LANG Committee Meeting

    Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this 38th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Most of our members managed to get here this morning despite the particularly harsh winter conditions. Winter is here.

    However, the weather did not prevent the Deputy Minister from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Neil Yeates, from arriving on time. Welcome, Mr. Yeates. He is accompanied by Les Linklater, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, and champion for official languages. We have had the pleasure of having him with us in the past. With them is Claudette Deschênes, Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations.

    Is this your first visit to this committee, Ms. Deschênes?

    It is my first time at this committee.

    Welcome.

    Without further ado, I invite you to make your opening statement. We will then move on to questions from the members.

    Mr. Yeates.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me and my colleagues to speak with you today.

    Mr. Chair, CIC strives to reach beyond its Official Languages Act obligations to ensure that both official languages groups feel respected across Canada. This applies to official languages groups within our department's workplace, as well as the broader public.

    While CIC received an overall score of "C" in the commissioner's 2010 Annual Report, the department is committed to improving our rating, and work is under way to address the issues that require further attention.

    For example, we have already addressed the commissioner's concerns regarding the six complaints we received about the lack of spoken French at citizenship ceremonies. And I am pleased to report to the committee today that all six of these complaints have been resolved.

     CIC recognizes, however, that there are areas where we still need to improve.

     I would like to focus now on the commissioner's concerns regarding part IV of the act, which deals with service delivery, and what we are doing to address them.

    While CIC obtained an excellent result of 100% for providing an active offer of service in both official languages over the telephone, I wish to address what we believe are perhaps some inaccurate observations made regarding our level of service in French.

    The commissioner's office found that CIC's automated telephone service asks anglophones to continue waiting, whereas francophones are told that services are not available at the moment and should call back later. The commissioner therefore concluded that francophones could obtain services in French from our national call centre only 29% of the time.

    Mr. Chair, this is not possible. In fact, CIC's automated system is unable to distinguish the language of the caller, and it will only accept a certain number of calls at any one time. Once the system has reached that limit, it will inform all callers to call back later, regardless of their chosen language.

    When the system has reached its limit, the caller receives the following automated message:

    We then repeat the message in English:

    Differences in access would only occur due to the time at which the call was made or due to the number of other callers waiting in the queue. As a result, we believe that these requests for French service cited in the commissioner's report occurred during very high-volume periods at the call centre. We will be following up with the commissioner's office regarding this issue and the observations they have made.

    I would also note that all of our call centre agents are appointed to their positions in the regions at the imperative CBC level, and they are ready to serve the public in the language of their choice. Since CIC's system cannot differentiate between the language of the callers waiting in the queue, and since our agents are not assigned to respond in a particular language, every agent is able to provide services in the chosen language of the caller.

    Regarding our service to the public in person, the commissioner found that CIC staff provided an active offer in 56% of the cases when an applicant visited a CIC office in person.

    I would like to note that this rating varied regionally, and I will work with senior management to ensure our services are offered in both official languages at our offices across the country.

     Moreover, CIC is currently examining strategies to improve the ability of all of our employees to serve the public in both official languages. CIC also promotes the use of both languages in the workplace. For example, CIC holds an annual official languages campaign to remind employees of their Official Languages Act responsibilities.

    Finally, I also wish to note that CIC received an A for its implementation of parts VI and VII of the act. It was for ensuring the participation of both language groups in our institution and for our efforts to help strengthen linguistic duality in Canadian society.

    CIC is committed to support francophone minority communities through immigration. As you know, Mr. Chair, the work we do in this area requires working with many partners. That is why, in 2002, the department created the CIC - Francophone Minority Communities Steering Committee.

    The committee brings together federal departments and agencies, provinces and territories, and community representatives to foster immigration to francophone minority communities.

    In September 2006, the committee launched the strategic plan to foster immigration to francophone minority communities. A key goal of this plan is to increase the number of French-speaking immigrants settling outside of Quebec to 4.4% by 2023, with a mid-term target of 1.8% by 2013, to match the percentage of Canadians outside Quebec whose mother tongue is French, based on the 2001 census.

    This timeline reflects the challenges of recruiting French-speaking immigrants to settle outside of Quebec.

    Given these challenges, CIC has intensified promotional programs to encourage potential immigrants and students to come to francophone minority communities in Canada and to inform them of the services available.

    An example of this is Destination Canada, our major promotional and recruitment event held in November in Paris and Brussels, which attracted over 2,500 people.

    In closing, I wish to reiterate that CIC is committed to ensuring our obligations are fulfilled under the Official Languages Act, and we will work to improve our results in the commissioner's 2012 report card.

    We would be happy to respond to your questions now.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you, Mr. Yeates.

    We will start the first round with Mr. Bélanger.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Welcome, Mr. Yeates, Ms. Deschênes and Mr. Linklater. You are aware of the committee report the Chair tabled in the House last week?

    Yes.

    Have you read it? Have you taken note of it?

    I can start off, Chair.

