[Translation]
Members of the committee, Mr. Chair, thank you for the invitation to come here today to discuss the latest annual report on official languages. I am pleased to have with me Daphne Meredith, Chief Human Resources Officer, as well as Marc Tremblay, Executive Director of the Official Languages Centre of Excellence within the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer.
[English]
As you know, responsibility for the application of the Official Languages Act is shared among a number of players in the government.
My department, the Treasury Board Secretariat, coordinates the policies and programs that relate to parts IV, V, and VI of the Official Languages Act. These three parts of the act deal respectively with services to the public, language of work, and the equitable participation of anglophone and francophone Canadians in federal institutions. The secretariat also plays a role in the implementation of part VII within institutions. This involves reviewing Treasury Board submissions to ensure that official languages issues are properly considered as part of initiatives proposed by federal institutions.
Every federal institution subject to the Official Languages Act is responsible for the application of the act within its organization, including designing and delivering effective official languages programming. This is consistent with the human resources management system established after Parliament passed the Public Service Modernization Act, and of course it is consistent with the Official Languages Act. Under this system, deputy heads are responsible for managing human resources, including implementation of the Official Languages Act, in their respective organizations.
Approximately two hundred institutions are subject to the Official Languages Act. These institutions are assessed and evaluated over a three-year period. Certain small, medium, and large institutions are evaluated annually, allowing the Treasury Board Secretariat to give an accurate portrait of the status of the official languages program in institutions across the public service every year.
[Translation]
As President of the Treasury Board, I have a responsibility to submit an annual report to Parliament on the status of the official languages program in federal institutions.
The Annual Report on Official Languages covers the application of parts IV, V and VI of the Official Languages Act.
[English]
Last December I tabled the Annual Report on Official Languages 2010-2011. Overall it shows that federal institutions are taking the necessary steps to ensure their services and communications with the Canadian public are available in both official languages. It also shows there has been consistent improvement over the last three years in creating and maintaining a bilingual work environment.
In terms of concrete numbers, the percentage of incumbents in bilingual positions serving the public who met the language requirements of their position continued to grow, reaching 94.3% in 2011, compared to 92.5% in 2009. The percentage of bilingual positions requiring superior proficiency--that is to say, level C in oral interaction to serve the public--has also gradually increased since 2009, from 34.8% to 36.1%.
Additionally, the report shows that based on the 2006 census, both official language communities continue to be relatively well represented in federal institutions.
Finally, I would add that the report highlights some of the measures federal institutions have taken to provide strong leadership in official languages. This includes the use of official languages action plans, as well as simple but effective measures such as regularly adding official languages to the agendas of executive management committee meetings.
[Translation]
These examples all demonstrate the steady progress that has been made in implementing parts IV, V and VI of the Official Languages Act, and in the promotion of linguistic duality in our federal institutions.
[English]
For its part, the Treasury Board Secretariat supports the federal institutions that are subject to the act in fulfilling their obligations. My department does this in many ways. For example, we develop policy instruments for adoption by the Treasury Board. We provide institutions with a full policy suite on official languages. We make available to federal institutions tools to help manage official languages, such as the official languages management dashboard. This tool allows institutions that are part of the core public administration to obtain a quick Internet overview of the official languages program in their organizations, with a series of quantitative and qualitative indicators.
We've also made available Clearspace, which is an electronic platform that enables those responsible for official languages to help and consult with each other, and to share information.
We also organize learning and networking events, such as the annual Conference of Official Languages Champions. This month we held our 16th annual conference in Sudbury, which is, of course, a city I know well—just to the north of my constituency—with a strong history of bilingualism.
We also assess the performance of federal institutions with regard to official languages through the management accountability framework. This tool supports deputy heads in improving management practices in their organizations.
We also inform federal institutions of particular issues and provide direction and guidance, as we have done for the Caldech Supreme Court decision, which further defined the nature and scope of the principle of substantive equality in the provision of services to the public in both official languages by the federal government. In fact, I would say the majority of federal institutions have used the analysis grid we developed to assist in the implementation of the Caldech decision. They are now looking to implement required changes to ensure their programs and services comply with the court's decision.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, federal institutions are committed to making linguistic duality an integral part of their everyday operations. And the government is likewise committed to supporting them in achieving their objectives.
