LANG Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 11, 2004

¿

0905

The Chair (Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.))

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

¿

0910

¿

0915

¿

0920

The Chair

M. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, PCC)

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

¿

0925

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

¿

0930

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Hon. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.)

Ms. Dyane Adam

Hon. Claude Drouin

Ms. Dyane Adam

¿

0935

The Chair

Mr. Gilbert Langelier (Director, Audits, Investigations Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

Hon. Claude Drouin

The Chair

Hon. Claude Drouin

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

¿

0940

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Dyane Adam

¿

0945

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.)

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Gilbert Langelier

Ms. Dyane Adam

¿

0950

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin

Ms. Dyane Adam

Ms. Sylvie Jalbert (Senior Policy Analyst, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

Ms. Dyane Adam

¿

0955

The Chair

M. Scott Reid

The Chair

M. Scott Reid

Mr. Scott Reid

À

1000

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

À

1005

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

À

1010

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Hon. Claude Drouin

Ms. Dyane Adam

Hon. Claude Drouin

À

1015

Ms. Dyane Adam

Hon. Claude Drouin

Ms. Dyane Adam

Hon. Claude Drouin

Ms. Dyane Adam

Hon. Claude Drouin

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

À

1020

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

À

1025

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Christian Jobin

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Christian Jobin

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Christian Jobin

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Christian Jobin

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Christian Jobin

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Christian Jobin

Ms. Dyane Adam

À

1030

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

À

1035

Mr. Gérard Finn (Advisor to the Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Finn

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

À

1040

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

---

NUMBER 013

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 11, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0905)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.)): Order, please.

    This morning's meeting is a briefing session on three audit reports done by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. I would like to welcome Dyane Adam, our Commissioner, and her team as well, of course. We are always pleased to see you. Without further ado, we would ask you to tell us about your findings. After that, we will proceed our usual period of questions and comments.

    The floor is yours, Ms. Adam.

    Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): Mr. Chairman, committee members, it is a pleasure to be here again.

    My Office has been very busy in recent months. We have published three audits. We are always pleased to present to you the results of our work and to provide you with information we consider essential for you to be able to play your role as parliamentarians properly, namely to ensure that the federal institutions and organizations that come under the Act can really be accountable to Parliament for the implementation of the Act and full compliance with it.

[English]

    I will start with the audit of Canada Post, which is the most recent work we published. In fact, it was published yesterday.

    As you know, audits allow me to provide Parliament with an objective evaluation of thestatus of official languages in institutions subject to the Official Languages Act. Theyalso provide institutions with an external appraisal critical to the continuous improvementof their performance.

    In this case, the Canada Post audit pertained to service at postal outlets. The corporation manages 7,000 postal service points throughout the country, of which approximately 800 are designatedbilingual. A number of them are dealer outlets operated by third parties on behalf of CanadaPost. Every year, OCOL receives complaints from clientswho have difficulty obtaining services in their official language when using bilingual service counters.

    During this audit, OCOL officials met with Canada Post managers at various levels. Theyaudited 64 corporate and dealer outlets in six regions across the country, 36 dealer outletsand 28 corporate service counters. Finally, the team reviewed policies, documentation, keyreports, and the procedures implemented to oversee postal outlets.

    This audit yielded some positive findings. In terms of its management framework, thecorporation has an official languages policy that complies with the act and the regulations.It communicates the policy requirements to staff responsible for postal outlets and to its partners operating dealer outlets. It has also implemented a number of mechanisms tomonitor compliance with these requirements.

[Translation]

    These administrative measures are, however, not always sufficient to provide service of equal quality in both official languages.

    In our sample of 64 corporate and dealer outlets designated bilingual, one out of four did not offer service of equal quality in both official languages. The results varied widely among the regions visited.

    With regard to service provided in person, the results range from 100 per cent of service points meeting language requirements in the Eastern townships of Quebec, to only 50 per cent in Alberta. Moreover, there are significant gaps between the service offered at Canada Post outlets and that offered at dealer outlets. While one in five Canada Post outlets could not provide service of equal quality in both languages, nearly one third of dealer outlets were unable to do so. However, it is worth mentioning that in four out of six provinces audited, in-person service provided by dealer outlets was either equivalent or superior to that of corporate outlets.

    Canadians rely on the services offered by Canada Post and the Corporation must take the necessary measures to provide services of equal quality in both official languages.

    I have therefore issued 14 recommendations to help Canada Post better serve the Canadian public in both official languages. The Corporation must in particular review its interaction with dealer operators to ensure that they are in line with their linguistic service obligations and responsibilities. Monitoring mechanisms should be enhanced in this regard. In terms of services, the corporation should also take the necessary measures to ensure that the public can readily locate outlets offering service in the language of their choice.

    I wish to emphasize that Canada Post was extremely cooperative. The Corporation acknowledged the shortcomings in service in both official languages and committed to addressing them.

    Moreover, while this is not directly related to our audit, I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate Canada Post for deciding to maintain bilingual service at over 60 offices that would have lost their bilingual designation based on the 2001 census data.

