Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 16 - Evidence - Meeting of October 30, 2017
OTTAWA, Monday, October 30, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m. to continue its study on the application of the Official Languages Act and the regulations and directives made under it within those institutions subject to the Act.
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon. My name is Claudette Tardif, I am a senator from Alberta, and it is my privilege to chair the meeting this evening. Before handing the floor over to our witnesses, I would invite the senators to introduce themselves, starting on my left, with the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
The Chair: This evening, we have Ghislaine Saikaley, Interim Commissioner of Official Languages, and her team, consisting of Pascale Giguère, General Counsel and Director, Mary Donaghy, Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch, and Pierre Coulombe, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance Branch.
Ms. Saikaley joined the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages in July 2008 as Assistant Commissioner in the Compliance Assurance Branch and was appointed Interim Commissioner of Official Languages by the Governor-in-Council in December 2016. She has come to present her 2016-17 annual report, which was tabled in the Senate on June 8 last.
Commissioner, once again, thank you for being here with us today. Please go ahead.
Ghislaine Saikaley, Interim Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Good evening, honourable senators. Thank you for inviting me to present my 2016-17 annual report.
The annual report is divided into three chapters. The first chapter looks at the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Confederation, which we are celebrating this year. The second chapter addresses a number of topics related to new opportunities for official languages, and the third chapter deals with leadership in the public service. Let us look at these subjects in more detail.
[English]
First, in the months leading up to the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Confederation, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages made a significant effort to ensure that federal departments and organizations took linguistic duality fully into account in their activities and in the services to be provided to the public during this high-profile Canadian event.
We are also taking part in the celebrations by organizing a national conference on November 30, 2017, on the future of linguistic duality. In fact, we have taken the opportunity on numerous occasions in 2017 to promote the fundamental role that official languages have played in Canada’s history, and the importance they will have for the future.
And the celebrations will not end in 2017. In two years’ time, we will be marking another important milestone in Canadian history: the fiftieth birthday of the Official Languages Act in 2019. The government needs to seize this opportunity to update the act to reflect the many changes that have shaped Canadian society since the last revision of the act in 1988.
I have asked my team to undertake an analysis of major issues that the government will need to focus on to update the act so that it reflects today’s Canada. We will be completing this exercise within the next 12 months in consultation with official language minority communities and other interested parties.
There may be only one recommendation in this annual report, but I believe that it is vital to ensure the sustainability of the act. Although the recommendation is important, it is just one of many we have made on various issues in 2016-17.
[Translation]
Throughout the year, advances in some of our files have brought new perspectives to key areas, such as support for early childhood development. On October 3, 2016, Commissioner Graham Fraser released his report called Early Childhood: Fostering the Vitality of francophone Minority Communities. The report showed that early childhood development in francophone minority communities is undermined by a lack of resources, a shortage of early childhood educators and fragmentation of services. English-speaking minority communities in Quebec are equally vulnerable, not so much in terms of language but rather with respect to a lack of support.
The report also confirmed that the lack of funding for early childhood development in the Roadmap for Canada’s Official Languages 2013-18 has left francophone minority communities vulnerable and often unable to meet their own needs. English-speaking Quebecers are also facing their own challenges.
[English]
Last year, the office of the commissioner participated in consultations conducted by Canadian Heritage in preparation for the next official languages action plan, which I understand will be released early next year. We noted the focus in these consultations on the promotion of linguistic duality, the vitality of official language minority communities and the active role of the federal government.
With regard to access to justice, in October 2016, the federal government announced changes to the appointment process of Superior Court judges. In September 2017, the action plan for enhancing the bilingual capacity of the Superior Court judiciary was announced.
A number of actions we took in 2016-17 were designed to foster the leadership shown by some federal institutions and to support their efforts to improve compliance with the act in their various activities. We have also taken a more strategic approach to resolve systemic issues and have created tools to help institutions improve compliance with the letter and the spirit of the act.
[Translation]
Despite all of these encouraging signs, there is still a lot of work to do in terms of official languages compliance. As this annual report shows, the Office of the commissioner received 1,018 admissible complaints in 2016-17. We have not seen such a high volume of complaints since 2009-2010, when we received 876 complaints against CBC/Radio-Canada regarding CBEF radio station in Windsor, Ontario, for a total of 1,477 complaints. In 2016-17, as usual, most complaints, 565 of them, were about communications with the public. A total of 183 complaints concerned Part V of the act, which governs language of work. This issue remains a cause for concern.
We also noted a significant increase in the number of complaints filed under section 91 of the act, with 192 complaints pertaining to the language requirements of positions. This high number is also worrisome when compared with the average number for the past nine years, which was 57 complaints.
[English]
In May 2016, the commissioner wrote to the President of the Treasury Board to ask him to amend the Directive on Official Languages for People Management in order to address his recommendation concerning the linguistic profile of supervisory positions, which was issued in the commissioner’s 2010-11 annual report. We have begun a dialogue with the Treasury Board Secretariat to examine this matter more closely.
Improvements have already been made at some federal institutions with respect to the language skills required for supervisory positions in regions designated bilingual for language-of-work purposes. In 2016-17, several institutions endorsed our position on the level of language proficiency required.
I am very pleased to see that the recent report on language of work released by the Clerk of the Privy Council includes a strong recommendation about this.
