Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 17 - Evidence - Meeting of November 8, 2017
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 8, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 3:32 p.m. to study the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: My name is Claudette Tardif, from Alberta, and I am happy to be here tonight with my Senate colleagues. As the Senate is sitting right now, other senators will join us later. Before giving the floor to the witnesses, I invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Fraser: Joan Fraser, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Tardif: Today we welcome the Honourable Scott Brison, President of the Treasury Board, as well as Carl Trottier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Governance, Planning and Policy Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Today’s meeting will focus on the 2015-16 Annual Report on Official Languages of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Minister, on behalf of the members of the committee, thank you for taking part in this afternoon’s meeting.
[English]
Thank you very much, minister, for taking the time to be with us this evening.
[Translation]
So that we may have more time for discussion, I ask all of the members and witnesses here tonight to be as brief as possible with their questions and answers. Minister, you have the floor.
[English]
Hon. Scott Brison, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to be here with your committee to report on the state of official languages in the Government of Canada in the context of the 2015-16 Annual Report on Official Languages.
[Translation]
With me today is Carl Trottier, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Governance, Planning and Policy Sector in the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer. I will provide some brief opening remarks, and then we would be happy to answer your questions.
[English]
Thank you for inviting me back to the committee. As I mentioned previously at this committee, I have a very personal connection to this issue as an anglophone married to a francophone with two daughters, Claire and Rose, who are growing up way too fast and to whom we speak in French and English.
[Translation]
We speak to them in French and in English. Occasionally, one of my daughters says to me —
[English]
Daddy, don’t speak French. Papa speaks French; you speak English.
[Translation]
I answer, “No, no, Rose. I am going to continue to speak French, and as of now, I’m going to speak only in French to you.”
[English]
After which Rose will say to me, “Scott, you listen to me. You speak English. Papa speaks French.” It’s a battle, but it is a wonderful gift to provide your children.
I think, as parliamentarians, we ought to work hard to provide that gift broadly, wherever we can in Canada, to all Canadians — the opportunity to become bilingual. And the importance of policies around official languages here in Parliament and within the public service where Treasury Board plays an important responsibility is one that I take very seriously both professionally and personally.
Empowering and protecting Canada’s official languages in our public service through the services we offer to Canadians is an important part of our job at Treasury Board. It’s the role of government, of course, to provide advice and guidance on policies that support federal institutions in meeting their official languages obligations. Specifically this concerns services to and communications with the public, language of work and the participation of English- and French-speaking Canadians in federal institutions, as you’re aware — Parts 4, 5 and 6 of the Official Languages Act.
Official languages is one of the key priorities in my mandate letter. I was mandated to ensure that all federal services are delivered in full compliance with the Official Languages Act, supported by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The 2015-16 annual report, I tabled on April 12.
[Translation]
The report describes the government’s efforts to ensure both French and English continue to be an integral part of our everyday operations. Let me provide a few highlights from the report. As of March 31, 2016, federal institutions had over 11,000 offices, of which 35 per cent were required to offer services to the public in both official languages. That trend remains stable. Moreover, of those federal institutions required to communicate with and provide services to the public in both official languages, the vast majority succeed in doing so.
[English]
Something else noted in the report was the participation rates of anglophones and francophones in federal institutions. Anglophones were at 73.5 per cent, francophones at 26.5 per cent. Those numbers have remained relatively stable over recent periods and are representative of the Canadian population.
Let me add that within the core public administration, our employees have made themselves proficient in both official languages to the point where there are now more bilingual employees than bilingual jobs at this point, even if there are more bilingual jobs now than ever before.
[Translation]
That said, we know there is more work to be done to promote the use of both languages in the public service so that francophones and anglophones feel comfortable expressing themselves in the official language of their choice.
[English]
In that regard, I welcome the recent report on the Language of Work in the Federal Government, the Borbey-Mendelsohn report. We are reviewing its recommendations and will consult broadly on any proposed changes. We will work with departments to ensure that the vision of the Official Languages Act is implemented in federal workplaces.