    Yes, we have taken an initial look at it. We've looked at the recommendations. Quite a number of them apply to CIC. We'll be looking at those quite carefully as we build our own plans going into next year and the following years.

    We think there are a number of very relevant recommendations made there, and we need to think through the implications of those for us.

    We can expect a very thorough and complete response, then.

    We will certainly do our best. We'll be tabling a response, I believe, in March, when it's due. But yes, we take it very seriously, certainly, and we'll do as good a job as we can.

    How did you reach the 1.8%?

    It's a challenge. As members probably know, we're working quite hard with minority community organizations and provinces and territories, in terms of both specific recruitment activities and settlement and integration services, because part of the challenge is keeping people in communities. Even if they settle there originally, we worry about secondary migration. So we need to focus quite hard on efforts to integrate people once they arrive.

    Can you give me a sense of the consultations your department held with the communities to reach that target?

    Sure.

    I'll ask Les to speak to that, because Les is chairing that process.

    As you know, we have set up a steering committee with the francophone and Acadian communities across the country. Every year at least, at a very high level, we set our priorities for the coming year with all the community representatives. We have set a number of priorities with the communities. The 4.4% and 1.8% targets for French-speaking immigrants are in our work plan.

    We feel that the key tool is the Destination Canada event that takes place every year in Europe. It involves the provinces, the territories—

    Mr. Linklater, why is it that the FCFA, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, which is the umbrella organization representing francophone communities, says it was not consulted on this 1.8% target?

    We are working with the FCFA. Obviously, if our strategic plan changes, we have to discuss those changes with the representatives of the federation. In my opinion, the department has a very good relationship with the FCFA. I met yesterday with Mr. Arnal to discuss the next steps for 2011 in terms of our work with the federation. I believe that even if we had communication problems, the door would still be open to having a very frank dialogue and raising questions.

     Can you help me understand how your personal objectives are set as deputy minister--by whom and how?

    In general, Chair, I provide suggestions to the clerk in terms of what I think need to be objectives every year, based in part on what the minister is asked to do. And that feeds into a process with the clerk. The clerk provides any additional feedback or input that he or she thinks is relevant, and then that's used for annual performance review purposes.

     I presume those are not publicly available documents.

    No.

    Okay, but you are allowed to talk about them.

    Do official languages figure in these personal objectives?

    Yes, they do, in the broad sense that part of our obligation to the clerk is to advance the agenda of public service renewal, which includes a whole series of actions and work, including official languages.

    And in establishing those, do you have methods of measuring the success or the levels of results achieved?

    Yes, as best we can.

    In some of the areas, and for this area in particular--and the commissioner has used this information in some of his findings--the public service employee survey provides input and feedback on a whole range of topics.

    The survey wasn't done last year.

    No, it was done in 2008.

    But it wasn't done last year, so how can you measure? If that's the tool you use to measure, how can you measure the progress or achievements?

     I gave that as an example, Chair. It's one of the tools that's used. Certainly this year we now have our report card from the commissioner's office, so that's another piece of information that could be fed into that process.

    Can you tell me if the bonuses paid to the executives are linked to the objectives they must meet? Are there any bonuses attached to official languages throughout your executive category?

    Yes, it's referred to as at-risk pay, Chair, which is maybe a minor distinction, but it may be an important one.

    But the short answer is yes, but it's in the whole array of what I am asked to do as a deputy minister.

    Could you guess that some of your colleagues who got Fs through the commissioner would have their at-risk pay affected?

     I couldn't say. That's not for me to decide. I don't know. It may be one factor among many.

    I think the challenge for deputy ministers is that there are many things we try to do at the same time. There are many balls in the air, and we do the best job we can. But it's a challenge. It really depends on what you're facing in any one year.

    Thank you very much.

    Ms. Guay, you have the floor.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Welcome, everyone.

    You are probably aware that your “C” rating is the fourth-lowest rating of all the departments, which means that there is still a great deal of work to be done. You indicated that you will be submitting another report to us in March 2011. I hope some significant changes will have been made by then.

    We quite often deal with immigration issues in our riding offices. In many cases, people complain to us rather than to you. You say you received six complaints, but that is practically impossible. In our ridings, we get complaints from people who cannot get services in their official language. Often, it is services in French, obviously.

    I was rather disappointed to hear the message for clients that says that all your lines are busy, the call cannot be transferred to a call centre agent and the least busy days are Thursday and Friday.

    That means that people cannot call you on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday because you are too busy. A francophone who is trying to reach you will not likely get an answer. You are going to have to give us an explanation, sir, because it is rather disturbing to hear that sort of telephone message. It implies that a person with an extremely important and urgent case will not be able to get service in his language because Thursday and Friday are the least busy days.

    Explain that to me.

    All I said was that we get a lot of calls at our call centre. It is a real challenge for us. We tell people that there are fewer calls on Thursday and Friday just by way of information. The fact remains that we receive a lot of calls from our clients every day.

