Official Languages Committee on March 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 91 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, January 29, 2024, the committee is resuming its study of language obligations related to the process of staffing or making appointments to key positions.

Since members are now used to hybrid sittings and all of today's witnesses are appearing in person, I will dispense with the instructions for people participating in the meeting via Zoom.

I would like to welcome the witnesses.

We have Geneviève Tellier, a University of Ottawa professor who will speak as an individual.

From the Public Service Alliance of Canada, we have Alexandre Silas, regional executive vice-president for the national capital region, and Pierre-Samuel Proulx, senior research officer.

I'm sure you're familiar with how our committee works. If not, I'll tell you. Mr. Silas, I know you've been here before. We'll give each of you five minutes for your presentation. Afterwards, members from each of the political parties will ask questions.

I'm very strict about speaking time to ensure we can complete two rounds of questions.

Ms. Tellier, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Geneviève Tellier, Professor, As an Individual]

Thank you very much. I'll be brief.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to testify as part of its study on language obligations related to the process of staffing or making appointments to key positions.

I'm a professor at the University of Ottawa, where I am assigned to the public administration program. I am therefore very familiar with the issues of public service staffing and public policy implementation.

In addition, as you probably know, the University of Ottawa is a bilingual institution. In fact, it is the largest French-English bilingual university in the world. I am therefore very familiar with problems arising from two languages coexisting in the workplace. I'm also very familiar with the challenges of protecting a precarious language, such as French in Ontario, as well as the obstacles to overcome when teaching a second language.

I regularly comment on current events in columns published in Le Droit and Francopresse, as well as on Radio-Canada radio, where I regularly address language issues.

One of those columns garnered a lot of attention when it was published in Le Droit on July 9, 2021. It was about the appointment of the Governor General. I wrote then—and I'm still of the same opinion—that the Governor General's ignorance of French was extremely detrimental, not to Canada's francophonie in general, but to the francophonie outside Quebec specifically.

Francophone populations outside Quebec have been fighting for years to show that knowledge of French in bilingual organizations is not just an asset, but an essential skill. This appointment sabotaged years of effort and struggle. I see it in my own organization, where bilingualism is no longer considered an essential skill for senior management positions, and where some new university programs are being offered in English only.

This appointment also implied that the francophonie and diversity are two separate things. However, recent appointments to senior public offices prove otherwise. Think of Justice Michelle O'Bonsawin or the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, Manon Jeannotte.

The most senior people in public administration must demonstrate leadership in protecting and promoting bilingualism, and all employees must be on board. They must be sensitive to the issue of languages and bilingualism. That sensitivity must be manifest as early as possible in every employee's career path, especially those aspiring to more senior positions. In an ideal world, bilingualism would be required of everyone at the time of hiring. If that's not possible, second-language instruction should be provided as soon as possible. The longer people wait, the harder it gets.

By way of illustration, let me tell you about the University of Ottawa's master of public administration program. This program is unique in Canada because one of its objectives is to train future bilingual public servants. We've taken an asymmetrical approach to doing that. Anglophone students are required to take a course in French, but not vice versa. Francophone students can register for courses in English, but they don't have to. This requirement is a challenge for most anglophone students, but the outcomes are good. In fact, many of these students choose to enrol in other courses offered in French afterwards. This example shows that we need to figure out how to overcome initial obstacles and stick to our policy guns.

That concludes my presentation. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you very much, Ms. Tellier.

From the Public Service Alliance of Canada, I'm not sure if it's Mr. Silas or Mr. Proulx, or both.

You're indicating that it will be you, Mr. Silas. You have the floor for five minutes.

[Alexandre Silas, Regional Executive Vice-President, National Capital Region, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Good morning.

Mr. Chair, members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I'd like to thank you for inviting us to testify as part of the study on language obligations related to the process of staffing or making appointments to key positions in the federal public service.

My name is Alex Silas, and I'm the regional executive vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, PSAC, for the national capital region. I live in the region, more specifically in Vanier. I'm also a proud Acadian from Grand-Barachois, New Brunswick.

I'm here with my colleague, Pierre-Samuel Proulx, who is a senior research officer at PSAC.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada is one of Canada's largest unions and the largest federal public service union. We represent more than 230,000 workers across the country and around the world. Our members work in federal departments and agencies, of course, but also in Crown corporations, universities, casinos, community service organizations, indigenous communities and airports.

As a union, our role is to defend the interests and rights of workers, including the right to work in the official language of their choice. We advocate for policies and programs that promote linguistic equality, particularly with regard to recruitment, language training and working conditions.

We've seen progress, but there are still challenges. No government ever seems keen on the idea of improving bilingualism in the federal public service so that we can provide better services to the public and ensure that every worker feels comfortable working in the language of their choice.

The Canadian public service should be a place where bilingualism is encouraged and supported by the employer, and we believe it's the federal government's duty to provide the necessary tools to make this happen.