    In accordance with our audit policy, we will conduct a follow-up in 12 to 18 months to evaluate the implementation of our recommendations. Given their commitment, we expect to see clear improvements in Canada Post's performance.

    After having reinstated this audit function we wish to conduct three more major audits in 2004-2005. In the coming years, we intend to increase this number to four, while also conducting the required follow-ups.

¿  (0910)  

[English]

    Now for the second study, which focuses on commercial leases for federal buildings in the national capital region; it was announced on March 16. For a number of years, availability of bilingual services at these businesses has been a source of concern to the public and parliamentarians alike.

    Under the act, the federal government is required to include language-related clauses in its commercial leases in the national capital region to inform its tenants of their official languages obligations and to ensure that these provisions are upheld. In the national capital region as a whole, however, less than half—41% of the 207 businesses audited as part of this study—had clauses in their lease requiring them to have bilingual signage and to offer bilingual services. This percentage was 78% for leases for which the National Capital Commission was responsible, compared with only 18% for those that fall under the responsibility of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

    The study also highlights the poor performance of businesses located in federal buildings in Ottawa when it comes to providing bilingual service. For over half the businesses audited, written material—and here we are speaking of signage, menus, promotional material, and websites—was in English only for about half of those businesses. While service over the telephone and in person is somewhat better—it stands at 70% and 60% respectively—the results are still unacceptable. Businesses occupying federal buildings in Gatineau provided exemplary service over the telephone and in person, and written material was overwhelmingly bilingual. So the results on the Ottawa side are disappointing, and this is a long-standing problem.

    In fact, the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages, which used to be the name of your committee, already considered this matter in 1997 and made a number of recommendations in this regard. To address the shortcomings, I've made recommendations to the National Capital Commission, Canadian Heritage, and Public Works and Government Services Canada. You can appreciate that this not only involves the federal government's legal obligations but is also a matter of respect for both official language communities in the capital region and for Canadians and others visiting this region.

[Translation]

    With respect to the third and last study, we will be giving you a summary of it today. It is the study released on March 29th which examined the issue of language of work in federal institutions in the National Capital Region.

    With more than 460,000 employees working for departments and organizations subject to the Official Languages Act, the federal government is the country's largest bilingual employer.

    In regions designated bilingual, such as the National Capital Region, employees in bilingual positions have the right to express themselves, be supervised and have access to working tools and internal services in the official language of their choice.

    It should be noted that some progress has been made with respect to language of work in the last 15 years. French is nevertheless still underused, as shown by two recent Treasury Board studies. In bilingual workplaces, for instance, anglophones speak French 14 per cent of the time, while francophones speak English 43 per cent of the time.

    The purpose of our study was to go beyond the simple, well-documented finding in order to better understand the socio-linguistic environment in the intercultural dynamics that characterize a bilingual workplace. We sought to identify the factors conducive to the full use of both official languages on a day-to-day basis.

    In particular, we noted a number of factors among francophone employees that led to the underuse of their language, such as a better understanding of their second language as compared to their anglophone co-workers; a tendency to favour the supervisor's language and thus to adapt to the supervisor's linguistic shortcomings; a perception that English is the language for career advancement; and a lack of availability of working tools in French.

    The result is a highly disturbing degree of professional assimilation.

¿  (0915)  

[English]

    Anglophone employees are, for their part, exposed to an organizational culture that leads them to use English more often than they might wish. They have in fact indicated that they lack the necessary training to become functionally bilingual and feel that this limits their advancement opportunities.

    Our study also shows that the language training offered to anglophone managers is insufficient to allow them to supervise staff in French, which in turn has a significant impact on the language used by the employees. That is why one in four francophones feels their work must be done in English.

    I have made ten recommendations to address this issue. I also propose a management framework that would highlight and fully recognize official languages in the workplace. This framework rests on three priorities: first, a clear and consistent leadership, so that managers must set an example; second, strengthening of individual ability through training and also by ensuring that the workplace allows recently trained employees to practise and use daily their language skills; and finally, strengthening the institutional capacity, because language training and tests must not be an end in themselves.

    The next step is to encourage and support the daily use of both languages. In addition, to increase senior management accountability, the actual use of the language and the adoption of concrete measures to foster a bilingual workplace must be among the criteria used for performance evaluation and in promoting senior officials.

    In the next two or three years we will also turn our attention to other bilingual regions in the country. The sociolinguistic context in Montreal may, for instance, differ from that of the national capital region or New Brunswick. Moreover, the working environment in a crown corporation may differ considerably from that in a department. In addition, it should also be noted that over half the employees of institutions subject to the act work for crown corporations and privatized agencies. This therefore requires closer examination.

[Translation]

    I would like to end my remarks by touching on a current issue that may have an impact on the linguistic rights of the travelling public. I am referring of course to the future of Air Canada. I know that you have been aware of this issue, and that your chairman spoke about it in the House and other committee members spoke about it in other public forums.