    I know, because we also get calls. Who do people turn to when they cannot reach you? Their MP. I can tell you that in my riding, the service is not meeting people's needs. There is work that is not being done. Many improvements need to be made. We are acting as a go-between in terms of immigration. In a way, I find that totally unacceptable. It is your job, not ours, to do this work.

    I have a question for you about your relationship with the embassies. I do not know whether this is your responsibility or Foreign Affairs', but people have the same problem with the embassies. They cannot get services in both official languages. It is a serious problem.

    Do you work as a team or are you completely separate?

    Certainly as a team. Ms. Deschênes could perhaps give you some more information about that.

    Yes, I would like to know how things work.

    At the embassy, the immigration section is mainly responsible for responses regarding cases. As for the employees recruited abroad, the person at reception who takes calls, for example, is an employee of the Department of Foreign Affairs. However, the two departments work closely together to serve clients in both languages. Our officers who work abroad now have a “CCC” linguistic profile. Some older employees like myself still have a “CBC” profile, but all new recruits start at the “CCC” level.

    In some countries, though, it is not easy to recruit people who speak French in addition to English and the language of the country. At the main reception desk, people have to be able to provide service in both languages. And when these people take a coffee break, if their replacements do not know French as well, they are supposed to be able to immediately call on an officer who can help them provide service in both official languages.

    But I can tell you that that does not happen all the time.

    It does not always happen, but I think that is the idea. Clearly, it is not easy sometimes. I was the official languages champion in one mission abroad. We worked very closely with the local residents to get them to understand their official languages responsibilities.

    If only one person speaks French in an office in a foreign embassy and that person is unavailable because he or she is on sick leave or whatever, then there is no more service in French. It is as simple as that.

    I have to admit that in some missions we do not have the level we would have liked.

    That is true in a number of countries.

    But all the officers are bilingual when they leave Canada. The level for immigration and other programs is “CBC”. We recognize that the system is not perfect.

    No, it is not perfect; it is far from perfect. There is a great deal of work to be done. We work with people who apply to immigrate in Quebec or Canada, and we are really the go-between because the employees cannot answer these people in French. They are trying to come here and they have documents to fill out. Quite often, these documents are not available in their language. They cannot even be interviewed in their own language. So their applications are often denied because they do not understand well enough. They are not served in their language, so they answer as best they can. That is where we come in.

    I would like to add one comment. We met with Mr. Nadeau and his team. If you know of any specific cases, I would like you to send them to me.

    I can do that.

    It is true that not all complaints are made formally.

    You do not receive them all.

    But it is important for us to understand. If there are specific missions involved, we could work on a specific plan for those places.

    Ms. Deschênes, I would like to tell you that before we call on you, we try to handle cases ourselves because sometimes there are major emergencies. We do not wait for you to handle the case for us. We have to act quickly, and it can take a very long time to get a response from the departments.

    Thank you, Ms. Guay.

    I would add that many MPs' offices have an immigration branch.

    Quite right.

    That is a department that is growing more and more.

    Mr. Godin.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Welcome.

    I have to agree with the chair on this point. Our offices have become immigration offices rather than MPs' offices. Something is certainly wrong somewhere, and I can guarantee you that the chair, Ms. Guay and I are not the only ones who are saying so. Something is wrong somewhere. It makes no sense for MPs' offices to have to do the work of Immigration Canada. I am sorry, but that is the reality. The work our employees have to do, whether in Windsor or elsewhere, is incredible. All some MPs' staff do is immigration. Something is wrong at Immigration Canada.

    Ms. Deschênes, you say that the employees who are sent abroad now have a “CCC” profile. What about those who have been sent to Charlottetown? Do they also have a “CCC” profile?

    What do you mean when you say the employees who have been sent to Charlottetown?

    I am told that the office staff in Charlottetown are not bilingual. Does that make sense in our bilingual country, in an Atlantic province? I do not know whether the same thing is true in Newfoundland and Labrador, but I am told that there are no francophone employees in Charlottetown.

    It also depends on what region the offices are in, but we try to have bilingual people in every office. I do not think Charlottetown is in a region designated as bilingual. In that case, we could hire a—

    We are talking about a province in our bilingual country. I know you are quite proud to say that when someone is sent abroad, they have a “CCC” profile, meaning that they are bilingual. But in our own bilingual country, in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, there is not enough French to provide service in French. Do you mean that this is an area designated as non-bilingual? Is that what I am to understand?

    Yes.

    If the people in the Évangéline region of Prince Edward Island want to call the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, they cannot get service in French in Charlottetown. I do not think you have two offices in Prince Edward Island. How many offices do you have in P.E.I.?

    One.

    There is one office in Prince Edward Island, and it does not even provide services in French. That means that in the Évangéline region, the people in the French-speaking community of P.E.I. cannot even get services in French. They have to wait a long time to talk to someone who speaks French, is that not true?

    Thursdays and Fridays.

    All the calls are directed to a call centre in Montreal, where all the staff are bilingual. I will confirm what the minister said: the system serves all clients in the same way, whether they are francophone or anglophone.