[Translation]
It is important to celebrate victories, but I am also aware that significant challenges remain nation-wide. According to the language data published by Statistics Canada, the increase in the bilingualism rate in most provinces and territories is a great sign. However, Statistics Canada’s projections show that the proportion of French-speaking Canadians will steadily decrease between now and 2036.
The dynamics of Quebec’s English-speaking minority communities, meanwhile, are quite different. Despite relative stability in terms of language, these communities are facing significant social and economic challenges. Statistics Canada’s projections underline the importance of current efforts to help official language minority communities across the country in their role as host societies for immigrants.
Thank you for your attention, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Commissioner. I would like to note that Senator Maltais has just joined us.
Senator Poirier: Welcome, everyone. You have performed the duties of Interim Commissioner of Official Languages for nearly a year now. Before going any further, I would like to congratulate you and recognize your outstanding work.
My question concerns the appointment of the commissioner. Do you think a maximum vacancy period should be set for this position to prevent a repetition of the present situation?
Ms. Saikaley: Do you mean as part of the modernization of the act?
Senator Poirier: No. Should we examine the present situation and set a deadline for filling the position of Commissioner of Official Languages to prevent it from remaining vacant for too long?
Ms. Saikaley: The Official Languages Act already provides for an interim commissioner position for a period of six months. The act already contains a provision in this regard. It is difficult to answer that question.
Thank you for your kind words at the start of your remarks. I very much appreciate them.
There is a Commissioner of Official Languages. The fact that I occupy that position on an interim basis may perhaps prevent me from having a long-term vision, but I can assure you I have assumed all the duties of the position. In appointing someone to this position, the Governor-in-Council has discharged its responsibility to ensure there is no vacancy. There has always been a Commissioner of Official Languages, but the question as to whether a time limit should be prescribed in the act so the period of vacancy is not extended is something that Parliament could consider as part of the modernization of the act. The act already contains a provision for an interim position.
Senator Poirier: You received 476 complaints in 2013-14 and 1,018 last year. The number of complaints filed during that period is striking. You do not state in the annual report which institutions were concerned by those complaints, but you do talk about their origin. Can you tell us what departments and institutions are the subject of complaints?
Ms. Saikaley: Yes, I can. The five institutions that received the most complaints last year are Air Canada with 101, the Canada Border Services Agency with 85, Public Services and Procurement Canada with 73, Correctional Service Canada with 59 and the Privy Council Office also with 59. As you will remember, those complaints were received following remarks the Prime Minister made in Sherbrooke and Ontario, responding in French to a question asked in English in Sherbrooke and vice versa in Ontario. Those are the five institutions that received the most complaints last year.
Senator Poirier: Do you think the commissioner should have more tools to implement the Official Languages Act fully?
Ms. Saikaley: That is an important question. In analyzing the modernization of the act, we will focus on that question, as many of your witnesses have done.
However, the commissioner currently has a broad range of tools. In the past few years, Mr. Fraser exercised powers that had rarely been used, tabling the report to Parliament in the Air Canada case, for example. The commissioner has remedial powers but also great power to influence. For the vast majority of federal institutions, those powers are broad enough and well used. If Parliament wished to give the commissioner more power, he or she would use it well, strategically, as the commissioner does with all the right tools. This is a tool that would be added to the commissioner’s current tools. It is for Parliament to decide whether the commissioner should have more power. Other agents of Parliament have additional powers that the Commissioner of Official Languages does not have.
We will also be conducting consultations as part of our study on the modernization of the act. We will listen to the public and determine whether this is something we should recommend.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: Thank you, and I congratulate you on all the work done last year. I was very interested to read your 2016-17 report, and that encouraged me to read the previous reports.
In the study we are conducting on modernizing the Official Languages Act, we have certain questions. I would like to ask you a question on Part IV of the act concerning communications with and services to the public. On page 9 of your report, you discuss the modernization of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations. You mentioned that the Treasury Board and the Heritage Department have announced the government’s decision to review the Official Languages Regulations, particularly those pertaining to communications with and services to the public. In the report, you state the following:
Limiting the review to the criteria for defining “significant demand” and “nature of the office” and to the language obligations of airport authorities and railways would be missing an opportunity to truly modernize the Regulations.
You say that changes should be guided by five principles: increase access to equal quality services; seek to achieve substantive equality; consider the remedial nature of language rights; include incentives; and, lastly, adopt a clear and simplified regulatory approach. We often hear about issues related to the definitions associated with these regulations, such as the definition of the term “office.” Can you provide us with more details on your thinking about how the necessity of clearly defining the factors ties in with the necessity to take into account the principles you referred to?
Ms. Saikaley: The principles we have established apply to all the factors that are important, based on what we have observed of the current implementation of the regulations. With the years of experience we have acquired in the implementation of the act and regulations, we are able to determine where the challenges lie.
With respect to the application of numerical criteria, it is not because a community does not have a certain number or percentage of people that it has no vitality. Consequently, the approach should be based instead on the needs of those communities and meet certain tests or indicators of vitality that are not simply quantitative but also qualitative. A community may be small but exhibit features that demonstrate its vitality, such as a school, a community centre and services organized by the community. So we are saying that, if there is a degree of vitality, there should possibly be services.
Implementing the regulations is a complicated process, and some federal institutions thus have obligations that others do not. Some offices are designated within a single region, and others are not. It is therefore complicated for communities to receive services and even to know to which services they are entitled.
