Official Languages Committee on March 21st, 2024

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

Just look into it. We had an immigration lawyer here who's been working in the field for 30 years. He said things are steadily getting worse, not better. We'll see what happens next, but it doesn't look like things are improving. I hope that you'll pass the message along and that steps will be taken to address this.

Moving to another topic, Ms. Hamoui, lately, we've been seeing fewer francophone appointments to key government positions than in past years. Why do you think that is?

[Rima Hamoui]

As I said before, the data we collect vary from month to month and from year to year, every time we make appointments. For context, the Governor in Council is responsible for filling some 2,200 positions. We make about 500 to 800 appointments a year. Every time we make an appointment, that changes the data. Currently, 23% of GIC appointees report French as their first official language, and it's 31% for public service executives. So again, we look at the data, we provide advice to decision-makers, and we make sure there are no downward trends. However, I think it would be impossible to say exactly why.

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

I understand. You're public servants and you can't criticize or take a political position. The fact remains that all stakeholders who aren't in your position seem to be saying that we aren't headed in the right direction.

For example, you said that people have to be bilingual before they're appointed, although I don't remember which positions that was for. However, earlier, in response to my colleague's question, you said that, no, people don't have to be bilingual before they're appointed. We see it all the time. People who aren't bilingual, who don't know French before being appointed—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 15 seconds.

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

—and who get training that just doesn't cut it.

Anyway, I'm out of time.

[Rima Hamoui]

Could I just clarify something?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have five seconds.

[Rima Hamoui]

There are different positions with different criteria. Some appointees must be bilingual at the time of their appointment. For others, it's not essential, but it's certainly preferable.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Okay, thank you very much.

The next round of questions goes to the NDP for six minutes.

Ms. Ashton, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much.

I would also like to thank the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Quell and Mr. Adam, I have a question about various departments' responsibilities. What's the difference between the Treasury Board Secretariat's Centre of Excellence and the Department of Canadian Heritage's Centre for Strengthening Part VII, which was announced in the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023‑28? Will this have an impact on future appointments?

[Carsten Quell]

I'll start with the last part of the question. No, it will not affect future appointments.

As to the difference between the two centres, I should clarify that Treasury Board is responsible for federal institutions. We're primarily responsible for making sure that the public service runs smoothly. For its part, Canadian Heritage's Centre for Strengthening Part VII focuses mainly on supporting, mobilizing and informing minority communities. Canadian Heritage is also responsible for dealing with the provinces and territories. Basically, that centre has a more external orientation, whereas the centre I head at Treasury Board has a more internal function vis‑à‑vis the public service.

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

Having clarified the distinction, do you think it will have an impact on future appointments?

[Carsten Quell]

I don't think so. The Official Languages Centre of Excellence, which reports to the Treasury Board Secretariat, is responsible for the application of part V of the Official Languages Act, which covers language of work. We ensure that public servants' right to be supervised in the language of their choice is respected. Our functions include overseeing appointments, which are within the purview of the Public Service Commission of Canada, but we certainly monitor compliance.

[Karim Adam, Director, Oversight and Compliance, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, Treasury Board Secretariat]

I'd like to clarify something.

Canadian Heritage's centre for strengthening deals with part VII of the act, which has to do with external stakeholders.

At our end, it also has to do with regulations related to part VII of the act, which my colleague, Mr. Quell, talked about.

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

Very good.

In its negotiations with Treasury Board, the Public Service Alliance of Canada is asking for a review of the bilingualism bonus directive. Specifically, it's asking the employer to raise the bonus from $800 to $3,000. Nowadays, with the cost of living climbing, $800 is a drop in the bucket for people going through increasingly tough times.

In your opinion, Mr. Quell, would a review encourage more bilingual workers to join the public service and incentivize public servants to master both official languages? Given that the amount of the bonus has remained unchanged since 1977, do you believe that raising it will help create a more bilingual, dynamic and diversified public service?