    So why do you have an office in P.E.I.?

    Because some things need to be done to finalize cases.

    Do these cases involve anglophones only?

    The vast majority involve anglophones.

    What do francophones do? Go to Montreal?

    No. If they need service, we can serve them in French.

    How do you do that if there are no francophones?

    I did not say there were no francophones, although I cannot say for sure that there are. I said the region was not designated as bilingual.

    I would like you to tell us whether there are any francophones at the Charlottetown office and, if so, whether they are qualified to serve clients.

     Okay.

    As for the telephone lines, what is the proportion of English-language to French-language lines? I hear the same thing about Air Canada and Aeroplan. They provide service in both languages, but you can spend a whole weekend on the line waiting for a francophone to talk to you at Aeroplan. The lines are always busy. It is funny that when you call the same number and choose service in English, you get a faster response, whether it is Thursday, Friday or Sunday.

    Have you done a study to find out how long a francophone can wait on the line? I am not saying the message is not the same in the end. There could be 200 English-language lines and 10 French-language lines, and the French-language lines would be busy much more quickly. Can you tell us the ratio of the two types of lines?

    All our lines are bilingual. Clients do not call into a place where there are 25 English-language and 20 French-language lines, for example. People are assigned to a workstation, and the first person who can answer the telephone does so and provides bilingual service. The call could be in French or English.

    We are trying to explain that we do not understand the commissioner's methodology. A person got an answer not because he was francophone or anglophone. It may just be because too many lines were busy. Our system does not allow us to have more than a certain percentage of calls waiting.

    Maybe the problem occurs when the bilingual employee has to determine how to serve the client. Maybe it is when the employee transfers a client who speaks only French to a French-language service. You do not have any bilingual employees who provide full service, do you? Is service bilingual from the time the phone rings?

    When the phone first rings, the automated system answers. The person then waits for someone to answer. All the agents who answer calls are bilingual. All calls are taken. If I am the next person in line, even if I want to speak French, my call will be taken next. If the deputy minister is the next person, even if he wants service in English, he will come next, and I will come after.

    At the next stage, are all of the agents bilingual?

    All agents at the call centre are bilingual.

    At the call centre?

    Yes.

    Yes, completely.

    Did the commissioner explain his methodology to you? The francophone client was put—

    —on hold.

    The individual is put on hold, or he or she must call back later.

    He explained his methodology, but we want to follow up with him. The system does not allow—

    What is his methodology?

    He calls. If he is put on hold for five minutes, he hangs up and calls back five minutes later. But there may be fewer people waiting in the queue five minutes later. He therefore—

    Where did he get his methodology for distinguishing between French-speaking and English-speaking lines?

    He can call today and pretend to be francophone one moment and call back five minutes later as an anglophone.

    Thank you.

    I can tell you, I called Aeroplan and I did not pretend. I know there is a difference between the two, I can guarantee that.

    Thank you, Mr. Godin.

    We will try it. We will pretend, too.

    We will now hear from Mr. Rickford.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'd like to welcome our witnesses today.

    My first question might be a bit more of a clarification than anything. In the report, there was a comment by the commissioner that:

    In the last sentence, does the percentage of workers refer to French speaking and English speaking? The sentences that precede it seem to focus on English-speaking employees' satisfaction.

    Mr. Chair, I think the anglophone and francophone staff were separated out in terms of assessing the survey results.

    If I could speak briefly, we did undertake some significant efforts in the Quebec region to improve this situation, and we did see a dramatic improvement between the two surveys.

    Was that overall, Mr. Yeates?

    Overall, the results, we felt, were pretty good, but we've seen dramatic improvements in results for anglophones in the Quebec region, when you separate out that portion of the response.

    Out of curiosity, what would be the discrepancy between the numbers for English speakers and French speakers? Do you happen to know that?

    They were very similar, actually. I think the average for the department was 86% for anglophone employees in Quebec. The average for all departments was 74%, so that was high.

    I'm just looking for the overall CIC number here. Sorry, I'll have to find that.

    That's fine. You can get back to us. Thanks.

    The report states, “According to information gathered by the Office of the Commissioner, Citizenship and Immigration Canada is one of the federal institutions that are most successful in taking into account the development of official language communities when implementing key intervention programs.”

    It also says you are working in cooperation with the Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité. How are you doing so?

    Also, what have you done to study the hiring needs of businesses outside of Quebec with respect to French-speaking immigrants?

    Thank you. Mr. Linklater is our champion.

    Go ahead.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    As I said earlier, we work very closely with the FCFA and with minority communities across the country.

    As part of our work plan, we cooperate with the RDÉE, since their people work with Human Resources and Skills Development in order to determine specific employers' needs and to help us match employers' needs and those of specific immigrants who want to work in Canada.

    This initiative on our part corresponds to employers' needs. At the same time, every year overseas with Destination Canada, potential immigrants from Europe, Africa and the Middle East are matched with employers from the provinces and territories, and a pool of potential immigrants is developed to fill the positions available here in Canada.