There are also unusual situations. Some communities with small numbers of inhabitants receive services as a result of higher minority percentages, whereas another, more populous community will not receive services due to its lower percentage. We would prefer a much more qualitative assessment of indicators instead of relying on figures or mathematical calculations.
Services must also be adapted to the different needs of the communities. Not all communities have the same needs. Consequently, we seek more flexible regulations that meet the communities’ needs on a substantively equal basis or that provide for measures better suited to their needs. We are in a position to review the implementation of the regulations in a more modern manner better suited to the needs of the communities, and that is how we view this great opportunity. We maintain it would be a missed opportunity not to do the work in an expanded way.
Senator Cormier: Would the qualitative approach have an influence on the definition given to “significant demand”? Does it have an impact on the definition of those terms?
Ms. Saikaley: The Treasury Board must consider that question. We are not saying there should be no quantitative factors. Instead we are saying that those factors should count and that, perhaps where standards do not apply, we should consider other indicators and not merely rely on quantitative tests.
Communities change. Mary is reminding me of Part VII of the act, which concerns the obligations of the federal institutions to take positive measures to develop the communities and enhance their vitality.
The act must be viewed as a whole. We are considering the implementation of the regulations based solely on Part IV, but what about the other parts of the act? Part VII provides that the federal institutions have an obligation to go so far as to take positive measures to enhance the vitality of the communities. I believe we must look at the act as a whole and apply it generously. I think that is what we are aiming for.
Senator Cormier: You address Part VII on pages 10 and 11 of the report, and you emphasize that the digital age is an opportunity to find innovative ways to provide Canadian content that is both reflective and within the reach of official language communities. We know you have received two complaints about the agreement reached with Netflix, and we thank you for examining that matter.
What are the main challenges involved in the implementation of section 41 of the Official Languages Act, and what are your thoughts on the place digital technology should occupy and the way it should be included in the modernization of the act?
Ms. Saikaley: That is a very important point that we have raised too. New technologies inevitably make enormous changes to the way services are provided. We now have far more online services. We have social media, which we previously did not have, we have the Internet and so on. The act must be adapted to those new realities. New technologies afford numerous opportunities, but we have to see how the official languages can continue to be respected in the use of those new technologies.
You mentioned section 41 and positive measures. Ultimately, the objective of everything that is done with regard to the act should be to improve the offer of service and to enhance the vitality of the communities. So much the better if we can use technology to provide better services and better support to the communities. Last year, we conducted a survey of the minority press and the impact that the digital shift may have on the newspapers of official language minority communities.
We cannot stop progress or developments, but we must ensure that the communities are supported in making this digital shift and provide them with the tools and support they need to do so. Yes, new technologies afford opportunities, but we must ensure that rights continue to be respected.
Senator Mégie: Thanks to the witnesses for their presentation.
On page 6 of your presentation, you say that “the proportion of French-speaking Canadians will steadily decrease between now and 2036,” and then you say, “The dynamics of Quebec’s English-speaking minority communities, meanwhile, are quite different.” To my mind, this means that those communities are growing. Lastly, you say, “Despite relative stability in terms of language, these communities are facing significant social and economic challenges.”
Generally speaking, I agree that anglophones say they feel aggrieved and have trouble finding jobs because they only speak English. When you talk to francophones, they also say they cannot find jobs because they are not bilingual. What is the actual situation, and what are the social challenges for anglophones? I spend less time with them and therefore am not aware of their situation.
Ms. Saikaley: The anglophone minority communities facing challenges in Quebec are mainly in the most remote regions. We are not necessarily talking about places such as Montreal, where anglophones do not have trouble finding jobs. However, when you move away from the major centres to the small communities in regions such as Gaspésie, Abitibi-Témiscamingue and the Côte-Nord, they are really in the minority and generally more socioeconomically vulnerable.
We say in the report that Quebec currently has five of the eight most vulnerable communities in Canada. We are talking about regions such as the Côte-Nord, Estrie, Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and Abitibi-Témiscamingue. These are anglophones who live in majority francophone communities and have trouble obtaining services and finding jobs because they are socioeconomically disadvantaged. That is what we are talking about. This is the situation we try to explain in the report.
Senator Gagné: I too would like to congratulate you on your excellent work as interim commissioner.
In your report, you indicate the changes that have occurred in the number of admissible complaints over the past 10 years. You note a significant increase in complaints concerning service to the public, and thus Part IV. In your 2017-18 Departmental Plan, you state that modernization of the Official Languages Regulations is a priority. We know that review is under way.
I would like to know what kind of cooperation you have with the Treasury Board Secretariat when it is in the process of consulting. I will ask this first question and then will have others.
Ms. Saikaley: Thank you for your question. We hold regular meetings with the Treasury Board team concerning the regulations. We have a working group in which we can exchange views. We have shared the principles contained in our annual report with the Treasury Board. The meetings continue. We have also presented those principles to the advisory committee that Minister Brison established. We thought it was important to share our principles with that group.
The discussions continue, and we are waiting to see what the next steps will be for the Treasury Board. However, I can tell you that we are expressing all our concerns about the regulatory review, our expectations and what we believe should be done to produce modernized regulations that meet the communities’ expectations.
Senator Gagné: Do you feel that the Treasury Board Secretariat’s priorities in the regulatory review coincide with yours?
Ms. Saikaley: As I have previously said, to date, they seem to be hearing us, but I do not know whether they are listening. We are trying to influence the discussions as much as we can. The commissioner has an influential role in this process. We can make recommendations and present our views. However, what we would like to see is the direction they intend to take and the various scenarios they will develop leading up to new regulations. What interests us are the results that are achieved for the communities.