    For some time now, I have been concerned about whether Air Canada would continue to comply with its linguistic obligations, in light of its restructuring. As we well know, when changes are made to federal institutions or those that come under the act, there are setbacks in the area of language rights. We are following these developments very closely. The Commissioner's office is of course doing this, but I am delighted to have the committee do the same.

    It is important to acknowledge that Canadians expect their rights to be respected and any relaxing of Air Canada's linguistic obligations would be unacceptable. This is a message that I have passed on personally to the Minister of Transport. We must protect what has been achieved as part of any restructuring or reconfiguration of Air Canada.

    The proposal to subject Air Canada's main competitors to the same business conditions could be interesting, as long as there is no reduction in the bilingual services provided by Air Canada or any other replacement carrier established to provide service to Canadians.

    The matter of competitive equilibrium among carriers is a complex issue that the federal government will eventually need to examine. Obviously, this equilibrium must be achieved without the language rights of Canadians being infringed.

    I am seeking your support to help me monitor and move ahead on these matters, in particularly by meeting periodically with the appropriate ministers and senior officials.

    As I mentioned earlier, this would be a means for you to encourage accountability among the institutions in question. Of course, the Commissioner's office has a monitoring and oversight role to play. It must take all possible steps to ensure that federal institutions comply with the act. Nevertheless, it is up to federal institutions and organizations that come under the act to be accountable and to achieve results.

    Language of work is an on-going issue, and this is just the first study. I invite you to meet with those in charge of the new agency to identify potential solutions relating to our linguistic objectives. The establishment of new institutions such as the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency and the School of Public Service provides an opportunity to modernize practices and make changes to programs.

    Consideration must be given not only to language training but also to the training of officials in the management of a bilingual workplace. On another note, it would be helpful to analyze the models used in other countries to optimize our efforts.

    Thank you again for your commitment and you can be assured of my full cooperation. I am ready to answer your questions now, but I would first like to introduce you to my colleagues, who will be helping me answer your questions. They are Sylvie Jalbert, Senior Policy Analyst and the person in charge of the study on language of work; Gilbert Langelier, Director, Audits, Follow-up and Investigations; Gérard Finn, Senior Advisor and the person in charge of parliamentary relations.

    Thank you.

¿  (0920)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Adam.

    We will move immediately to questions.

[English]

    Monsieur Reid, you're the first on my list.

[Translation]

    M. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, PCC): Do I have five minutes or seven?

    The Chair: You have seven minutes.

    Mr. Scott Reid: I'd like to welcome our witnesses to the committee. It is a pleasure to have you here. As always, your comments were most interesting.

[English]

    I'd like to focus my questions today on the third of the three reports you deal with, the “walking the talk” report, and to present to you a thesis about the interaction of the problems you identify with what I regard as a very serious problem and what a large number of people in the Ottawa area in particular regard as a very serious problem, based upon the correspondence I am receiving from public servants. Also, of course, you will have seen some coverage of this issue in the newspapers.

    The problem you identified is that the public service tends to operate in English rather than French to a greater degree than is desired, as your study points out, either by francophones or anglophones, which is an interesting thing to note. Both francophones and anglophones find this problematic.

    There's a second problem, which is the fact that for some reason, an increasing proportion of anglophones who are going for second-language testing in order to keep certified up to the necessary C, B, C level of bilingualism are failing, and this is something that has been noted and reported in the newspapers. It was also the subject of an internal study.

    I think there's a problem here. The problem has to do with the internal language of work in the public service and the number of posts that have been designated bilingual. I note first of all that about 40,000 of 160,000 total positions are designated as serving the public—these are bilingual-designated positions—whereas about 22,000 are designated for purposes of internal service delivery and 13,000 are supervisory; that is to say, the purpose for which they are made bilingual-essential or bilingual-imperative is not service to the public.

    We see that the number of anglophones failing to pass the language tests is rising. Just to make this point, I'll quote the numbers that are given in an internal document called “Briefing Note for the Commission: Success Rates on the Second Language Evaluation Oral Interaction Test for EXs in Language Training”—that's the Public Service Commission. This is dated March 13, 2003. In this document it's recorded that the oral interaction tests have seen a drop from 63% to 54% over the course of one year, from 2000-01 to 2002-03, and the success rate drop is more precipitous when it's taken on a per-test basis rather than on the basis of people being retested individually.

    So we see there's a genuine and measurable drop in success at passing these tests. The report posits five potential causes. They're not the only causes I could think of for this drop, but certainly five are posited. Of the five that are posited, the one that I think is the most robust is what might be described as an environmental problem, and this is that the environment in which francophone and anglophone employees work produce differential results in terms of the capacity to pass the second-language test.

    I'll just quote from the report:

The decline in rates over the years for all three SLE tests (the machine-scored Reading and Writing Tests as well as the OI Test) would suggest that the second language skills of those being tested--including those in the student population--have become weaker over the years. ... The teachers have also observed that, with increased staffing activity throughout government, the clientele for second language training has changed. LTC has noted that this new clientele has less exposure to the language being learned, and therefore starts at a lower level to learn the language and has more difficulty in meeting the B and C standards of bilingualism within the prescribed number of hours established by Treasury Board.