    Thank you, Mr. Linklater.

    Mr. Yeates, your department received an overall rating of “C”. As you pointed out, you received an “A” regarding parts VI and VII of the Official Language Act.

    I have two questions.

    You have worked in many federal and provincial government departments and ministries. Regarding the areas in which you received a “C” rating and in the other departments—

consistently at this committee we're dealing with--or at least my line of questioning is focused on--the things you have done that are good in areas where the commissioner has recognized as much with a grade, say, of an A, and how those things can be transportable to the areas where you didn't perform as well. And perhaps, very briefly, Mr. Yeates, is there best practices stuff in here that we can transport to other departments in the government? We're having trouble getting answers to those questions. We've had other departments that face other challenges. I realize there is some uniqueness or it's nuanced. Can you comment on that as somebody who's worked in, at least as far as I can see, perhaps six to ten different departments?

     Yes, thank you.

    I can identify a number of things that I think have been important. Part of what we've worked hard to do in Citizenship and Immigration is to recruit a very diverse workforce. That has been very important for us, and it includes a strong francophone representation in our workforce.

    We've located our national call centre in Montreal, which is a very good population to draw from in terms of bilingualism. The staff there are very strongly bilingual, so that was a good place to locate a national call centre. That's been important for us.

    Beyond that, we've identified people to champion specific initiatives—and Mr. Linklater is doing that with the francophone minority communities. We undertook special efforts, when the results came out with respect to anglophones in Quebec, to establish some special initiatives there. One example, which has been quoted in some reports, is the use of a buddy system to team people up with a supervisor or a colleague who works in the other language to allow them a better opportunity to practice their language skills.

    Would you recommend that practice overall in departments?

    Yes, we think that's something worth looking at. Those kinds of things can make a difference in the scheme. In fact, they're small things. It's largely a matter of creating a culture where people are more attuned to these issues and working on them.

    Thank you, Mr. Rickford.

    We'll now begin our second round.

    We will begin with Ms. Zarac.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Hello. I am very interested in the lowest rating you scored, 29%, for telephone service. You seem to be saying that the commissioner's observations were inaccurate. Does your interactive response system ask clients what language they prefer?

    I think so.

    At what point?

    At the very beginning of the call.

    Okay. Did you discuss the 29% rating with the commissioner?

    We began discussing it. Before the report was released, we did not discuss the methodology.

    No, I mean after the report was released.

    We are working with him at this time. He just sent us his methodology last Friday. We will be having other meetings with the commissioner.

    Okay. I am looking at the reasons you gave and I would like to come back to the table that indicates the 29% rating. The paragraph explaining the rating is on page 10 of the commissioner's report. It states:

    It does not say that callers did not receive a response; it says that they did not receive a response in the official language of their choice. Is that how you understand it?

    That is not what the research table we received on Friday tells us. That is why we want to follow up on it. That is not what is understood from the table.

    Okay. From the report, I understand that Canadians did not receive an answer in their language. This must be clarified, because this would require different remedial action. In light of that, did you verify your interactive response system again to make sure it was sufficient, that it was meeting clients' needs?

    Yes. According to the study, they did not get an answer because they were not able to speak to someone. However, when they asked for service in English, they—

    That is not what the report says.

    I know. That is why we will continue doing research.

    According to the report, citizens did not receive a response in their language.

    Yes.

    This situation needs to be clarified. I wonder if you could appear before this committee again in the future to give us a response and tell us exactly what you find.

    Yes.

    Does your department do annual strategic planning?

    Yes.

    Does that planning include a plan for official languages?

    Yes.

    It is included in your planning, in your work plan.

    Yes.

    Okay. That plan expired on March 30, 2010, I think.

    Yes, that's right. This year, we are developing a new plan for the next three years.

    Has it been developed? The last one expired several months ago.

    Yes.

    I understand you are working on it at this time?

    Yes.

    When do you think it will be done?

    By the end of the year, in February or March.

    When it is done, could you provide a copy of it to the committee?

    Yes.

    Thank you.

    You said that six complaints had been resolved. They had to do with citizenship ceremonies.

    Yes.

    What measures were taken to resolve these problems in the long term?

     Do you want to speak to that, Claudette?

    We plan to ensure that some of the new judges that are about to be appointed are already bilingual.

    What were the complaints about?

    There were concerns that not enough of the ceremony was in French.

    What measures have you taken?

    We need to ensure that the main part of the ceremony is very balanced with respect to both official languages. We must also ensure the quality of the French spoken by the participants and judges and written in the department's records. We offer training as needed. We also need to recruit bilingual judges and ensure that all Citizenship and Immigration employees have the bilingual skills needed.

    Are there enough bilingual people to meet the department's needs at this time?

    Yes. There were some problems in one region, but they have since been resolved.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, Mrs. Zarac.