This concludes my presentation. I would now be pleased to answer the committee's questions.
Thank you.
I want to welcome Minister Clement and to thank him for appearing before the committee.
Minister, you know how important bilingualism is in Canada. You especially know what importance I attach to it, together with many of my colleagues and many Canadians. This act, which was put in place many years ago, is fundamentally important to our country. However, 40 years on, we are still required to have a Standing Committee on Official Languages, which constantly deals with the question and always issues shocking reports.
At the start of your presentation, minister, you said that many stakeholders were responsible for official languages; you are not alone. I would like to know how you interpret your role as President of the Treasury Board in the implementation of the Official Languages Act. It is easy to come and testify this morning and to say that everyone is responsible, but I want to know what your specific role is as President of the Treasury Board, who is responsible for official languages. You did say you are responsible for parts IV, V and VI of the act.
:
Pardon me for interrupting you, but I would like to ask you a question.
I recall an anecdote. Not so long ago, a member of the RCMP, who was responsible for registering firearms in Miramichi, lost his job because he did not speak French. That was the first time in the history of Canada that an RCMP member had been dismissed because he did not speak French. An officer of Parliament was also appointed and told that he was not required to be bilingual because he was the best candidate, but that person is responsible for an entire department.
How could such a person conduct bilingual meetings? How can employees communicate with an officer of Parliament, such as the Auditor General, if he does not speak French, despite the fact that he has promised to learn it. In fact, the time period has almost elapsed since he was supposed to learn French within a year.
How can you justify that? What message is the government sending to the nation if it continues to offer key positions to unilingual individuals who, according to the Commissioner of Official Languages, should be bilingual?
Thank you for being here this morning, minister.
Thanks as well to Ms. Meredith and Mr. Tremblay for being here. It is very much appreciated.
Minister, as you know, the deputy heads are the main persons responsible for human resources in their organizations. Your annual report states that the deputy heads have greater flexibility, which enables them to exercise stronger leadership with regard to implementation of the Official Languages Act.
Minister, could you say more on that subject? What changes have given the deputy heads greater flexibility?
Good morning, minister, Mr. Tremblay and Ms. Meredith. Thank you for being with us and for submitting a report that is succinct, unlike another report that we recently received. I am sure the committee appreciates that diversity.
However, minister, your report has raised a major concern for me, and I would like to give you the opportunity to allay it. My concern stems from the fact that, in the few pages of this report, we are told that the majority of institutions are complying with a given requirement. So that means that the minority are not complying. It states that a new majority are complying, which means that the majority are not complying, hence my concern. If you could respond in a style as succinct as that of your report, we could get to the bottom of this matter in the few minutes we have together.
You cover 200 federal institutions that are subject to the Official Languages Act. And you have asked 59 of them to submit a report. Is that because you operate in accordance with a random system every year, and all the institutions must be on the lookout in case they are required to submit a report? Is that how you cover the 200 institutions?
:
This is quite incredible. If they are not even submitting the report to you, how can you check what they are doing? Whatever the case may be, I am quite surprised.
I am going to cite the example of a very troubling paragraph. On page 2, the report states, "A majority of institutions indicated that they have included language provisions in contracts and agreements signed with third parties acting on their behalf."
So this means that a minority are not doing that. It even seems to me that this is contrary to their obligations, which were established a very long time ago. They are required to do so in accordance with those obligations. This is troubling, isn't it? It implies that one-third can be called upon and yet not be asked to comply with the Official Languages Act? The fact that not all institutions are complying with the act is, in my view, very bad news. How can a minority not comply with those provisions?
What follows is even more disturbing, minister. The report states that "only a small proportion of the institutions have taken steps to ensure that the language provisions are implemented."
In other words, only a majority are requiring third parties to comply with the act. A minority of that majority, that is to say a small proportion, ensure that third parties comply with those provisions. I find this situation extremely troubling.
I want to welcome our minister. Saturday will be the first national health day. I would like to congratulate the minister, who is a role model because he is really in good shape.
I would also like to welcome you, Ms. Meredith, and your sister, who comes from Vancouver—my part of the country—and who is well established in British Columbia.
Minister, I would like to ask you some questions on part IV of the act.