    I find that to be a convincing at-least-partial explanation of what's going on.

    The problem, then, is to know why are we getting this difference. One possibility is that we've expanded—this just recently occurred—the number of posts for which it is imperative to be bilingual to hold the post. Of course, you would have had people working in essentially English-language work environments who would now be put forward for these tests and would find themselves in greater numbers ineligible or incapable of passing.

¿  (0925)  

    The Chair: Mr. Reid--

    Mr. Scott Reid: I'm just getting to the end of my—

    The Chair: It's just that there won't be any time for the answer.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Okay. I'll just finish the question.

    In your own report, you point out that anglophones themselves find that they aren't getting as much French interaction as they would desire. For example, the average desired rate of French use during meetings is 36%, and they can get only 22% of their interaction during meetings in French. So they get less chance to practise. Similarly, they prefer to interact with francophone colleagues 58% of the time, but can do so only 43% of the time.

    The numbers are the reverse for francophones. I think you effectively have a situation here in which the environment itself causes francophones to get more English than they might desire, but it's excellent in terms of preparing them for these tests--whereas anglophones have the reverse.

    This seems to me to be a systemic, although unintended problem. I wonder if you have any suggestions as to how this unintended but systemic problem might be rectified.

    Thank you.

¿  (0930)  

    Ms. Dyane Adam: In the report, there are a number of recommendations we make. What is important here is that the managers, starting from the deputy, have the responsibility to create the environment conducive to the use of the two official languages. The testing, the training are means to achieve an objective. That is the objective of the Official Languages Act, which is that an employee may use and work in their own language, whatever it may be, and also that they have the tools provided to them, and that they are supervised in that.

    What we are experiencing right now is that it's almost as if the tools have become the end. The focus of our study, and what we're showing, is that there should be more effort. I know the institutions responsible—I'm talking about the Public Service Commission as well as the new agency and the new school—are thinking and working together to put the focus more on the workplace, what's happening there. This is exactly the focus we have been putting. We haven't looked at the training. We haven't studied the testing and all of the statistics you've brought forward. We are focusing on the objective at the end of the day, which is that the two languages be present and that the employees feel they can use it whether it's French or English, and that the anglophones, in this case, do have a milieu also that provides an opportunity for them to really use it, not in the classroom, not in the testing situation, but in the workplace.

    We have to start with the managers. One conclusion—I will finish with that—is that a lot relies on the managers. It's their behaviour that is fundamentally shaping the behaviour of their employees.

[Translation]

    The Chair: We are halfway into the second question, and we have not even finished the first.

    Mr. Drouin.

    Hon. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I would like to welcome Ms. Adam and her officials to the Official Languages Committee.

    I would like clarification on a few points. First of all, your first study, the audit of Canada Post, contained a number of positive comments. For example, you said that the corporation followed the rules regarding official languages. That is very good, but you spoke about a delay of 12 to 18 months. I would like you to clarify your expectations. Have some specific objectives been set? We see that Canada Post is showing a willingness to provide bilingual services, for example by maintaining the services in 60 offices that should have lost their bilingual designation. It should be congratulated on this, but I would like you to tell me whether any concrete measures have been put in place to ensure that results are obtained.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Of course, I gave only a brief overview of the audit. There are 14 recommendations on various aspects of the delivery, administration and audit of services, and of course the issue of bilingual capability. Something that seems really problematical is bilingual capability in dealer outlets. Even some of the Canada Post offices we audited in Ontario and the West, such as Alberta, offered services that left something to be desired. We therefore asked Canada Post to react to our 14 recommendations. We have appended Canada Post's action plan to the audit as well as its commitment with respect to each of the recommendations and corrective action we suggested. We could go into detail, but I think that...

    Hon. Claude Drouin: There are some specific points.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Canada Post has difficulty with three of the recommendations, which it received less favourably. Gilbert, the person in charge of audits, could tell you more about this. These are three recommendations we consider very important; mainly, recommendation 7, 8 et 14. I will now turn the floor to Gilbert.

¿  (0935)  

    The Chair: Mr. Langelier.

    Mr. Gilbert Langelier (Director, Audits, Investigations Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): I will add a few clarifications. One important recommendation we made with respect to Canada Post dealer outlets and post offices was to raise the level of bilingualism required for staff. At the moment, the corporation requires the minimum level, or A. As you probably all know, the highest level is level C. The Canada Post Corporation was not yet prepared to change this requirement. We think that level A is a minimum, given that Canada Post Corporation is offering more and more services in partnership with other departments, such as the Passport Offices, Fisheries and Oceans for licences, and so on. The requirements are increasingly high, because staff is required to answer increasingly complex questions. We therefore think that Canada Post Corporation should raise the required level.