I believe that is where we stand. We need more information to determine what direction they are taking. For the moment, we do not have enough content on which to state a position, apart from the fact that we have shared our views and principles. That is where matters stand for the moment.
Senator Gagné: I have a final question about the wording of Part IV. Do you think that wording allows for the development of regulations that take the vitality of the communities as their starting point, or should the act be amended instead?
Ms. Saikaley: That will be part of our analysis. We are examining various elements that will affect Part IV. It is a little early for me to offer an opinion on that question. As I mentioned, our objective is to develop a position by fall 2018. However, we will have to examine every part of the act and determine how each could be improved so we can arrive at a better interpretation. Once again, as I said earlier, the aim is more to come up with an updated and improved act.
Senator Maltais: How long can your term be extended under the act? Is it six months, one year, or two years? Is there a time limit or deadline?
Ms. Saikaley: No, there is no limit as far as I know. One of the provisions of the act states that a commissioner may be appointed in the interim for a period of six months and that that period may be renewable.
Senator Maltais: In your brief, you talk about Quebec’s anglophones. I noted that you advanced the same proposal as Mr. Fraser, with which I entirely disagree. In my opinion, Mr. Fraser did a good job on minority languages in Quebec, particularly for anglophones, and I told him so. I repeat to you that I do not want to see those kinds of things in your reports any more because they are not true.
You do not know the Côte-Nord, madam. I was born there. I was a representative there for a very long time. What you say in your report does not apply to the Côte-Nord. It is the only place in Canada with a school board that, under Bill 41, is 100 per cent financed by the Government of Quebec. There is no school tax, whereas there is one in my riding. Find me another place in Canada that is in the same situation.
If you are in Saint-Augustin, it is easier to go to the hospital in Newfoundland. You have to travel 21 kilometers, whereas you are 2,200 km from Montreal, and the airline ticket will cost you $1,300, whereas it costs $65 there. That is the way Canada is, and we can do nothing about it.
The situation in the Eastern Townships makes me laugh. In Sherbrooke, they have their own university; there is Sir George Williams University. In Lennoxville, they have the CEGEP, primary school, secondary school and the university.
We went to Prince Edward Island. Évangéline school looks like a cabin compared to what you find in Lennoxville. It is a disgrace, but you do not mention it. You have not been there. I am not criticizing you for not travelling across Canada in six months. However, do not endorse Mr. Fraser’s inappropriate actions. He did some good things. He and I are great friends; we have known each other for 40 years. However, he has done some bad things, as I have.
In Montreal, as Senator Mégie told you, that is not a problem. I had a report prepared on Quebec City. Do you know how many anglophones are left in Quebec City, out of one million inhabitants? Statistics Canada does not talk about it and is not aware of it. In any case, when Statistics Canada provides figures on Quebec, it is a monumental joke, and you know it. There are no more anglophones. They represent 0.5 per cent of the population. They stayed. They decided to live in French. They have their little anglophone community. They have their little journal, the Mercury, but they decided to live in French because the majority language in Quebec is French.
I disagree when you say that anglophones are mistreated in Quebec. They have their anglophone universities, hospitals, CEGEPs and school boards, all free of charge unlike the others.
I cannot take it any more and I will not take it. I am going to send you to Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Vancouver, and you will see that it is not the same there.
For example, there are Aboriginal communities on the Côte-Nord. Some speak neither English nor French. Are you aware of that?
Ms. Saikaley: Yes.
Senator Maltais: I hope so. What are you doing about those communities? Nothing. You have never gone to see them? Quebec is required to teach them their mother tongue. It is not easy. If Vancouver has trouble finding francophone teachers, you can imagine how difficult it is to find some who knows Attikamek.
Do not say things you are not sure of. It makes people angry. If this report were read in Quebec City, you would be pelted with all the tomatoes left on Île d’Orléans because it is not true. I do not accept it. I am not criticizing your work since you relied on what Mr. Fraser said. I am sure you did not have the time to go across Canada in six months.
My last question concerns accountability. Scott Brison, President of the Treasury Board, came and met with us some time ago in the first year of his term, I believe. He told us he would strike an accountability committee. For the moment, we do not know whether there is a shortage of money or where the money goes. That is the problem. The minister himself does not know. He signs checks, but he does not know. There is no way to be accountable. The provinces are not required to be accountable to him. Are they building bridges or schools? Are they expanding airports? That is definitely not the case in British Columbia. What are the provinces doing with that funding? We do not know. We do not know where the funding that Canadian Heritage invests in education goes? Before we say we are short of funding, I would really like to know where it goes. Do you know?
Ms. Saikaley: As you say, these are transfers to the provinces, and I have no mandate to check what goes on in the provinces. We previously did an accountability audit, and that was the issue. Our mandate gives us some leeway, but not to the point where we can conduct investigations with the provinces. As you say, this is a challenge, and you are not the first person to raise this issue.
Senator Moncion: Good evening. Thank you for the information you have provided us. My question concerns training.
You say in your document that training is one of the five themes you are developing to address language of work concerns. One of the recommendations you make is that we end the bilingualism bonus and invest the money in language training. Why put an end to the bonus?
What are your impressions of the courses offered, for example, to people who do not know the language, who must learn it and who do so in the workplace? I found that question interesting because it may have frustrated a lot of people.
