of case that we would require supervisors to take language training and to spend money.

It is very unlikely that a supervisor would have to supervise a team in another language, given that the people are in unilingual French positions.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I want to comment on the word you used. In a bilingual country like Canada, it would not be spending money, but rather investing in the two official languages.

I have another question for you, Mr. Quell.

I understand that you don't have the figures in front of you, but can you give us a picture of the current language situation in the federal public service? What proportions of people are bilingual, unilingual English and unilingual French?

[Carsten Quell]

Obviously, I do not have the figures in front of me, but I can tell you that 42 per cent of positions in the federal public service are bilingual. In the national capital region and other designated bilingual regions, of course, there is a higher percentage of bilingual positions.

The reason why a majority of positions in the federal public service are unilingual is that those positions are in western, northern and eastern Canada or in unilingual francophone regions of Quebec.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I have another question to ask, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I have a question for my colleague Mr. Drouin, who is an excellent chair of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, and who sits with us on the Standing Committee on Official Languages and presented the subamendment under discussion.

In subparagraph 36(1)(c)(i) that you are proposing in your subamendment, Mr. Drouin, what do you mean by "lorsqu'ils exercent leurs attributions à titre de gestionnaires ou de superviseurs"?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Of course, you are addressing the chair when you ask your question, Mr. Godin, as I understood it.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

After reading the text in both languages, I would say that what it means here is carry out their duties.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

In that case, Mr. Chair, should the wording not be clarified? If the word "attributions" is used, it seems to be lacking something.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You are asking me the question, but I'm just chairing the meeting.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, you told me two second ago to address you.

[Some hon. members]

Ha, ha!

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Your first instinct was perfect; that is, you should address me, but I am not the one who will be commenting in reply to your question. That is not my role.

Mr. Drouin, the floor is yours.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I am going to ask the officials the same question, because they are the ones who are going to be responsible for administering the Official Languages Act.

How do you interpret the word "attributions"?

[Carsten Quell]

A manager is a manager until they are working with their superior manager, in which case they become an employee.

Here, we simply want to be sure that when a manager is managing a team, they supervise the team in the official language chosen by the team. However, when a manager is addressing their superior, they are no longer a manager; they are an employee, and as such, they are entirely entitled to work in the language of their choice.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

So it applies if the manager is addressing their director, if the director is addressing their director general, if the director general is addressing their assistant deputy minister, if the assistant deputy minister is addressing their...

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

"There's a hole in the bucket"...

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

That's really what that means, isn't it?

[Carsten Quell]

It's exactly that.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, the floor is yours.

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

I want to be sure I have properly understood what you are saying.

Basically, if the proposed subamendment were adopted, it would mean that in Quebec, for example, all managers in question would have to know English. They would be required to be bilingual, so if they already know French, it means they would all have to know English as well.