    Another recommendation on which Canada Post did not go as far as we would have liked was the one about the assistance it should provide to dealer outlets to enable them to measure the bilingual ability of the staff they hire. This assistance had to do with testing, recruiting bilingual personnel, and so on. We would have liked Canada Post Corporation to go further in this regard.

    The final recommendation on which the Corporation did not meet our expectations had to do with evaluating managers. In this regard, we would hope it will take into account the delivery of service in both languages. Canada Post Corporation merely replied by saying that service delivery generally was being evaluated. We would like it to check whether service is delivered in both languages. We want this specific point added. The Corporation did not agree to this recommendation, but we will continue to work with it to try to convince it to do so. We will be following up in 12 to 18 months, as Ms. Adam said, to see how much progress has been made in implementing our recommendations.

    Hon. Claude Drouin: My last question is about the third study.

    With respect to language of work, you spoke about the agency and the Public Service School. I think these initiatives can produce some very interesting results. Would it be possible to have one meeting in four held in the other official language wherever there are bilingual services? Would this not be a way of encouraging managers and employees to provide service in both official languages?

    I will now ask you a supplementary. It is important that Air Canada provide service in both official languages. Since this is a private company, do you not think it is important—you did touch on this, but only briefly—that other airlines also provide service in both official languages? I think that unilingual passengers will not understand what is going on in an emergency and will panic. If they are seated next to an emergency exit, they could even endanger the lives of all passengers. I would like your opinion on that.

    The Chair: We will have to come back to that, because your time is up.

    Mr. Bigras.

    Hon. Claude Drouin: Can I not get an answer to my question?

    The Chair: Well, all right.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): I could carry on, because my question was somewhat along the same lines as the one asked by Mr. Drouin.

    The Chair: Please proceed, Mr. Bigras.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: I will start with a question that follows the one asked by Mr. Drouin. This is a subject you only touched on briefly in your remarks, even though it is a current issue—and you know how fond we are of topical issues. You said that the idea of having Air Canada's main competitors comply with the same business conditions was interesting provided—and I stress this, Mr. Chairman—there was no deterioration in the bilingual services offered by Air Canada.

    You seem to be saying that things are all right with respect to market conditions, but you do express some fears. Could you go into more detail about the fears that you seem to be alluding to indirectly?

¿  (0940)  

    Ms. Dyane Adam: For several years now, the Commissioner's Office has been making representations to the Department of Transport to put forward various arguments. For example, the travelling public by definition is not restricted to any particular place. In other words, francophones, anglophones and foreign tourists move around. Our air space comes under federal jurisdiction. We must serve both the Canadian public in this air space—and one quarter of travelling Canadians are francophones—and look after safety matters.

    Since Air Canada is undergoing a restructuring or reorganization and we do not really know how this will turn out, we have asked on several occasions, including recently, that the department and the government review the issue of minimal bilingual service in our air space. For example, is a recording enough for security purposes? Here we are getting into another act—Aeronautics Act—which establishes the minimum level of bilingual services required to guarantee safety. This is about preventive activities or providing information.

    In an emergency, as was mentioned, if no one in a position of authority on board—and I'm not talking about passengers—can speak both official languages, can we claim that the aircraft is safe for passengers from our two official language groups? That is a question we have raised with the minister. In our opinion, the department has never answered this question satisfactorily. This may be the time to broaden the question and to think about minimal bilingual service on aircraft.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: I'm going to turn to another subject, Mr. Chairman, namely, language of work. As you know, Treasury Board will be replaced by a management agency. I would like to know whether you have any concerns about this or any recommendations regarding the vigilance required during this transfer.

    At the moment, the Official Languages Act provides that Treasury Board still has responsibility. So my question is, first, does this transfer requires some vigilance in your view? Second, do you think there should be any amendments to the legislation to ensure that the act is more in keeping with the actual situation?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Apparently we do not need any legislative changes for the transfer of responsibilities, which is done by order-in-council, which should be enough. However, there is one aspect that should be emphasized. Since we are in a transition phase, responsibility for certain issues is less clear. I know that at the Treasury Board Secretariat, in its previous incarnation, one of the responsibilities of the unit in charge of official languages was to review cabinet documents and submissions and check the impact of program changes. It was supposed to look at certain criteria to see whether there would be an impact on official languages, service, and so on. Now, it is less easy to determine who will be doing that.

    I think this is a rather nebulous time. We discussed this matter recently with the managers at the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency. I think this may be the aspect that is still the most undecided, but it is a very important issue. If there is no analysis done of any decision made by a department or any program that is submitted, there could be unimaginable consequences for the official languages. I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

¿  (0945)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    You have the floor, Mr. Jobin.

    Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.): Good morning, Ms. Adam. I would like to welcome you and your entire team to the committee meeting.