Ms. Saikaley: You are probably referring to the Mendelsohn-Borbey report on language of work. That is not one of our recommendations.
Senator Moncion: I would nevertheless like to know your opinion on the idea of ending the bilingualism bonus.
Ms. Saikaley: The bilingualism bonus is provided for under the collective agreements and must be negotiated between the employer and the National Joint Council, the employee representative. I know that recommendation got reactions from a lot of people. My predecessor has previously offered his view on the matter, saying that the most important thing is ultimately to know whether those funds are well invested and whether there are other options. That, in a way, is what the report states. It suggests training, but does the bilingualism bonus achieve its objectives? That is a question that should be examined. Is the answer simply to abolish the bilingualism bonus? Should the money thus recovered be reinvested in language training? Mr. Borbey and Mr. Mendelsohn recommended that. I believe the people concerned by the recommendation should examine it to determine whether that measure is somehow suitable.
As I said, it must be negotiated with the employee representatives because it is provided for under federal public servants’ collective agreements.
Senator Moncion: Thank you for the information and your response. I think your recommendation is interesting because it is very broad, particularly where you talk about assessing the relevance of modernizing the act with a view to adopting a clear position in 2019.
You referred to certain aspects of other recommendations that you have made in previous reports. Tell me a little about what you anticipate in the modernization of the act, the relevance of modernizing the act and what you think of the project is currently under way in the federal government.
Ms. Saikaley: I have definitely had no indication or response to my recommendation. I did not propose a specific date for receiving a response either. In fact, I did not really request a response. However, I am convinced that the government must examine the recommendation.
Your committee is examining this question. Various community associations have begun to do so as well. A lot of people seem to be taking positions on the need to modernize the act. It is hard to anticipate what the present government will do with the recommendation. Is it waiting to see the results of your work, for example? You said you wanted to table a report in June 2019.
I unfortunately have no indication one way or another for the moment. It may be a little too soon to know what will happen. What is certain is that we have decided to take a position on the question, as have many other stakeholders, and we will see where that leads us. However, the fiftieth anniversary of the act is definitely an appropriate time to ask the government to rule on this question.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Saikaley. Several of my questions have already been answered, but I would briefly like to discuss the commissioner position and the powers assigned to it. I personally think that the powers assigned to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages should be increased to improve implementation and monitoring of the act.
Having said that, I note that the 2017-18 Departmental Plan of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages states that the office must make do with limited financial resources. That naturally causes controversy and raises challenges in carrying out the commissioner’s mandate. I think this is a major concern. I would like to hear what you have to say on the matter.
Ms. Saikaley: Our financial resources have not been cut, but our budget has definitely not been increased in many years. Furthermore, a few years ago, major funding was invested to update and automate a case management system. We had made a major investment to acquire that system, which is currently in place and operating very well. The funding we invested in that item could be reallocated to our programs.
In addition, last year, we conducted a cost analysis by activity, which greatly assisted our executive committee in allocating resources based on the priorities we had set for ourselves and on our mandate.
As a result, we are currently operating within the limits of our budget and carrying out our mandate with the resources we have. Any organization will tell you it could do more with more money; that is for certain. However, I think we can carry out our mandate with the resources we have.
We have also optimized procedures such as our investigation procedures. We use different approaches, and we are establishing what is called a “continuous improvement” culture, which means that we can make better use of our resources. Things are going well in that area, and we are managing to carry out all our activities with the budget we currently have.
Senator McIntyre: I would like to go back to complaints. As you mentioned, your most recent annual report shows a significant rise in complaints. I note that the most significant increases related to the language requirements of bilingual positions. Could you tell us a little more about that?
Ms. Saikaley: Yes, that is a new reality. In the past few years, we have received a lot more complaints from public servants who feel that the linguistic designation of certain positions is inappropriate. This is a new reality, as I said. To manage the workload, we have developed different approaches with the federal institutions, and our investigation team has a different way of working.
In addition, before his departure in spring 2016, Mr. Fraser wrote to the President of the Treasury Board to inform him of the significant increase in the number of complaints and to ask him to review the directive that the Treasury Board had put in place, and that is in force in the federal institutions, providing that level BBB should be the minimum requirement for supervisory positions in the designated bilingual regions. The Office of the Commissioner believes that the minimum requirement for supervisory positions in the designated bilingual regions should be CBC, which requires thorough comprehension of the other language and greater oral proficiency.
We have since developed an approach to handling these files whereby we inform complainants and federal institutions that our position is that the CBC level should be the requirement and that we are in talks with the Treasury Board to determine whether it might be amenable to changing the directive.
The report that Messrs. Mendelsohn and Borbey released on September 14 moreover contains a recommendation to that effect, thus supporting the position of the Office of the Commissioner that the requirement for supervisory positions in the designated bilingual regions should be the CBC level. I was very pleased to see that recommendation. If it is implemented, we expect the number of complaints may decline because one of the things public servants seem to complain about is that supervisors have not achieved the necessary linguistic level to perform their supervisory duties in the designated bilingual regions.
The Chair: Before going to a second round of questions, I would like to ask you a question about the language proficiency tests for economic immigrants. If I understand correctly, the commissioner conducted an investigation in 2015 that showed that complainants were right: the French tests are in many instances more expensive and more difficult, and the waiting list of candidates wishing to take the exam is longer. Has that situation improved, Commissioner?