The report also presents results from the update of federal official language obligations launched in 2012. This update is nearing completion, but the regulations themselves have not been reviewed in depth since their adoption in 1991. Both francophone and anglophone minority communities across the country have been asking that these regulations be modernized to reflect current reality and expectations. The truth is we have to take into account changing demographics and new technologies. What we’ve learned over the past quarter-century is that if we are to serve French and English Canadians better in the language of their choice in the years ahead, we need to modernize these regulations. That’s why on November 17, 2016, we announced that we are moving ahead with the review of the regulations.
[Translation]
It has now been more than 25 years since these rules have been thoroughly reviewed. A lot has changed over that time, including our population, technology and service delivery models. And it’s time we looked for better ways to determine where to offer bilingual services across the country. We will have a more robust regulation, one that will be more sensitive to the realities of the communities, will take immigration into account, and recognize the different ways Canadian men and women may live in English or in French. We also want to see how we can use new technologies to surpass our obligations under the act.
[English]
We understand Canada’s official language communities face challenges. French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec try to maintain their language and culture in a world where English is often the language of work and education. English-speaking Canadians in Quebec face different challenges, real challenges to ensure the survival of their communities and to support their vitality throughout Quebec. We’ve heard from them. We are listening. We’ve heard from many across the country. Their efforts are part of the review.
This review is taking place in three phases: the discussions with stakeholders and the policy development process that began last winter; the parliamentary process and public consultations starting in fall of 2018; and the adoption of new regulations in the spring of 2019.
As mentioned, some government offices providing bilingual services were slated to become unilingual under current regulations. Legitimate concerns were expressed about the loss of bilingual services.
[Translation]
So we took steps to ensure these offices continue to provide services in both French and English during the review. This affects about 250 federal offices.
[English]
This review is open, complex and applies to communities that are distinct and have different makeups across the country. It does take some time,but we will be able to introduce new regulations within this mandate.
Madam Chair, official bilingualism is at the heart of our government’s priorities in terms of the historic and cultural richness that we are elected to defend on behalf of Canadians. It strengthens the resilience of our federation through the provision of services in both official languages. Our government is acting to ensure that Canada continues to benefit from this important part of our country’s fabric. This committee, as is the case with many Senate committees, always brings to bear some very good discussion and input. I welcome your questions and look forward to our discussion here today.
Senator Tardif: Thank you very much, minister.
[Translation]
Before our question period, I would like to invite the senators who have just joined us to introduce themselves.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Poirier: Thank you, minister, for your presentation. Mr. Matthew Mendelsohn, from the Privy Council Office, in his report entitled The Next Level, recommended that the Treasury Board Secretariat begin discussions with the National Joint Council to re-examine the bilingualism bonus. If you read between the lines, this means the pure and simple abolition of the bilingualism bonus for federal employees. Do you think this is the right time to withdraw the bilingualism bonus of $800 from federal employees, while many of them are having enormous problems with the Phoenix pay system? Should we not first solve that problem before we risk creating another?
Mr. Brison: First of all, let me say that we support the Borbey-Mendelsohn report. We are examining the recommendations in the report, but have not made any decisions yet. First we want to discuss potential changes with Parliament and with experts. It is clear that the public service has to provide more training in order to support public servants who are working to improve their knowledge of the French or English language so that they can progress in their career. We also must invest in technology to improve their capacity to work in the language of their choice. We have not yet made any decision, but we support the recommendations.
In regard to the Phoenix pay system, that is a very serious issue. The situation is completely unacceptable, and we are working very hard as a government to solve this problem. My colleague the Minister of Public Services and Procurement is working very hard on this issue. It is a priority for us, and, once again, the current situation is completely unacceptable.
Senator Poirier: I’m going to ask my second question in English.
[English]
The Standing Committee on Official Languages from the House of Commons released its report on Air Canada and its ongoing challenges to meet its language requirements. Everyone is aware of the issue and how Air Canada has a hard time respecting the language requirements.
The second recommendation from the report recommends that all departments involved, including Treasury, examine the annual review on official languages submitted by Air Canada to ensure it meets its official languages.