A public service where bilingualism is encouraged means, for example, a team where communication flows smoothly and without misunderstandings, a more inclusive and diversified workplace, and the elimination of language barriers and language insecurity. If managers and people in key positions don't speak both official languages, it's more than likely the employees under them will work in only one of the languages, not both.

I think it's also important to point out that bilingualism in the federal public service is crucial for ensuring Canadians can interact with their government in the official language of their choice. This helps to strengthen citizens' confidence in government institutions and to promote linguistic inclusion at all levels of society.

PSAC is proposing several measures to improve bilingualism in the federal public service, in addition to new provisions for indigenous employees who express themselves orally or in writing in an indigenous language in the course of their duties.

Enhancing the bilingualism bonus is one example of what we are asking for. It has never been raised; the amount has remained unchanged since the bonus was created in 1977. That's nearly half a century.

We have repeatedly urged the government to reconsider this policy, but it is refusing to raise the bonus. As a matter of fact, in a 2019 report, the government even suggested eliminating it. That, in our opinion, would be completely unacceptable.

PSAC believes that, if the government truly wants to support official languages, it must raise the bilingualism bonus to recognize the value of work in both official languages. It must also provide more quality language training to encourage anglophone and francophone workers to improve their second language.

We're also proposing an indigenous language allowance for federal workers who speak an indigenous language. That would be an important step towards reconciliation.

Data collected from departments by the Joint Committee on the Use of Indigenous Languages in the Public Service, which included Treasury Board and PSAC representatives, established that several hundred federal workers use indigenous languages in the course of their work. These workers deserve to be recognized for the value they bring to the federal public service.

Parliament has passed legislation to advance the recognition of indigenous languages. As an employer, the federal government should therefore lead by example and formally recognize the contribution of its employees who use indigenous languages with the communities they serve in the course of their duties.

Lastly, if the government really wants to strengthen both official languages, the employer has an obligation to proactively make language training more accessible. It should provide more language training to encourage anglophone and francophone workers to improve their second language, thereby enhancing their ability to provide services to the public.

More language training will also eliminate barriers and enable workers from employment equity groups to access management positions that require a certain degree of bilingualism. Currently, indigenous members are under-represented, and lack of access to language training is a significant factor.

We also want Treasury Board stop outsourcing language training to subcontractors and focus on creating its own training program. This would involve public service workers, who can adapt to the specific demands of the federal public service. The same goes for translation services, which should never be contracted out.

I will conclude by thanking you again for your time.

I would also like to thank the interpreters for their work.

I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Silas.

All the witnesses stayed within their allotted speaking time, so they want to get good questions.

Let me explain how this works. For the first round of questions, each of the political parties will have six minutes to ask the witnesses questions and listen to their answers.

We'll start with the first vice-chair of the committee, who represents the Conservatives.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here this frigid morning on the banks of the Ottawa River.

I'll start with you, Ms. Tellier. I was going to call you “Ms. Letellier”, but that's another story.

It was sweet music to my ears when you said in your presentation that the appointment of the Governor General was extremely detrimental. As you said, one must lead by example.

The Governor General holds the highest office in Canada and is influential. We're not blaming the individual. The problem is that the person who holds the highest office in Canada, who represents a bilingual country, is not bilingual. As I often say, bilingualism in this case means English and French. The person is bilingual, but does not speak French.

How can we fix this mess?

[Geneviève Tellier]

There are probably two ways to do it: the easy way and the hard way.

The easy way would be to take note of what happened and say that it won't happen again. When I look at recent lieutenant-governor appointments in the provinces, such as in Ontario and Quebec, I get the sense that the federal government has indeed taken note of this case. In Ontario, for example, the government appointed a Franco-Ontarian. We can therefore assume it won't happen again, given the uproar it caused. We have to keep hammering away at this issue.

The hard way would be to change the legislation and make things clearer. I believe the case is before the courts, so we await clarification. It would be a matter of stating explicitly that, as is the case for Supreme Court judges, governors general and lieutenant-governors will have to speak both French and English. We don't want to get to that point, but sometimes, when the government isn't doing anything, that may be the only way to spur it to take action.

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

You said the appointment of the Governor General caused an uproar and that it was regarded as an aberration in the news. Equally, the only officially bilingual province appointed a unilingual lieutenant-governor. There is a saying in politics about not walking the talk. In other words, the government has no willingness or intention and that is very evident in this instance.

Is the current Official Languages Act effective and does it provide the necessary tools? We don't actually know which departments should have those tools because there is confusion regarding responsibilities: Is it Treasury Board, Canadian Heritage, Justice Canada or the Privy Council? There are plenty of loopholes that let politicians wash their hands of it, saying it is not their responsibility, as Pontius Pilate did.

I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Geneviève Tellier]

That's an excellent question.

The act has just been updated. From what the Commissioner of Official Languages has said, I understand that it will take a bit longer to see the results.

In general, when there is new legislation, the more quickly action is taken to implement the intent of the act, the better the results. In other words, if you wait, things will go back to normal and not much will change. If strong leadership is shown very quickly and changes are implemented, there will be results.