Ms. Saikaley: As you know, in some of the investigations we conduct, when complaints are founded, we make recommendations. In this specific case, we made recommendations to the department concerned, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. We usually allow a certain amount of time for our recommendations to be implemented. This file will be monitored next year to determine where they stand in the implementation of our recommendations.
We have received no further complaints for the moment, but I hope the department considers our recommendations and makes the necessary changes. The institution must definitely be given time to react and adjust to our recommendations.
Senator Poirier: Several witnesses have spoken to us about the possibility of the commissioner having more powers to ensure that the federal institutions most often targeted by complaints comply with and enforce the act, particularly Air Canada and CBC/Radio-Canada. Do you think that giving the commissioner more powers would result in better implementation of the act?
Ms. Saikaley: As you know, Commissioner Fraser tabled a report on Air Canada in Parliament. In that report, he noted certain options that would apply specifically to Air Canada, and some of those options would afford the commissioner more powers in areas such as in binding agreements and administrative monetary penalties. However, those options were developed specifically in the context of the act’s application to Air Canada, and what we recommended was that they be added to the Air Canada Public Participation Act, not the Official Languages Act.
Consequently, as I said earlier, in our thinking about the modernization of the act, and as is the case for many other stakeholders, this is a question that we will be examining and analyzing. I think that, in the case of most federal institutions, the commissioner’s present powers are broad enough and that the commissioner uses them strategically.
Many of the recommendations we make to federal institutions have been implemented. Is the idea of giving the commissioner more powers the only solution? Perhaps there are other options. This is something we will definitely examine, and it is a topic that Parliament must consider as well. As I said earlier, if Parliament believes the commissioner should have more powers, the onus is then on it to decide the matter.
Senator Moncion: If I may make a comment, 45 million people travel with Air Canada every year, and 101 complaints in that context is not a lot. Proportionally speaking, it is a trifling number. I simply want to note the order of magnitude associated with that. Consequently, I would like to know your opinion on penalties. This is why I wanted to speak because a correlation should be made here. We often talk about Air Canada, but, despite the fact that 45 million people travel every year, only 101 complaints are filed, and the same issues are always raised: that is not an enormous number.
Ms. Saikaley: The number of complaints is only an indicator. Not everyone chooses to file a complaint. I have seen cases where, when a person complained about not receiving service in the language of his or her choice, all the other passengers who theoretically were also entitled to that service did not necessarily complain. They thus would not have received that service to any greater degree.
Consequently, it is hard to judge the matter based simply on the number of complaints. What I can tell you is that the same issues keep coming up over the years. Whether it be ground or in-flight services, the same problem repeatedly arises.
So, yes, there are a certain number of complaints. However, we have previously conducted many observation exercises — another tool we can use — which indicated to us that there were more issues. Has there been an improvement? I believe so in certain respects. Ultimately, the federal institutions must not merely be satisfied with saying that they are making an effort to implement the Official Languages Act. They also have an obligation to achieve results. It is all well and good to say you are making an effort and trying to hire bilingual personnel, but the fact is that every federal institution is required to offer service of equal quality in both official languages. That is what I wanted to say about the number of complaints.
Senator Poirier: Here is my second question. What do you think would be the solution to breaking the perpetual cycle of complaints and failure to apply the act?
Ms. Saikaley: I think it takes a set of factors. First, the general public still lacks an understanding of the act. Canadians do not know enough about the Official Languages Act or the rights related thereto, and much work remains to be done to increase the awareness of federal institutions, employees and managers. I believe we must focus on various levels to achieve a full and complete application of the act. This entails a set of factors that simultaneously concern training, awareness and education, and much work must be done to achieve a greater implementation of the act.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for your effective visual presentation, which I assume is related to your project on modernizing the Official Languages Act.
In your report, you cite the principal new realities in Canada such as new technologies, new work methods, immigration, urbanization and demographic changes. You also report on a national telephone survey that your office conducted in August 2016 in which 84 per cent of respondents said they agreed with the statement that appears on page 6 of the report, that more efforts should be made so that young people become bilingual. You say your office intends to use the survey results as a springboard for furthering the objectives of the act.
As you are no doubt aware, we have just completed a study during which we met many young people, and what they told us is that language is not merely a matter of services. They feel that culture is very much a present and central issue. Young people ultimately told us that culture is important in language learning and in the decision to use a language, particularly for francophones. They also talked about their identity development and linguistic security.
I think youth and identity are important issues. With all these Canadian realities, how do you intend to take into account the development and cultural identity of Canadians, which is much more than a mere service provided in a language?
Ms. Saikaley: Thank you for your question. All these aspects may contain a youth component, and we definitely want to examine this issue. As you say, young Canadians identify differently with the reality of languages and bilingualism than they did 50 years ago.
When we say we want to focus on these data, we mean we want to try to reach Canadians who are open to the benefit of bilingualism. We must rely on various audiences and convince them that the two official languages are part of our Canadian identity, that they represent an asset and an added value. This issue reaches young people where they are.
Since I have held this position, I have tried to make greater use of social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, because that is the best way to reach young people. We will be focusing on our youth promotion strategies over the next year.
When we talk about new work methods and young public servants, our aim is to make them understand that they have a right to work in the language of their choice, and that is what they want. We want to make them see that bilingualism is really a valuable asset for the public service and for Canada. Many of our strategies over the next year will clearly focus on youth.