Would your department be willing to do so to help Air Canada meet its language requirements?
Mr. Brison: We worked with Transport on this. You’re quite right that Treasury Board, Transport Canada and Heritage are all involved. We want to encourage and support Air Canada to provide the best possible services in both official languages. Those are discussions that we are having currently as a government. The three ministers implicated in this discussion are Transport, Heritage and Treasury Board.
This has been a long-standing issue. It’s one that we certainly look forward to working with Air Canada on to continue the provision of high-quality services in both official languages.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Welcome, Minister. Your presence here is greatly appreciated. As you know, I have a particular interest in the implementation rules of Part IV of the Official Languages Act, which governs communications with the public and the delivery of services in both official languages. Since a review of those rules was announced and since you appointed me to an expert advisory group in charge of advising you in this review exercise, I am not going to ask any questions on that today.
I would rather direct your attention to Part IV of the act, concerning the language of work. I read Mr. Borbey’s recommendation regarding the replacement of the bilingualism bonus with language training. I am trying to understand how language training could strengthen the right of public servants to work in their official language.
According to your report, most of the positions that are designated bilingual are occupied by people who have very good language skills. The current problem is that the second official language is not used — and I am going to be corrected by my colleague Senator Maltais — that is, the other official language, which is usually French. We have all been able to observe that as soon as there is a single anglophone in the room, the language used is English, even if all of the other persons present are francophones. In my opinion, language training could only help resolve that issue if all of the public servants were bilingual. I don’t think that is a realistic objective. This proposal does not necessarily provide a solution to this problem.
I would like to hear about the realistic solutions you are considering in the short term. Could we not consider incentives or sanctions for senior managers? We know that a public servant’s right to work in his or her language is often a function of the environment and of the opportunities provided by the supervisor. Perhaps we could consider an implementation regulation for Part V, or a charter of linguistic rights for federal employees that would be adopted under Part V? Would the grievance procedure be sufficient in cases of non-compliance with the act?
Mr. Brison: Thank you for your question, senator. We did receive the report and have taken note of the recommendations regarding the bonus. We are not there yet. It is very important to recognize that the bonus is the result of negotiations with the unions. It is not the government’s role to make unilateral changes to agreements negotiated with unions. However, we constantly examine means to strengthen the capacity of public servants to speak in both official languages.
We invest in training but also in technology to remediate certain problems. I will point to the example of digital translation, which makes it possible for public servants to write in their language and obtain a translation in the other language.
[English]
I meant to say when you receive it.
[Translation]
It is important that our managers be able to speak and understand both official languages, and the Borbey-Mendelsohn report indicates that we must improve things in that regard.
We have not made a decision yet, but we are seriously considering those changes. We are waiting for the conclusions that will be drawn from the review of the regulations. I prefer to avoid prejudging the review or the report, since we have to talk to other ministers with whom we share that responsibility.
[English]
Senator Fraser: Welcome. It’s always nice to hear Nova Scotians speaking French.
Mr. Brison: I get criticized sometimes. A journalist wrote one time that “he speaks French with an Annapolis Valley accent.” I said, “Well, I speak English with an Annapolis Valley accent too.”
Senator Fraser: You said that in your consultations you had been made aware again of the differences between the problems faced by anglophone communities in Quebec or groups in Quebec and francophones in the rest of the country. I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit on that. Tell us what you have, so far at least, found to be problems in Quebec as distinct from elsewhere.
Mr. Brison: I think the pressure on francophone communities in my province, Acadian communities that are very strong communities, there are some similarities, but the ubiquitous nature of English being everywhere and being so prevalent continues to be a really big threat to francophone communities outside of Quebec. In Quebec, there is the risk to minority language communities with francophone communities. I think there are significant risks as well and different kinds of pressures.
One of the things I find striking, we recognize as a government the importance of immigration to Canada. I live in a region of the country that needs more immigration. The problem with the old percentage-based, this 5 per cent, is that it creates a perverse disincentive to communities to welcome in new Canadians in some ways. That would be a terrible thing, because we want to ensure that all Canadian communities are welcoming to new Canadians, but the perverse impact could be that suddenly a francophone community in rural Nova Scotia or in a Nova Scotian town could suddenly fall below the 5 per cent.