    I would like to come back to Canada Post. As you know, postal service is almost the only federal presence in small communities. I think you are being a little easy on Canada Post when you say that it provides bilingual services and should improve. I think we should be focusing on this immediately, and much more intensively. As I said, for citizens living in small communities, this is their only access to a federal institution. If we do not require Canada Post to offer bilingual services immediately, intensively and mandatorily, I think we are making a mistake with respect to the people living in small communities.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: I told you there were 7,000 service positions in the country. When Canada Post closed its post offices in small communities, it stopped being what you claim it still is. In small communities, the only service available is a dealer outlet, or something similar.

    We looked at service to the public. With respect to the physical presence of a post office, from what I can see, even in urban centres and in some of the small communities I have visited, I do not think the dealer outlet really plays the role you describe. However, that in no way reduces Canada Post's obligations with respect to service to the public.

    We have seen that once Canada Post has signed contracts with a third party, it does not establish all the procedures required to ensure that the partner actually delivers services of equivalent quality in both official languages. The contract provides more for service to the public. I do not know whether we can talk about the advantages this offers, at least not in some cases.

    Would you like to add something?

    Mr. Gilbert Langelier: I think we are calling for some fairly specific things. The Commissioner said clearly that we found the situation left something to be desired and that she was expecting an improvement.

    We said that Canada Post Corporation cooperated well with the study. It is doing some positive things but, as we say in the report, it must go further and introduce some innovative measures to correct certain problems that have existed for a long time. That is what we expect of Canada Post Corporation.

    Earlier, we were talking about some of the recommendations with which Canada Post Corporation did not necessarily agree. We think it needs to change its procedures and approach to deal with problems that have been recurring for far too long. We are going to be demanding in our follow-up to ensure improvements are made to the current situation, which leaves something to be desired, as the Commissioner clearly stated.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that performances vary according to the region. As we have implied, it is up to the federal institution to determine the best way to manage its operations to meet the linguistic requirements. Alberta, for example, has the worst performance. But perhaps the delivery service model should be different from the ones that operate elsewhere in the country. Take, for example, the one-stop-service model that has been developed for other federal services, including Manitoba.

    You might want to ask Canada Post to explain how it has successfully adapted its delivery or service organization methods. We should not be limited to a one-size-fits-all approach.

¿  (0950)  

    The Chair: You can ask one final short question.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: I would like to come back to the language of work for the 460,000 employees. The federal government is recognized as the largest bilingual employer. But what is surprising is that anglophones spend 14 per cent of their work time speaking French while francophones speak English 43 per cent of the time. We have also heard that francophones feel they must speak English for career advancement. Must we therefore conclude that a francophone's career path might be stymied if he does not speak English in the workplace?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Can we really say that? We have no evidence of that, since the study did not examine that issue, but no doubt, theories abound. In some cases, employees who feel that their English skills are weak might choose to remain within certain areas, for example, in Quebec, where they can work in French, or in sections of the public service where respect for the two official languages is ingrained in the culture. Such areas do exist within federal institutions. But we have not taken a very close look at that. Would you agree with me on that?

    Ms. Sylvie Jalbert (Senior Policy Analyst, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): Yes.

    The Chair: Your turn, Mr. Proulx.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Good morning, Ms. Adam, and welcome also to your colleagues.

    Ms. Adam, I would like to come back to the language of work. In what you have stated about the reasons why it is more difficult for francophone employees, you mentioned that they have a better knowledge of their second language than do their anglophone colleagues, which is obvious, plus the fact that they tend to favour the language spoken by the supervisor, which means that the supervisor is not bilingual but most often an anglophone; then you state that English is perceived as being the language of choice for career advancement, and, finally, the fact that work tools in French are in short supply.

    I would like to hear your opinion, Ms. Adam. You are the expert when it comes to our country's official languages. I listened to my colleague from the Conservative Party, and, according to what I think I understood, he said that anglophone workers should have more on-the-job opportunities to practice their French in order to prepare for the exams.

    Do you think that the federal government should be making it easier for anglophones to learn French or for francophones to learn English in the workplace, or should we not start by hiring bilingual employees?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: I prefer imperative staffing, whereby the linguistic ability of the employee is given the same weight as any other skill. Therefore, a prospective employee would have to have acquired this ability before taking the job. However, is it up to the federal government to provide employees with learning opportunities?

    The federal government helps its employees to acquire a number of skills. This is known as professional development. It can provide support and recruit people who already have some knowledge of the second language. I have stated more than once that we are moving towards a phase, where over the next 10 years, we will be recruiting a larger number of public servants.

    For the past 30 years, second language instruction has been a feature in our schools throughout the country. Young people have already shown an interest and have invested their time in learning the second language. So it seems to me that society, including the federal government, is in some way responsible for ensuring a return on its own investments. The federal as well as provincial governments have invested in educating our youths who, in turn, have demonstrated their motivation.

    All studies have shown quite conclusively that motivation is the main characteristic among those who are most successful in learning a second language. As a psychologist, I would say that this applies to almost any skill. So it is a determining factor.

    I believe that the federal government has begun to examine other ways to manage employees with a view to reaching a given linguistic competence level, something they will maintain and for which they will be accountable. I am referring to the institutions that are responsible for implementing the language of work objective, more specifically, the three institutions, even though all federal institutions are involved.