Senator Cormier: I would like to conclude with a little question that is in fact a big one. I often get the impression that, for many Canadians, the Official Languages Act and official languages in general are a minority issue, that they concern minorities, that they are not an issue that is part of our country’s social network and that they do not concern the majority of people.
You talked about increasing awareness and promoting the Official Languages Act. Do you have any recommendations on how to ensure that the Official Languages Act is perceived by all Canadians as a fundamental act for the identity and social cohesion of our country?
Ms. Saikaley: I think we have to do more in that area. I recently took part in an event in which we chatted with young entrepreneurs. We asked them what the advantage of bilingualism was for young Canadian entrepreneurs, and they answered that they viewed it as an advantage.
Consequently, I think we have to convince more citizens that the two official languages are an asset and an advantage for Canada, from an economic and cultural standpoint and from the standpoint of rights and services as well.
We must focus not only on rights and services, as you say, but more on what it brings to a society to have two official languages, what makes us Canadians and what makes us the Canada that we are and that we should be proud of.
Senator Cormier: Could the preamble to the act contain a statement to that effect?
Ms. Saikaley: Certainly. I think that would be entirely appropriate.
Senator Mégie: Getting back to complaints, how are they handled? Are they filed directly with the commissioner or with other authorities? Does a complaint wind up in your office if there is no satisfactory response?
Ms. Saikaley: Most of the complaints we receive come from citizens or federal public servants. I do not know to what extent citizens contact the institution directly to file a complaint. That is not a prerequisite. People have a right to complain directly. Most people choose that option.
Senator Gagné: I would like to go back to the commissioner’s power. I am going to ask you a different kind of question to find out more about what goes on elsewhere.
What powers do the other agents of Parliament have that the commissioner does not have, and which ones would be the most relevant?
Ms. Saikaley: Some commissioners have powers such as the options we presented in the Air Canada report. Some institutions have powers respecting binding agreements, monetary penalties and so on. I do not know to what extent the other agents of Parliament use those powers. It would be a good idea for you to have them appear and ask them whether that is something they use often or not at all. You may have a power without necessarily using it. Does that afford some options? Yes, it can afford some options.
I often ask myself the question: should the Official Languages Act assign more responsibilities to the federal institutions? Should it state that implementing the Official Languages Act is not merely an option and that it is mandatory? Would that help achieve certain objectives by attaching more importance to compliance with the Official Languages Act, the impetus for which would be provided by the government or senior government officials?
Senator Gagné: I am going to change the subject. I would like to back to the report on early childhood. The report published in October 2016 clearly states that early childhood is an absolutely critical sector for the development and vitality of our communities. Last week, we heard from the Commission nationale des parents francophones. I believe it was Ms. Legault who, when I asked her a question about the modernization of the Official Languages Act, answered that official languages start in early childhood.
Given the importance of early childhood in this context and in the continuum of education in French for the ongoing vitality of minority francophones, should we not also take advantage of the modernization of the Official Languages Act to include the right to education in one’s official language starting in early childhood?
Ms. Saikaley: That is an important question, as I told you. I agree with you. That is the foundation. Language is transmitted starting in early childhood, and that can have an impact on the choices and decisions that are subsequently made if services are unavailable in the minority language. We have to see what the objective of the Official Languages Act is. The overall aim of the act is to support the official language minority communities and to ensure their development and vitality. We must know how the Official Languages Act can be modernized in those circumstances. Your committee should determine which aspects are important for the communities and whether they should be included in the act. However, since education is a provincial jurisdiction, that may be a challenge.
Senator Gagné: All right. Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Ms. Saikaley, I would like to draw your attention to access to justice under the Official Languages Act. In 2013, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages published a report and made recommendations to improve the linguistic capacity of the judiciary. I also understand that the Minister of Justice recently brought forward an action plan based on the findings of the report that your office published in 2013. Are you satisfied with the content of that action plan? If we examine the action plan and the recommendations issued in 2013, are there any highlights?
Ms. Saikaley: I am quite satisfied. I was pleased to see that the minister had presented her action plan. In the fall of last year, she announced specific elements that gave rise to recommendations by the Commissioner of Official Languages respecting the conduct of evaluations as part of the process of appointing judges who meet language requirements. The current action plan focuses on language training for judges and language rights. In the circumstances, this satisfies all the recommendations that were made in the report. It is definitely a step in the right direction. It remains to be seen how and when this will be implemented. It would have been good to reach agreements with the provinces to meet the requirements of the courts in the various provinces. I believe this is quite positive on the whole. It is quite a good response to our recommendations.
Pascale, would you like to add any comments on the subject?
Pascale Giguère, General Council and Director, Legal Affairs Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: I would like to point out one element that is missing from the action plan and that would definitely have been a good addition, and that is a common definition of judges’ bilingual speaking ability. The action plan provides many potential solutions, but there could be inequalities across the country as a whole in the absence of a common national definition. As the interim commissioner said, many things must be monitored in implementing the action plan and the measures that have been stated.
Senator McIntyre: I am providing an opening for Senator Cormier and the other senators. The House of Commons recently voted down a bill respecting appointments of bilingual judges to the Supreme Court of Canada. What do you think of that?
Ms. Saikaley: Like many others, we were disappointed with that outcome. Many bills have been designed to make those changes. I supported the bill, as did my predecessor.