    We will now hear from Mr. Nadeau.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Hello. I would like to thank the people from Citizenship and Immigration for meeting with us, with staff from my office and with me. We talked about issues regarding service in French in Canadian embassies overseas. I would like to point out that you acted very quickly. I have fewer positive things to say about our friends at foreign affairs. I do not know what is happening in that department, which I would call the “department of strange affairs”. After I received the okay from the department, someone suddenly called and cancelled all of our meetings. We were supposed to discuss the same issue.

    It is worth noting that when we talk about Canadian embassies overseas, there are two departments within the same office: the Department of Foreign Affairs, and Citizenship and Immigration. This was pointed out at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The ambassador or head diplomat is the boss. In my opinion, this is problematic to some degree. To fall under two departments is a little like having no boss at all. Some people take advantage of that to do as they please. I would like verify some things and look closely at the situation, in the best interest of citizens.

    I know that Citizenship and Immigration makes 7,000 decisions a day around the world. For all citizens and any future citizens who are awaiting an answer, these are very important decisions. Regardless of whether or not the claimants like the decisions, this is a lot of work for immigration employees.

    That being said, I realize that you have some doubts about the methodology and many other things with respect to the official language commissioner's report. However, that report exists and is what we are using as our work instrument. Personally, I have my own misgivings when you say you have doubts about the commissioner. It was mentioned that in Prince Edward Island, with a population of just under 200,000 residents, Citizenship and Immigration has one office. Yet in Gatineau, a federal riding and a city of 240,000, the department has an office, but it is open only two hours a week. Bloody hell! Two hours a week—think about that for a second. When people want to apply, they come to my office. We do our best, but we are not the ones who decide in the end. Do you know what claimants are told? “Go to Ottawa.” I know that only a river and a couple of bridges separate the two cities. Actually, we will soon have another bridge.

    Two, actually.

    In any case, I am sure you see the problem there. Let's just say that in Gatineau, most applications are from francophones. Earlier when I said “bloody hell”, it was because my tires were slipping on the ice this morning. That is why it was a little harsher. But I would still like to point out that it is a major problem. I know you do not have a response to that. For goodness sake, at least open your offices two or three days a week! There is no shortage of applicants.

    Regarding your employees, 42% of Citizenship and Immigration employees do not feel at liberty to write their documents in French. Furthermore, 35% do not feel free to speak French to their supervisors. Welcome to Canada! Mr. Linklater and Mr. Yeates, that is a real problem.

    Mr. Yeates, as Deputy Minister, what do you plan to do to fix that?

    It is true; that is a real challenge for us. It is extremely important. Within the department we are discussing things we could do, such as a campaign with all government officials and other managers. That is part of our department's plan for the next three years. I agree with you; it is a real problem.

    Absolutely. As official languages champion, I am very concerned. We invited all branches of the department to the table for our steering committee meeting. In the past, we focused only on part VII. Now we recognize that the department has a problem and must improve—

    That is part V. Those are your employees, your world.

    Yes. That is why we are bringing representatives from human resources and other branches of the department to the steering committee's management table, so that we can get an overview of all issues related to official languages. We need to have discussions and action plans to meet the needs of our workforce and our partners.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Nadeau.

    Now we'll continue with Ms. Tilly O'Neill-Gordon.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Welcome. It's great to have you with us this morning.

    I first want to join with my colleagues in congratulating you on the results of your evaluation. We know, from this indication, that lots of work has been put forth to make these things happen.

    I am also happy to see that you are implementing some of your good work in my province of New Brunswick. As a bilingual province, I'm sure they'll be willing to welcome all of your good ideas, so I welcome those ideas as well.

    On page 45 of the commissioner's report, he said, “Citizenship and Immigration Canada still has difficulty promoting the equal status and use of English and French at citizenship ceremonies when new citizens are sworn in.”

    I'm sure that you're quite aware of this and that you probably have measures in place to help make this better. I'm wondering what specific measures you are planning to implement to find a solution to this problem, which affects new French-speaking citizens in particular.

    Thank you very much, Chair.

    I can just go over some of the things we're doing now to improve this situation.

    First of all, we are increasing the emphasis on the recruitment of bilingual judges. We have seven right now, serving Fredericton, as it turns out, and Montreal and Scarborough. We are providing training to 20 of the 33 judges right now to improve their French and the use of French in ceremonies. We've provided additional materials to ensure that French is covered.

    Whenever there is a complaint, we follow up on that immediately. Some of those complaints were made to the commissioner's office, and we've been able to resolve those in specific locations around the country. Certainly the chief citizenship judge accepts the responsibility to really take this on and improve the use of French in citizenship ceremonies. We think we will see some significant improvements here.

    Some progress has certainly been made over the past 18 months, and we expect to see continued progress.

    I'm aware of judges in the Miramichi who are in this program as well.

    Yes.

    It will make a difference, for sure.

    The other thing, as you know, the official languages committee is always looking at is post-secondary institutions and study for foreign students. The French post-secondary institutions outside Quebec, of course, are an obvious means of increasing the number of French-speaking permanent residents. After spending two, three, or maybe four years at one of these institutions, a foreign student establishes a network of contacts that will facilitate his or her economic and social integration.