The issue here is that arbitrary numbers or percentages may create a problem that actually creates a disincentive for communities to welcome in new Canadians. That would be a terrible and perverse, unintended consequence.
So I’m open to, for instance, numbers and looking at that as opposed to purely percentages, as well as some of the other qualitative factors like vitality and how you measure vitality, the factors, et cetera. There are a lot of qualitative factors that are really important, among them vitality and how you define it.
But we have to remind ourselves that as we grow our country, bilingualism and biculturalism are wonderful gifts that define us uniquely and importantly in North America and broadly.
Part of what we’re learning as we go through this — and what I’m hearing from people — is that the flexibility part of it is really important. Again, one of the most striking examples of a perverse disincentive or unintended consequence would be that a town that welcomes in new Canadians might find itself in a situation where it would lose bilingual services as a result. That would not be good for the town or the new Canadians, for whom learning both languages can be a real gift.
Senator Fraser: This is on a different topic. The Commissioner of Official Languages and, I believe, Borbey and Mendelsohn have said that in bilingual districts, supervisory positions should not only be bilingual but be classified with a higher degree of competence in the other language than those below them. That makes sense. You won’t speak to your boss in a language you’re not confident the boss is comfortable in.
Have you had a chance to look at that recommendation, and are you in favour?
Mr. Brison: As I said to Senator Gagné as well, we have received the recommendations. There are discussions now in our government around the recommendations. We have not taken decisions. We are examining the best way forward. At the supervisory level and all levels of public service, we want to make sure we’re giving our employees every opportunity to strengthen their linguistic capabilities in the two languages.
We need to invest more. There have been cuts at various points that have not been helpful.
We also have to use technology. In terms of learning, we can actually do more to help people strengthen their linguistic capacity today than we could have even 10 years ago. There are investments we need to make in training and education. But that is the nub.
I agree with you. I try to speak French with people, including employees, and they always respond in English. They’re like my daughters in that regard. I totally understand that.
[Translation]
It is very important to ensure that public servants are comfortable speaking in their mother tongue at work. It is important, and we will get there, but we have a lot of work to do.
Senator Maltais: Good afternoon, Minister. I know that you are currently working hard on the access to information file, which is one of your department’s priorities. When you last appeared before us, we talked a lot about accountability when it comes to the funding the provinces receive for education and French-language instruction — in some cases, English-language instruction — and the fact that organizations and school boards could not find out how much money was provided because the funding comes from an overall equalization envelope for provinces. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is also not exactly sure whether the provinces are making proper use of the money allocated for French-language education or health care. What is the status of this file?
Mr. Brison: Thank you for your question. It is a priority for me, as a politician and as a parent, to give Canadian students the opportunity to become bilingual. However, we also have to respect provincial jurisdiction. The provinces are in charge of education and training. At the same time, I think that the federal government and the Department of Canadian Heritage now have an opportunity to produce more bilingual programming for children. CBC/Radio-Canada now has a chance to produce more such programming. We can produce educational material for children.
[English]
Today I look at my kids, who are on iPads. You can get an app. A lot of times, the French material we get for them is on the iPad through apps that provide material for children to learn.
[Translation]
I will avoid talking about education, which comes under provincial jurisdiction. I think the federal government has many opportunities to produce material for children, for all Canadians, to help them improve their French.
Senator Maltais: I know all that, Minister. Having travelled around Canada, we all know what governments are doing. The only thing they are not doing is telling official language communities — especially those in minority situations — how much money the federal government is allocating to the provinces for their schools, their teachers, and that has been a daily issue for us over the past three years.
This is not a criticism of you — far from it — but is there a way, in the machinery of government, to find out how much money the federal government allocated to École Évangéline, on Prince Edward Island, for example? Can we find that information anywhere? Parents and teachers — be it at the primary, secondary or college level — are always asking us what the federal government is doing. Just like you told us, we say that the government has done many good things, but we cannot tell them what they are, since we don’t know. Would it be possible for the government to tell us, for example, that it gave $33 million to Newfoundland and Labrador or to Vancouver? That would put us in a better position to answer people.