As I mentioned before the House of Commons committee, another option in the modernization of the act would be to review the exception provided for in section 16 of Part III. There is currently an exception for Supreme Court judges. It could be repealed. That would mean that Supreme Court of Canada judges would have an obligation to have a knowledge of both official languages. That would be another option.
Senator Moncion: You have been Interim Commissioner of Official Languages for more than a year. It usually takes about six months to become acquainted with all the issues and to feel comfortable in the position. Even though you are doing an excellent job, I imagine someone else will be appointed Commissioner of Official Languages. Since you will be involved in transferring the files, what items do you think should be among the priorities of the next person who occupies this position?
Ms. Saikaley: The modernization of the act and regulations is a current issue that the new person will have to promote to decision-makers. Having visited many minority communities over the past 10 months, I would also mention immigration, early childhood and the education continuum from early childhood to the post-university level. I would add immersion and programs for Canadians who so wish to learn a second official language. We hope these issues will be addressed in the next action plan for official languages because they are priorities for our office.
Senator Moncion: You referred to the modernization of the act and regulations. If I am not mistaken, there are not a lot of regulations arising from or attached to the Official Language is Act.
Ms. Saikaley: Only Part IV has regulations.
Senator Moncion: Only one set of regulations?
Ms. Saikaley: Yes.
Senator Moncion: Would you recommend adding regulations?
Ms. Saikaley: That question must be studied in the overall context of the act. The adoption of regulations is also an option in implementing an act. That may be something Parliament should examine as well.
Senator Maltais: In response to Senator McIntyre’s questions, you mentioned that Supreme Court judges should have sufficient knowledge of English and French. Would it not be easier to say they should be completely bilingual?
Ms. Saikaley: That would be a major advantage indeed. I do not know whether I used the expression “sufficient knowledge.”
Senator Maltais: Yes.
Ms. Saikaley: What was said is that they should be able to understand the people who appear before them. That is the minimum requirement.
As to whether they should be completely bilingual, I believe that is —
Senator Maltais: If the Commissioner of Official Languages is, like you, completely bilingual, the chief justice in a bilingual country should, at the very least, be bilingual. We are not talking about sufficient knowledge but about being completely bilingual, as you are. This is incredible.
Would you agree that all government officials should be fully bilingual?
Ms. Saikaley: What do you mean?
Senator Maltais: I am talking about government officials appointed by the House of Commons, such as the Auditor General.
Ms. Saikaley: That is already the case. An act to that effect was passed providing that all agents of Parliament must be bilingual.
Senator Maltais: Do you think it is being enforced?
Ms. Saikaley: Yes, I hope it is.
Senator Maltais: Have you spoken with the Auditor General in French?
Ms. Saikaley: I believe Mr. Ferguson was appointed before that act was implemented. As far as I know, he is still taking regular French courses.
Senator Maltais: At the junior kindergarten level. Having conversed with him, I would say he needs a person like Madam Chair, who is an excellent teacher.
Senator Cormier: The more we advance, the more questions come to mind. That means that the conversation was necessary and very interesting. I would have liked to get a clearer understanding of why this bill on the bilingualism of Supreme Court justices was not passed. That is one of your suggestions that are circulating about the amendment of the act. I almost want to ask you whether you anticipate any challenges to that amendment. If we wanted to make this amendment to the Official Languages Act, what do you think the related issues would be?
Ms. Saikaley: In our opinion, there are none.
Senator Cormier: Good.
My final question concerns Part V on language of work. You discussed it earlier. A recent witness told us about new technologies in the application of Part V. With regard to the use of electronic communications, he proposed that the designated regions be done away with in the circumstances and that a national obligation be established to ensure that electronic communications are bilingual.
Ms. Saikaley: That is a good question. More and more people work virtually. The public service currently has decentralized teams. People may be located across Canada. Some may be in one region, while their supervisor is in another. People cooperate on projects and work in different regions. This is an interesting and important issue to consider.
These are questions we will also look at in our analysis. We must examine virtual reality and virtual teams in the public service. We must focus on all these issues, including the use of technology as a different way to cooperate, as in discussion forums, for example. These are important issues.
Senator Cormier: Thank you once again for your work.
The Chair: You said you had started a process to determine how the minority official language communities perceive the modernization of the act. As you know, our committee has also begun a study and has been consulting Canadians on the modernization of the act since spring of this year. Do you have any recommendations to make regarding our study on the modernization of the act?
Ms. Saikaley: I have looked at your work plan, and I must say it is excellent. You have covered all the important aspects. I congratulate you for starting this study. It is an important one.
I would tell you to continue your work. I have seen the list of witnesses who are invited to appear. If we can contribute to this study, we will be pleased to do so and to appear once again as part of it once our own study has reached a more advanced stage.
I have no further specific recommendations except to encourage you to continue on your present path, because I believe it is an excellent one, and also to speak to young people and to listen to the various associations that have appeared before you today and to those that will do so in future.
The Chair: Thank you, Commissioner. Since there are no further questions, on behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, I would like to thank you sincerely. Thank you for accepting the position of interim commissioner. It is not an easy position to occupy, particularly in difficult circumstances. Thank you once again for your excellent work and thanks to the entire team supporting you.
Honourable Senators, I will introduce a motion in the Senate tomorrow requesting permission for the committee to sit on Wednesday, November 8, at 3:30 p.m., to hear the Honourable Scott Brison. The motion must be introduced in the Senate since that meeting will be held outside the committee’s normal time slot and the Senate will be sitting at that time.
(The committee adjourned.)