    What does your strategic plan propose to support the efforts of French language schools and post-secondary institutions that want to recruit foreign students?

     I'll ask Les to speak to that.

    Mr. Chair, in 2008 CIC put in place the “Canadian experience” class, which effectively allows foreign students and temporary foreign workers, who are able to work for at least a year in the case of foreign students, to transition to being permanent residents. Given the preponderance of francophone institutions outside of Quebec, we feel this is an excellent tool to help official language minority communities attract and retain permanent residents, as was mentioned.

    Essentially, we have undertaken some marketing campaigns with all post-secondary institutions, francophone and anglophone, to raise awareness of the availability of this program. Beyond that, from consultation with the provinces and territories, we understand that under their own provincial nominee programs most have an international student stream, which allows them as well to nominate international students who are at their institutions. This is for provinces such as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia with substantial francophone populations, and Manitoba as well. Again, this is a pathway to permanent residency that international students can avail themselves of to remain in Canada permanently.

    This is an important topic to our committee, and we thank you for your work on our behalf.

    Thank you very much.

    Thank you, Ms. O'Neill-Gordon.

    We will finish round four with Mr. Godin.

    Thank you.

    I talked about Prince Edward Island earlier, but what about the Yukon? Are employees at the Yukon offices bilingual?

    Ms. Deschênes?

    I am not sure.

    Could we have—

    You could have—

    The committee worked hard to prepare the report that was tabled in the House. We have already had discussions with people across the country regarding immigration to Canada. Within embassies and immigration offices, Quebec has its own offices in various countries, mainly francophone countries. As for the rest of Canada, there are no offices designated for the francophonie. In my view, this means that Prince Edward Island is at a disadvantage, since bilingual service is not offered there and that goes against our study on immigration.

    If these offices are not designated bilingual, will you take into consideration the examination of that part?

    Yes, we can certainly look at that.

    Look, it's easy. Personally, I want to see some results.

    We recognize that we have some challenges in that regard. If we could do something else—

    If neither the PEI or the Yukon office has bilingual staff, yet we can send people with “CCC” linguistic profiles overseas...can we not respect official languages in Canada and ensure that every province has bilingual staff in its offices?

    I would just like to clarify the fact that in the Yukon and PEI offices, there are staff who can speak both official languages. However, that does not mean that the majority of people working in those offices have a “CBC” linguistic profile.

    I never said anything about the majority. I talked about providing service. The agents must be able to say more than just “Hello, how are you?”, “What a beautiful day” and ”I don't speak French”.

    I would point out, for instance, that in the Yukon, service was available in French when the department was doing its research.

    Service was available, but there were some cuts to immigration offices in the Yukon.

    Do you know something I don't?

    I don't know. That must be confirmed.

    It needs to be confirmed.

    Thanks to BlackBerrys, news travels fast, but we do not always hear everything.

    Okay. That will be confirmed.

    I would like to talk about another point. I will be brief, Mr. Chair.

    I don't know if you are familiar with the case of a woman from Rwanda who wanted to go to British Columbia. Her application was denied because she spoke only French. She would have been going to work in a French-speaking family. I was involved in the case and the minister was also forced to become involved before she was finally given permission.

    Has that problem been resolved, or can Citizenship and Immigration still discriminate against a French-speaking person who wants to settle in British Columbia or another province apart from Quebec?

    I do not know.

    I would just like to explain that if someone wants to work with children, usually that person must have a minimum degree of comfort in the language in order to deal with emergency services, for instance, in case of an emergency. That being said—

    I'm sorry, but we are running out of time.

    The family was French-speaking, too.

    Yes, but if that person needed to call an ambulance, for instance, perhaps the emergency services—

    That being said, it has been resolved and we have made sure that very clear instructions are sent so that the family can choose the language of their family caregiver.

    However, to understand clearly, when this is being considered, the goal is to ensure that these people can be served in the event of an emergency and that they can get the children to the hospital.

    I disagree, Ms. Deschênes.

    This is Canada. It is a bilingual country. You are saying that when Quebeckers go to live in British Columbia, they need to think about if they can move there and if they can call an ambulance in the language of their choice.

    That is not what I said. I said—

    No, I am the one saying that, because that is what that means.

    We resolved the problem by saying that—

    Has it been resolved for the long term?

    Yes, the long term.

    You say you are still studying this. That means it has not been resolved.

    I was trying to explain why it happened.

    Ah! Why it “happened” in the past. It is no longer happening.

    The instructions are clear. People need to be able to speak one of the two official languages and that has to correspond to the family's needs.

    Okay. It is clearer now.

    Thank you.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Godin.

    That concludes our second round. Would any members like a third round on this side? No, okay.

    So go ahead, Mr. Bélanger.

    I am a little puzzled by the fact that as a solution to the problem regarding the citizenship ceremony, you want bilingual judges. Who would appoint them?

     The Governor in Council does.

    So how will you ensure that the Governor in Council appoints bilingual judges?