If the money you transferred to the province was not used for education, we would tell parents to go to the government, as it is in charge. If the money was instead used to build a road, the government would take the blame.
Mr. Brison: We are still negotiating health transfers with the provinces.
Provincial governments make their choices. They are also accountable to voters, and we share the priorities to provide children with the best opportunities to get an education in both official languages. However, I don’t have an answer for that particular school.
Senator Maltais: No, but that was an example.
Mr. Brison: However, I am open to continuing our discussion. My instinct tells me that this is a legal issue, in a way. We have a Constitution and provincial jurisdiction that give provincial governments the power to determine their priorities. Once again, it is a priority for us, as a government, to make sure to do more to promote both official languages and to protect them across Canada. It is also our priority, when possible, to give children the opportunity to get an education in both official languages. At the same time, we respect provincial jurisdiction. Nevertheless, I am open to other more innovative approaches.
[English]
We have an opportunity today. I look at how my kids learn and how they use their iPads. There’s no jurisdictional issue to the federal government and Canadian Heritage producing wonderful materials in both languages that could help kids learn French and English anywhere in the country. In my opinion, there’s no jurisdictional issue to Canadian Heritage doing that. But, again, we respect provincial jurisdiction in terms of the operation of their educational systems, but that doesn’t obviate the need or the opportunity for the federal government, on the cultural side, to produce more material that could help people learn not just two languages but two cultures.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: We have made recommendations in a number of our reports calling for the government to monitor the funding provided to the provinces more closely because, once the transfer has been made, transparency disappears. As a result, it is unclear whether the allocated funding is used to create new programs — for example, in French immersion programs — and not to renovate libraries. It is in that respect that the witnesses who have appeared before our committee are asking for better accountability, better transparency, which would make it possible to keep track of the allocated funding. I think Senator Maltais’ comments were in line with this.
Mr. Brison: This is the first time I am hearing about this particular issue. I would like to learn more about it.
Senator Tardif: We will send you our reports, once again, Minister.
Senator Moncion: My question is about the decrease in designated bilingual positions over the past few years. We are talking about 15,000 federal government positions disappearing, and it is said that 5,000 of those positions were designated bilingual. That is a decrease of 33 per cent, which is quite a lot. From the total of 198,000 positions, we have gone to 183,000, but out of those 15,000 positions that have disappeared, one-third or 33 per cent were designated bilingual. In addition, the number of employees who provide services to the public in both official languages has decreased over the past five years, but the percentage of incumbents who meet the language requirements of their bilingual position has remained more or less stable. Services to the public have still decreased.
All services provided to the public should be bilingual. When the number of bilingual positions decreases and demands for public services must be met, there is a problem. As a result, the number of complaints related to services to the public has increased to 565. I would like to know what you think about this situation.
Mr. Brison: This is the first time I hear that there are fewer bilingual employees in the public service.
[English]
I’ve been informed that we have more bilingual positions than ever before. I’ll put Carl on the spot, because my information is that we actually have more bilingual jobs than ever before.
Carl Trottier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Governance, Planning and Policy Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: That’s correct. We’re trending upwards for more bilingual jobs.
Mr. Brison: I’m interested, because there may be a disconnect in the way we’re interpreting the information, and I want to understand that in terms of the absolute numbers.
[Translation]
Mr. Trottier: If I understand correctly, it is the percentage of designated positions. So, the absolute number increases in terms of positions, but, in reality, it is the percentage. Are you asking why the percentage does not follow?
Senator Moncion: There seems to be a large decrease in positions. They say that 15,000 positions have disappeared over the past five years, with only 5,000 of them being designated bilingual. I will read the excerpt to you:
While the total number of positions in the core public administration decreased by approximately 15,000 in the last five years, the number of positions designated bilingual was only reduced by 5,000 —
So we are talking about one-third of the 15,000 positions.