Your work is very important. Your committee has to provide direction by indicating what is needed and which changes have to be made quickly. I think the Commissioner of Official Languages is also your ally. But you mustn't wait. The government has to be called to action quickly.

A big part of the answer to your question is of course leadership. It has to come from the top, the highest levels. In my remarks, I referred to the highest level of the public service. I said level in the singular and not levels in the plural to emphasize that action is needed from the highest level in government.

In short, the key is quick implementation of the measures through regulations.

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

Let's talk about quick action, Ms. Tellier.

The act is in force. The commissioner has tools, which can be described as fines. Even if it is not spelled out that way in the act, that is effectively what it says.

You said quick action is needed. An order in council is expected, but it has not yet been issued.

You also talked about a quick response. Yet the Treasury Board president told the committee that it would take up to three years to bring in the regulations.

Does that not show a lack of willingness on the part of the government?

[Geneviève Tellier]

I have to agree with you. There really does not seem to be any urgency to act, even though it was recognized several years ago that the situation was not improving. So if the government does not take action itself, I think all communities, including linguistic minority communities, will have to put pressure on the government. I am thinking of minority communities in particular.

This is worrisome right now, I would say. It is also worrisome that it took so long to get the bill passed, considering when we started talking about it.

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

Ms. Tellier, what could be done to turn things around? The government's intention, willingness and quick action are important, of course, but can you suggest any other tools? We know where things stand, but what would you recommend to the legislator to get things moving and act more quickly to protect French and prevent its decline?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That is an excellent question but you will have to wait for your next turn for the answer, Mr. Godin, because you have just five seconds left.

As I said, I am strict with our time. Please remember your answers.

The Liberals are up next. Mr. Iacono, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here this morning. It is a very chilly morning indeed. I think it is the coldest day we have had in a long time.

Ms. Tellier, should language skills, a functional knowledge of Canada's two official languages, be a hiring requirement for senior officials in the public service of Canada?

[Geneviève Tellier]

Yes, and not just for them. We should make bilingualism a default requirement for everyone, and then proceed by elimination according to the circumstances in which bilingualism is not necessary. So we have to reverse the burden of proof, so to speak. The concept of bilingualism should always be at the forefront. The federal government is in fact a bilingual institution. So if it is a bilingual institution, bilingualism is an important factor in the way it operates.

So I would say that individuals appointed to senior positions must actually be bilingual, even before they are appointed. We have often talked about individuals who get the job first and learn French after, but that means that while they are learning French other people are not served in French. We have to keep that in mind as well.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

If the individuals currently in those jobs are not bilingual, should they become bilingual? What steps should be taken to ensure they become bilingual?

[Geneviève Tellier]

That is complicated. You have to be sensitive to the circumstances that led to their appointment. I don't think you could tell those individuals, after the fact, that the rules have been changed and that they will lose their job or be assigned elsewhere. You have to consider how those appointments were made and the contributing circumstances, and say instead that it will not happen again. You can see if training could be offered to those individuals, but I don't think that should be a priority.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

So if we focus on language skills and bilingualism, what about the organization's operational needs? If someone has the necessary skills and no one else meets the requirements during the hiring period, what should we do then?

[Geneviève Tellier]

Does that person really have the necessary skills if they are not bilingual? That's the problem. We always say that bilingualism is essential, but then it goes to the bottom of the list. It should be at the top of the list.

We have to stop saying that someone who doesn't speak French or English still has the necessary skills. No, that person does not have the necessary skills. We have to change the way we look at and analyze the situation. We have to clearly indicate what the essential skills are and, as the case may be, determine that a given person does not have the necessary skills. Then, we have to proceed as any good employer would: If we really want to hire that person, we have to find a way for them to acquire the missing skills. That said, the person should acquire those skills before they begin in the position, not after. Acquiring an essential skill after the person is appointed should be an exception, in my opinion.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I completely agree with you. But what if no one meets the requirements at the time of hiring and language skills are the only missing criterion, what do we do then?

[Geneviève Tellier]

The person is not—

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Do we wait around for someone who has those skills?

In some cases, a person is hired even if they don't meet certain requirements, and they then acquire them on the job. That happens with a number of other requirements. The same should apply for language skills.

[Geneviève Tellier]

I would challenge you to prove that there is no one else who could do the job. That is an easy excuse that we hear too often. Tell me why French is the skill that should be at the bottom of the list while other skills are at the top of the list.

Other skills have to be taken into consideration. Why not consider a bilingual candidate who does not have some of the required skills, and ask them to acquire the missing skills and offer to train them to acquire those skills? Yet that is not what happens. In actuality, French always ends up at the bottom of the list, by default. We have to stop saying that a given candidate checks all the boxes except for French. We need to look at all their skills and stop putting French at the bottom of the list.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Great.

I will give Mr. Samson the rest of my speaking time.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have just under two minutes.