    I'm not sure if what I am saying is clear, but what I mean is that taking a course and passing a test is not enough: one must also speak the language. There are good practices currently in use in some departments. Some of you mentioned the days when the second language is used, for example. There are departments that do take such initiatives, but the practice is not widespread. I would admit that some of our managers don't see this as their number one priority. When you have the time, you might like to read the three or four surveys that have been done on the language of work.

    The fact that deputy ministers don't even have to be bilingual sends out a mixed message. The government machine is not logical in its approach, something that affects its legitimacy and undermines the importance of the language of work. This affects managers and employees alike.

    Hard decisions must be made in order to further legitimize the language of work and make accountable the managers as well as those whose responsibility it is to become bilingual, whether to serve the public, to supervise staff or to work in both languages.

¿  (0955)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We will return to Mr. Reid.

[English]

    Mr. Reid, the second round.

[Translation]

    M. Scott Reid: Do I have five minutes this time?

[English]

    The Chair: Yes, maximum.

[Translation]

    M. Scott Reid: Understood.

    I would first like to make a comment on the question put by Mr. Jobin.

    I believe that I can say with certainty that, for francophones in the public service, the fact that they cannot speak English represents what is called a glass ceiling. In Quebec, 58 per cent of the 20,000 positions in the federal public service require a knowledge of English. In the National Capital Region, 53 per cent of the positions require the employee to speak both official languages, and most of the other positions are English imperative. This represents a real problem for the francophones and, as you are no doubt aware, most of the francophones in Canada cannot speak English.

[English]

    Mr. Scott Reid: I have a question for you on a different subject. The March 2003 internal study to which I referred earlier suggests that one of the reasons anglophones are tending to fail the language test in ever greater numbers, and I'll quote from the study here, is that the Personnel Psychology Centre—that's the body that develops second-language tests for the public service—

...has observed that student themselves often have incorrect information about the OI Test that could adversely affect their test performance. For example, students (and other candidates) often believe that expressing themselves without making grammatical errors is extraordinarily important at level C. ... False information could distract the student from performing appropriately during the test.

    In other words, students have some trouble understanding what the tests are all about, which causes me to wonder whether the federal government—the public service—would not be well advised to cease using its own internally developed tests and instead to adopt the French and English language testing standards used elsewhere, used for example for people who are applying for Canadian citizenship, people who are applying for places and posts within universities—in other words, to simply adopt the widely accepted standard. It seems to me that were that to be done we would reduce, for example, the number of people who would fail and in particular those who fail the test the first time around.

    And I'll just mention that it is not possible for Canadians outside the public service to try the government test unless they're actually applying for a bilingual position, which means they are highly likely, based on the criteria pointed out here, to fail the first time and therefore unnecessarily be refused employment in the public service. And that, of course, affects immigrants as well as native English speakers.

    Thank you.

À  (1000)  

    The Chair: Madam Adam.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: I'd like to comment on two things. As I mentioned previously, we do not look at testing. But you mentioned, Mr. Reid, that no one else except someone who is going for a bilingual position can take the test. In fact last year in Edmonton there was a special project organized by the Edmonton Public School Board in cooperation with the Commission de la fonction publique and even our office, where about 90 students from immersion and core French took the public service test. It was very interesting ,because it seems from the pilot project that a lot of the students who graduated from immersion had even acquired a C level. The B level was for students coming from core French.

    Second, they are expanding that project. What is coming out from this is that the school system is now asking the feds to create national standards on official languages competency because there are not really such standards nationally recognized in Canada. They feel that this test delivered or used by the Public Service Commission is not that bad.

    I'm not an expert in testing, but I think those are questions you should ask the commission,because I think they have to respond to them.

    No test, by the way, is perfect. I come from a university background. I can tell you that when students fail there's something wrong with the test and the exams, almost inevitably. This has nothing to do with language. It's all the same. So I don't know, this might be also a hypothesis there.

[Translation]

    The Chair: We might come back to that, if we have time. For the time being, you have the floor, Mr. Simard.

    Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Welcome, Ms. Adam, and colleagues.

    My questions will deal with Canada Post. You said earlier that their service delivery was inconsistent. I have concerns about Western Canada. Among the government agencies and departments in the West, the one agency that is known for not providing services in both languages is Canada Post. So please excuse me if I appear to be a little skeptical when you state that you were well received and detected a level of openness.

    I would like to know what options we have if a second audit shows that there has been no improvement.

    The Chair: Ms. Adam.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: As you are aware, the commissioner can only recommend, but not order something to be done. You have the power to amend the federal institutions so that they will be accountable for the results. I can report on what was done well or not so well, and, in the end, if the steps that were taken to monitor or to provide the services do not meet the mark, then we will make recommendations. In my opinion, if they don't deliver the goods—and I always tend to give them the benefit of the doubt—then they will have to consider alternative means. If one method doesn't work, then you are unlikely to succeed by repeating it.