Mr. Trottier: If that is correct, we are talking about one-third. People often like to refer to the data on increases that have taken place since the beginning, since the first report was produced in 1978, when 24 per cent of positions were designated bilingual. We are now at 43.2 per cent. You are referring to the decrease since 2011-12.
Mr. Brison: We will send you more information.
Senator Moncion: The point I want to raise is that, somewhere else, it is stated that the number of employees providing services to the public has decreased over the past five years. That is the connection to be made with the drop in the number of positions. It is also said that there are fewer bilingual individuals responding to the public, and that the number of complaints has increased to 565.
Mr. Brison: A moratorium was imposed to protect 250 offices across Canada, so that services can continue to be provided during the review. We are looking for opportunities to increase our services in both official languages. It is clear that, without the moratorium, we risked losing 250 offices. So we imposed the moratorium. That is a sign of our openness to protecting services in both official languages during the review and seeking other approaches to increase our ability to provide services to the public in both official languages.
Senator McIntyre: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, minister.
I have two questions for you. My first question will be in French, and the second one will be in English.
There appears to be a discrepancy between the results presented in our annual report and the content of the annual report issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. That said, I understand that complaints received by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages concerning the language of service, the language of work and language requirements are on the rise, as Senator Moncion mentioned. However, the Treasury Board Secretariat’s annual report does not identify any major challenges to address. What kind of a relationship do you have with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages?
Mr. Brison: We support the report produced by the commissioner’s office, and we take its recommendations very seriously. As a government, we take our responsibilities very seriously. We imposed a moratorium to protect 250 offices across Canada, and we have improved their ability to provide services in both official languages. For the first time in 25 years, the government is reviewing the rules in order to enhance the provision of services in both official languages, to protect and support official language minority communities across Canada. So we are taking the recommendations issued by the commissioner and his staff very seriously. We are also taking measures to raise the bar. As part of this review, we will embrace new approaches to improve services.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: My next question has to do with reporting services. Minister, as you know, federal institutions are required to submit a review of elements associated with the application of the Official Languages Act every three years.
Now, these reviews are important because your department needs them in order to prepare an annual report, and these reviews include providing copies to the Commissioner of Official Languages and the clerks of two parliamentary committees on official languages, the Senate and House of Commons committees.
That said, it appears that the clerks of these two committees do not always receive copies of all the reviews. Some federal institutions are rather inconsistent with regard to transparency. In other words, some institutions send copies of their reviews, and others have never done so.
Let me give you an example. Most of the airport authorities that were required to submit a review in 2015 and 2016 did not send a copy to the clerk of the Senate committee or to the clerk of the House of Commons committee, and I find that very disturbing. Can I have your comments, please?
Mr. Brison: I have great respect for the institutions of Parliament. I have spent more time as a parliamentarian than I have as a minister. I will check on that.
I can speak on my behalf in terms of reports for which we are responsible that we will ensure that we do provide them to the officials of Parliament, both in the Senate and in House of Commons. I wasn’t aware that that was not the case, but I appreciate your bringing it to my attention.
On the question of the bilingual positions raised earlier, I’m informed that in 2000 it was 50,000 positions; in 2016, it was 78,000 positions. But I also have the Library of Parliament research. I’m going to check into that. I want to get back to you.
We’ve been in government two years, and we’re doing a lot in terms of investing in our public service. I want to get back to you on the specifics of the question in terms of bilingual positions within the public service.
Senator McIntyre: I appreciate your answer. Thank you very much.
Mr. Brison: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Minister, we would appreciate it if you could send the answers to our clerk.
Before we move on to the second round, I would like to put a question to you, minister. Last year, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages heard from a number of witnesses who expressed their concerns over the procurement process for parliamentary interpretation services and conference services that Public Services and Procurement Canada was planning to establish. Our committee wrote to the Honourable Judy Foote, who was the minister at the time, to share our concerns with her. She then promised that the Translation Bureau could count on high-quality services that meet its quality standards. It is my understanding, minister, that Ms. Foote asked you to support the consideration of a mandatory service model for the Translation Bureau. Minister, how far along are you in that consideration?