[Carsten Quell]

If I may, I'd like to provide a bit of context about the bilingualism bonus.

The bonus was introduced in 1977 as a temporary incentive to encourage employees to become bilingual. That was a very different time.

The bilingualism bonus directive is currently hosted by the National Joint Council, where both employers and unions are represented. The employer and the unions have agreed to examine the bilingual bonus during the cyclical review, which will take place in April.

That said, the appropriateness of the bonus has been questioned in the past. You heard what Professor Geneviève Tellier had to say about it.

In 2002, Dyane Adam, who was the Commissioner of Official Languages at the time, indicated that the government should “[c]onsider knowledge of English and French a basic skill, like other required skills for positions.” She actually recommended eliminating the bilingualism bonus.

In May 2005, this very committee recommended that Treasury Board “eliminate the bilingualism bonus and that the knowledge of the two official languages be considered a professional skill that is reflected in the salaries of federal employees.”

That's some background on the bilingualism bonus.

That said, we'll be discussing the future of the bonus with the bargaining agents in April.

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

We hope to see a change along the lines of what PSAC is recommending. It's been almost 20 years since 2005. We all know there's been an obvious decline in French in Canada in recent years. Across the country, we're facing major challenges when it comes to retaining French.

I hope that, when the time comes to review this issue, people will consider this context and all the work that was done on the bill to modernize and strengthen the Official Languages Act. I hope those factors will serve as arguments in favour of increasing the bilingualism bonus.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton. Your six minutes are up.

Mrs. Kusie, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I myself am a product of language training in the public service. I came to Ottawa in 2003 as a young woman from Alberta and took 15 months of language training at the Bisson Building. It was a nightmare. I believe the government had a contract with the École de langues La Cité to provide that training at the time.

Mr. Quell, I'd like to ask you a few questions about language training.

Federal departments and agencies contract out language training instead of creating a training program within the government. Do you think that has led to greater costs for lesser service?

[Carsten Quell]

I would say that departments approach language training differently. Some departments, such as Employment and Social Development Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Health Canada and even the Canada Border Services Agency, employ public servants as language teachers because they found it more cost-effective to have what amounts to a language school within their own department.

Obviously, not all departments are big enough for that. Public Services and Procurement Canada has therefore established standing offers so departments can choose pre-qualified language schools.

Departments use one of those two models to provide good language training to their employees.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

What's being done to ensure that language training meets the same quality standards across the federal public service?

[Carsten Quell]

Public Services and Procurement Canada's standing offers, which I just mentioned, include criteria governing not only the cost, but also the quality of the training provided. Suppliers are evaluated to ensure that the training is of good quality.

For schools within a department, it's the department's responsibility to ensure its employees provide quality training.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I received a question from my colleague. I'll read it to you.

Can people whose positions are subject to subsection 34(2) of the Official Languages Act avail themselves of the Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order, in addition to the deferment provided for in subsection 34(2) of the Official Languages Act?

For example, I received a bilingualism bonus for reaching the CCC level. It took me 15 months to do it, but I did it.

How long does it normally take someone to obtain the required language level for a position? How is that determined? For example, is it acceptable to take 10 years to obtain the required language level for a position?

[Carsten Quell]

I'd like to mention that this is the responsibility of the Public Service Commission of Canada. It's under its authority that an exemption is granted regarding language requirements.

Positions for which language requirements do not need to be met are positions that are staffed on a non‑imperative basis. I'd have to check to see what the number is, but I can tell you that they represent 1% to 2% of appointments. In that case, an employee is given two years to learn the second language. During that time, the department must ensure that employees' rights are respected. So we make sure that a colleague takes on the supervisory duties of the employee who has to learn the second language.

I'd add that it's sometimes a matter of moving an employee from the BBB level to a higher level, such as the CBC level. That doesn't mean that people aren't at all bilingual. It's more that they don't necessarily meet the language requirements at the higher level.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much.