The annual report provides us with an overview of the major official languages successes the government has had. More specifically, it states that the majority of institutions have taken effective measures to ensure they provide the public with services in both languages.
Can you explain some of the institutions' achievements in the implementation of part IV of the act, which concerns communications with and services to the public in both official languages?
:
Thank you for your question.
Incidentally, I lost my squash match this morning.
[English]
It's not a good day for me when it comes to fitness and health. I didn't quite meet my targets on the squash court, but it's nice to know that we're meeting some targets with respect to this annual report. Certainly my colleagues here who are in the public service have, I'm sure, some wonderful examples of great success in our offices. But certainly from my perspective as a minister and as President of the Treasury Board, I think we do our job very well for the citizens of our country.
They know that we have these obligations. We for the most part meet these obligations. And I think it's the role of Monsieur Dion and Monsieur Godin and others to focus on where we don't meet these obligations, and that's fair. But the fact of the matter is, day in, day out, much more often than not, we meet those obligations. I think it's important for Canadians to know that. I think it's improving as well.
I think we're creating an atmosphere within our offices where our expectations are being met and they're being celebrated. And through our tools that are available electronically now, we have a greater way of sharing success, sharing the tools that work and making sure that the oversight is there.
That's my general overview. Maybe Daphne or Marc can add to that.
:
It's a fairly technical issue. I'd be glad to answer the question.
Yes, numbers are provided. I think the first thing to ask, when we look back 40 years, is what progress has been achieved over that period of time. It was one of the fundamental goals of the Official Languages Act, to begin with, to right that balance in the public service overall.
It's important, as well, to understand that part VI is not framed like the other parts and provisions of the act. We're talking about a broad commitment to get to a certain representation and to ensure that there are no systemic barriers to employment and chances of advancement in the public service. I think if we look to the data, our data begins to be more precise starting in 1978, for reasons I won't go into. But from 1978 to now, we see that great strides have been achieved throughout the public service at various levels of representation and in different occupational groups. There are differences, particularly between the core public administration and the rest of the broader public service covered by the act. But overall, it has to be said that the balance is fairly good. If we were to do any measures, if there's an under-representation on the one hand, that would kind of beg the question of what would happen. Would you then reduce the employment of anglophones in the example on the other hand? That's a particular challenge.
Really, what the policies and directives given to departments aim to do is to ensure that there are no systemic barriers, and in situations where there are indicators of potential problems.... And potential problems is all I would concede at this point; I'm not making excuses, I have to say, but if there are such indicators, then we remind them that they should ensure that they are advertised broadly, that they use the minority community media to advertise positions, that they maintain good relationships and rapport with the anglophone minority community organizations, and that they ensure that their boards are representative of the population they try to attract. Those are the only types of measures. It's quite clear, both under the policies and under the act, that merit is the overarching principle here. You cannot have quotas and you cannot target particular groups in any staffing action.
:
We have our own role in carrying out the activities of the road map. In fact we had $17 million dedicated to the Treasury Board Secretariat to that end: $3.4 million a year. That money funds the Official Languages Centre of Excellence, of which Marc is a director.
I've described some of the things that we do, including assisting our analysts at the Treasury Board in reviewing Treasury Board submissions. Indeed, in the recent strategic and operating review, all of those proposals were assessed through the lens of official languages, and all of that was spearheaded by Marc's group.
The road map money in the secretariat also funds other activities, including the assessment of organizations against the management accountability framework. It's an annual assessment of them, and it provides them with some tools. We're encouraging community activity, and we've introduced several tools for it, including WebPoint 2.0 and analytical grids. This allows them to determine whether their thinking's on track, whether it promotes service to the public and encourages a healthy workplace for both official languages to flourish in. Our role in the road map is based in our centre of excellence for official languages, which has all of those activities at the horizontal level, including analytics and tool provision.
:
Earlier we talked about cultural change. We are establishing a new culture in the organizations. We will have to see what effect that has. We believe that things will improve. We are completing a three-year cycle, and the first annual report in no way indicates that the change of approach has had any harmful effects. The main indicators are still improving, although certain areas require improvement.
I would like to go back to the human resources issue. Some fundamental aspects of the official languages program clearly require this staffing capability, this ability to identify needs and requirements. That is generally handled by people who work in human resources.