Mr. Brison: Thank you for the question. The Translation Bureau is very important to our government. We hired a new president and CEO in May 2017. We have launched a hiring process for the chief quality officer position. We have hired students and maintained the Translation Bureau’s presence in the regions. It is clear that the bureau’s resources had to be increased. The role of the Translation Bureau is very important to our government, and we encourage all of our government’s departments and agencies to use its services. We know that other translation services are used occasionally, but we encourage the departments and agencies of the Government of Canada to use the Translation Bureau’s services. Departments and agencies have the flexibility to use other services from time to time. By increasing the Translation Bureau’s resources and by hiring more professionals, pressure can be reduced on other departments that have to use alternative services. We plan to make the necessary investments and increase the resources allocated to the Translation Bureau.
Senator Tardif: We don’t want to reduce translation services in order to bring costs down, as it is important to ensure a high quality level, and that is what the Translation Bureau can provide. A subcommittee of the Senate Internal Economy Committee is considering the issue of interpretation services, as complaints have been filed about the quality of interpretation provided to us. The issue often arises because the interpretation is contracted out of the Translation Bureau.
Mr. Brison: That is why we have launched a hiring process to fill the chief quality officer position.
[English]
Senator Poirier: In the annual report, the airport authorities were not included among the small institutions as in previous annual reports, such as 2014-15. Instead they were evaluated separately. For what reason did you decide that for this year they should be held to a different standard compared to a small institution? Why was some part the law not evaluated for airport authorities and another part not deemed to be evaluated? For example, on page 25 the airport authorities were asked to measure the availability and quality of the services, so Part IV of the law, but on page 26 they were not asked to measure the activities of the usage of the official language in the workplace, so Part V of the law. Why were they not asked to measure Part V of the law?
Mr. Brison: I would like to get back to you on that. I think it’s particularly important not to wing it on an airport question. I know what I know, and I know sometimes what I don’t know, and I would rather get you the right answer on that.
Senator Poirier: If you’re sending us more information, could you also send us a copy of the questions that were asked for all the different institutions?
Mr. Brison: I do have a partial answer. I will get back to you with the full answer. Airport authorities are on a three-year cycle, so apparently it won’t be every single year that that report will occur. That report was done on a three-year cycle, so this year was not one of those years, I’m informed.
Senator Poirier: Could you supply to the clerk of the committee for us all a copy of the questions that were asked in the survey to measure the availability for all the different groups of the institutions, the small, the large and the airports as listed on page 25? Could you provide that to us, please?
Mr. Brison: Certainly. We will also speak with the clerk as well. I want to make sure we have all those. I have great respect for the work of parliamentary committees in the Senate, and I want to make sure we get back to you and answer your questions fully.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: I would like to come back to the language of work issue. I was wondering whether the Canadian government has any work environments organized in a way that is conducive to the use of both official languages. If so, can you give us examples of such models and reasons why those environments are successful?
Mr. Brison: We have to do more and go beyond demonstrating examples of openness. For example, when I receive briefing notes, I would like to speak more openly in French, but I think that I have the same issue as other public servants. I am a politician, but I may have similar struggles as a public servant who does not have the same confidence in speaking in the other language as in speaking in their mother tongue. For me, speaking in French is difficult, and it is also sometimes difficult to find a specific word, but we have to create an environment in the public service where public servants will be comfortable speaking in their mother tongue.
Learning French was not easy, and since I don’t use interpretation services in the House or in cabinet meetings, it forces me to be disciplined and develop a trained ear. From time to time, a French subtlety or nuance goes over my head, so I do, to some extent, feel the same insecurities as other public servants when they speak their second official language.
We should also do more to promote the importance for everyone of creating environments in which anglophones like myself feel completely at ease speaking French.
[English]
The language of work up here remains largely English. I hope I’m not breaking any cabinet confidentiality rules, but in our cabinet, ministers speak French and English in our meetings on an ongoing basis. For those of us always working to improve our French, if you don’t use translation, you learn on an ongoing basis and you’re constantly a student.