    We won't be able to ensure that, Chair; that will be up to the Governor in Council. But we're part of the process and are trying to move forward. We've certainly tried to sensitize people that we need better bilingual and French capacity than we have at the moment.

    But it's not a given that the Governor in Council will appoint them.

    No. That's up to them.

    Thank you.

    I would now like to talk about Roadmap expenditures for the department. The Roadmap allocated $20 million, I believe, to your department

    Can you tell us how those funds were used?

    As you know, we support minority communities. We support them through an agreement we have with the FCFA. So some of the money goes towards that.

    We also support Destination Canada, an event to promote recruitment. In terms of specific investments, we would have to get back to you with those numbers.

    Could you do that, tell us how much has been spent so far?

    Yes.

    Okay.

    How much does the department spend every year on settlement funding?

    It's between $800 million and $900 million.

    How much?

    Nine hundred million dollars.

    And how much goes to official language communities?

    I do not have that number here.

    If I said $10 million, would that be about right?

    Perhaps.

    I think, Mr. Chair, it's important to understand which communities we're talking about when we say “official language minority community”--given that Edmonton and Vancouver have significant francophone populations, for example, to what degree funding is made available in those communities.

    We could look at what funding goes to, particularly settlement agencies in cities that offer services in French.

    I would love to see that.

    Would you propose to give us a breakdown as well?

    We can look at what we have in terms of the systems across the country. We have various arrangements by way of contribution agreements, grants, and that sort of thing, to the extent that we can identify contribution agreements for delivery of services in French.

    I'm of the impression that you may have a situation here in which there may not be much more than the sum I've mentioned—$10 million—being directed towards these communities out of the $800 million or $900 million spent annually. If that's the case, then I think you're going to have to have a serious look at that.

    Would you agree?

     Well, we will have to look at the detailed information that we have in Quebec. We won't be able to provide the information—

    In this fund, does it include

—official language training, either English or French?

    I believe we have details on the courses offered in either English or French.

    You're not sure. Does that come from the $800 million or $900 million? Does that come from settlement funding?

    Linguistic training, yes.

    If I could, Mr. Linklater, I would be curious to get a detailed record from the department. I've tried to obtain information through a question on the Order Paper, but I never managed to. I want a detailed record; I do not want any games.

    How much money is spent in Canada to provide new Canadians with official languages training? What language is taught and who gives these courses?

    I have a feeling that, apart from one or two courses offered in Ottawa by the French-language teaching community, no other French-language courses are offered, except in Quebec, of course.

    Yes, they exist.

    But getting that information is difficult.

    As a parliamentarian, if I could ask you for a detailed, accurate report on the situation and if you could provide me with that, I would be delighted. That would be my Christmas present. Thank you.

    Okay.

    Is Santa Clause real?

    Thank you very much, Mr. Bélanger.

    It is nearly time to conclude our meeting. We thank the witnesses for being with us here this morning.

    Thank you very much. You manage a very important department. As Ms. Guay pointed out, at times we feel like we are involved in your operations. Of course we will be watching with great interest for your responses to the recommendations we have made, particularly concerning your targets for recruiting a certain number of French-speaking immigrants to settle in francophone minority communities outside of Quebec. Thank you very much to our witnesses.

    I would simply like to inform committee members that on Thursday, after hearing from the witness, we will continue with the committee's work to begin our study of the far north. Until then, if you have any specific witnesses you would like to call to appear or if you would like to visit any specific areas, please let our clerk know. We hope to provide you with a preliminary agenda at that time.

    Mr. Nadeau, would you like—

    Assuming we meet on Thursday, depending on what happens in the House of Commons, I had asked that we invite Mr. Handfield this Thursday. Has that been done? What needs to be done? I spoke to you about it earlier and you replied that the mission itself was important. I had no problem with that. Thursday is very soon. Has Mr. Handfield been invited? I think it is very important that he be here.

    Not for Thursday's meeting. Other witnesses could be called to appear at a subsequent meeting. As I said, I want to save some time for the mission. One department has already been called to appear. Mr. Handfield could be called to appear at a future committee meeting, Mr. Nadeau.

    It relates to service in French, not to the report.

    That's right.

    Mr. Handfield was involved in the situation.

    As I have already pointed out, that is the last meeting to address the mission. When the committee resumes, we can ask a specific witness to appear on that topic, if the steering committee so chooses.

    Mr. Godin, you would like to say something?

    If we do not meet on Thursday, we might have to organize a conference call at some point to discuss and finalize the travel plans.

    Duly noted. I will go through the steering committee. That will be easier.

    However, if the trend continues, we'll be needing winter boots! Ah, ah!

    We can go to New Brunswick; it is raining there right now.

    Would it be appropriate for the committee to move a motion authorizing the steering committee to set the agenda if we do not meet again before the end of this session?

    We can do that.

    I therefore move that motion.

    The motion asks that the steering committee be authorized to finalize the terms and conditions for our study on the far north.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Thank you very much. See you Thursday. The meeting is adjourned.