However, several elements lead us to reconsider the functions of the type of skills required to administer the programs in each department. Part VII of the act, the interest in development of the minorities, particularly in communications and service, and the CALDECH affair have given new impetus to the act.
Our approach is different. It is the approach of a centre that sets a general and horizontal direction, and of departments that are fundamentally and mainly concerned with the performance of their obligations. This change that we are effecting makes it possible to avoid planning a structure that would be too rigid and that would be suitable in certain departments perhaps, but not in others.
In other words, some departments tell us that it is fine to have a unit that deals with part VII and a unit that deals with part V. Others tell us that this does not really work and that they want integrated functions because those elements necessarily have to talk to each other. We let them discuss the matter and the models in place. It is up to each one to make the best choice in their own departments.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for staying with us, Ms. Meredith and Mr. Tremblay.
I want to resume the conversation with the minister where I left off. I am going to use a very concrete example. I am going to read section 25, in part IV of the Official Languages Act: it states, "Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that, where services are provided or made available by another person or organization on its behalf, any member of the public in Canada or elsewhere can communicate" in either official language. It states, "Every federal institution has the duty." So this is an obligation under the act, isn't it?
I am rereading this paragraph from the report that was distributed to us. This is the third paragraph from the top of page 2, in English: "A majority of institutions indicated that they have included language provisions in contracts and agreements signed with third parties acting on their behalf." That means a minority are not complying with the act. "However, only a small proportion of the institutions have taken steps to ensure that the language provisions are implemented." May we conclude from this that only a small proportion of institutions are complying with section 25 of part IV of the Official Languages Act.
:
Thanks for the question.
I talked earlier to Marc about the changes we have been working on for our suite of Treasury Board policies respecting departments with a view to simplifying them. Those are not yet approved by Treasury Board, but we hope to be taking them to the board soon. Partly, it's working with departments to focus on the key requirements that we want to retain, and where we're going to be offering them greater flexibility. That's in terms of instruments—how we're working on greater flexibility.
I would say most of the activity to date, though, has revolved around changing the culture to really make clear to them that they have responsibility. We have been trying to help them in that regard. Obviously we have the data that has been long-standing in the annual report, and against which we reported progress over the years. We have posed to departments the questions that some of the members of this committee are focusing on, because we thought they would be relevant questions that would help departments get on track. From some of the feedback we're getting, that is valuable feedback for us to then send to the leadership of departments, to say that this is what is determined to be relevant, what parliamentarians are interested in having them do. We can then use these as ways to direct the focus of their activity.
Giving them flexibility, reinforcing the flexibility, and reinforcing the fact that it's their responsibility and that they need to build the capacity within through some of the measures we have highlighted in this report is how we're repositioning our role.
:
If I can just add a very concrete example, we've been having discussions with departments about the role of champions and whether they need a committee, and whether we could impose that or should impose that by way of policy in a really structured approach to official languages. In our central agency minds, that sounded like a series of good ideas.
They weren't bad ideas, I'd say, in our defence, but some of the departments told us that they have six employees and to have a committee structure created is completely useless to them; when they sit around the table, they're all there.
So the idea is that we don't know everything at the centre. We give the impulsion to the program, and then we let the doers do, adapt, make it real, and make it theirs. We think that has a great potential for change to actually occur, and we're seeing positive signs in that regard.
:
On the champions, this was an initiative the office took a number of years ago. I think we're at our sixteenth annual conference now.
The idea was that you'd take a senior official—someone who was identified by the deputy head—aside from their normal functions, an official who, in addition to their normal functions, would really be able to speak the truth to power, and to tell the deputy head things that maybe the deputy head needs to hear but may not be getting through the normal structure. For example, somebody is responsible for human resources or somebody is responsible for programs and services, and maybe they're performing well, but not great. The champion can bring that type of information forward.
The champion is always there. We've seen fantastic work being done by champions—real changes. I can tell you that I was at the justice department before, and I have seen the great enthusiasm that a highly motivated senior official can bring to the ranks, so that all of a sudden you have a lot of people who are interested in the matter, but who take it up because they can see that someone in the higher ranks values what they're doing and thinks it's important.