We need to make people feel comfortable speaking their maternal language as well. It’s hard for me to put myself in a position of a francophone public servant who is surrounded by anglophones in a room. I want to make them feel at ease speaking their language. We have to work together. We have to create an environment within which public servants can feel completely at ease, not just speaking their own maternal language, but for someone like me to feel at ease speaking French. So there is a lot of work to be done on this.
There’s a confidence issue here. I think we need to set an example and do our best on it. You asked a very good question. I would like to think about that in terms of some of the pilots that may be going on now. Also, I would appreciate the input from this committee as to things we could do to improve the environment for both francophones and anglophones.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Some cases are compelling. You hit the nail on the head when it comes to a key factor: leadership. It is essential to the creation of environments where people feel at ease speaking their mother tongue.
Senator Maltais: Minister, you are an anglophone who speaks French well, but I recommend that you rub elbows with the people in Quebec City to further improve your skills. I am sure you would not be able to speak English with anyone in Quebec City since hardly any anglophones live there anymore; they make up less than 1 per cent of the population. If you hear any English being spoken, it will probably be your own echo. Feel free to come to Quebec City, as we would be glad to have you.
Mr. Brison: We could go for a pint of Blanche de Chambly. I love the mussels and fries at Môss, in Quebec City, not to mention the smoked meat at Brynd.
Senator Maltais: You are welcome anytime, but I suggest that we get back to the Official Languages Act, whose implementation we are studying, as is the House of Commons.
One of the most common criticisms we hear is that the Commissioner of Official Languages only has the authority to make recommendations. When a journalist brought that up to the chair of the House of Commons Official Languages Committee, Denis Paradis, he said he would be in favour of giving the commissioner punitive powers, under the new act, to deal with those who commit violations. Take, for example, Air Canada, which has received countless complaints for years and never been penalized. I don’t want to hold it up as the classic case, but, if we are to crack down on violations, the act really has to have more teeth. Mr. Paradis said that he would be in favour of including a system of fines in the act. Where do you stand on that?
Mr. Brison: Thank you for the question. I think we have demonstrated just how important the issue of official languages is to our government, first, with the moratorium and also with the first review of the regulations in 25 years. Who knows? In the future perhaps.
I think the review of the regulations is a very important step, one that will afford us significant opportunities to improve bilingual services across the country. As President of the Treasury Board, I am responsible for matters related to service delivery, public servants and language of work. We are working very hard on this review, and we intend to make the regulations better during our mandate. We are open to all ideas. We want to protect and promote official languages all over the country.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: Minister, in your opening remarks you addressed the issue of regulations, and I would like to revisit that issue very briefly.
As you have indicated, in the spring of 2019 we will have the adoption of the revised regulations and so on. In its most recent annual report, the Commissioner of Official Languages outlined a series of principles to guide this review.
Will you consider all of the guidance provided by the commissioner in drafting your final report?
Mr. Brison: We will consider all of the recommendations, of course. You don’t do a review unless you’re genuinely open to change. I mentioned earlier that in the past, percentages were used in defining communities for the delivery of bilingual services.
[Translation]
I think that, in some cases, figures are more appropriate. The other indicators, or qualitative factors, such as vitality, are also important.
[English]
I’m open to input from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, but I’m also open to your input. There is a lot of expertise in the Senate on this, and we are benefiting from that. I look forward to hearing from you on that.
[Translation]
As a government, we want to raise the bar when it comes to the delivery of bilingual services.
[English]
We will continue to do that. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you.
Senator Tardif: Minister, I know Jean-Luc is ready to put your coat on you. On behalf of the Senate committee, we want to thank you very much for your presence here today.
[Translation]
Minister, we recognize your personal commitment to bilingualism and your respect for official languages; we are counting on you to ensure full compliance with the Official Languages Act. Thank you.
Mr. Brison: Thank you again. You are more patient with me and my French skills than Rose and Claire Brison-St. Pierre.
Senator Tardif: Honourable senators, once again, thank you kindly. Meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)