    If, at the end of the follow-up, neither the results nor the implementation of the act are acceptable, we will have to consider other ways of going about achieving positive results. I think you have an important role to play in that area.

À  (1005)  

    Mr. Raymond Simard: It is often a matter of attitude on their part, if not arrogance. I can assure you that in Winnipeg, it is very difficult to be served in French in the Canada Post offices.

    This is my second question. You said that in the second study, francophones tended to speak the language of their supervisor to the detriment of their first official language. I imagine that would also apply to agencies like Canada Post. In St. Boniface, for example, I am told that the services are provided in French at the counter, for the public, but, the new supervisor in that city is a unilingual anglophone. It seems to me that this will lead to a deterioration in service. Have you looked into that? Are bilingual services provided at the point of sale, while more and more supervisors are unilingual anglophones?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: As you know, St. Boniface, in Manitoba, is not designated as an area where the language of work criterion is a requirement. Only the services must be provided in both official languages. Therefore, in the regions, there is no requirement for the supervisor to supervise employees in their own language even if their positions are designated bilingual.

    Here, in the National Capital Region, and in regions designated bilingual, there is a relationship between the quality of the services that are provided in both official languages and the creation of a culture where both languages are used, a culture that respects the two large communities. The commission would like to further examine this relationship. By taking a closer look at the types of workplace where the two official languages are respected in the workplace as well as in the service that is provided, we will be able to say that this is a continuation of the organizational culture. We haven't looked at that specific aspect. There could indeed be consequences for regions that are not designated bilingual.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Bigras.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I would like to deal with your report on the federal buildings. On page 4 of your text, you say that the federal government must include language-related clauses in its commercial leases, inform its tenants to maintain the linguistic requirements. What you are saying, in so many words, is that the services are different according to the side of the river on which one is located. On the Quebec side of the Ottawa River, the services—I am using your term—are exemplary; on the other side of the river, in Ottawa—once again, in your words—the results are disappointing.

    You end up saying that you have already made recommendations to the National Capital Commission, to Heritage Canada and Public Works and Government Services Canada, and you state that most of the leases are held by the National Capital Commission.

    Besides the recommendations that you have given us—since there are two main agencies, one which controls 78% of the leases while the other holds 18%—can you identify exactly how Public Works Canada or the National Capital Commission provide these services without fully respecting their linguistic obligations?

À  (1010)  

    Ms. Dyane Adam: I would first like to correct something. When we say that 18% of the leases are managed by Public Works and Government Services Canada, this means that 18% of the leases have a language clause.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Oh, I see.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: This means that the National Capital Commission has been more successful than Public Works when it comes to introducing language clauses in its leases with businesses or tenants.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: What I can't understand is that there are certain legal obligations incumbent upon Public Works and Government Services Canada. So you are saying that the public works department does not respect the act?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, that is what I am saying.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: What would you suggest to ensure that Public Works and Government Services Canada will indeed respect the act?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: We determined something in this study, something that was not new to us, as I stated in my brief. The Joint Committee on Official Languages, in April 1997, had made its own recommendations, which can be found in appendix A. I did not ask my team, but I would like to know if the government responded? There is usually a response following a report. Did the government respond? I am told that it did not. There has been no response from the government nor from the departments involved. It is not the first time that this has been brought to the attention of the Department of Public Works and Government Services.

    We made 13 recommendations to the department, including some of those which were made in 1997 by the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages. Essentially, these recommendations suggested, or recommended that the act be respected. We recommended that language clauses be added, of course, but we wanted to ensure that the businesses would be aware of the clauses. So there is an element of information involved. Moreover, we recommended that the department check to see whether or not the businesses and tenants were in compliance with the relevant clauses, and provide them with real feedback. If they remain reluctant, then further action should be taken. As members of the Senate committee said yesterday, the less a person wants to understand, the more insistent one must be.

    The Chair: That is the end of this round.

    We will now give the floor to Mr. Drouin.

    Hon. Claude Drouin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I would like to continue along the same lines, and discuss the 13 recommendations that you are making. As you say, these are only recommendations. One cannot order, only recommend. Would it not have been a good idea to recommend a monetary clause in the leases that are signed, either with the National Capital Commission, Public Works and Government Services Canada, or Heritage Canada? This clause would provide for monetary penalties for failure to respect the criteria. I think this could prove quite effective, since we know that people are in business to make money, and not to lose it. A clause with some type of financial penalty could prove to be a powerful incentive. Could that type of recommendation be made? I took a quick look at your 13 recommendations but I don't remember seeing that.

    I would like to come back to something that I raised earlier. Unfortunately, there was not enough time for an answer. Mr. Bigras touched upon it, but not in the way in which I would have liked him to. We would like the airlines to provide bilingual service, but other businesses should do that as well. Air Canada has become a private company, but it does have obligations that must be maintained. In order to be fair, should these same obligations not be extended to other businesses, first of all in the private sector, but also—and that is the point that I raised earlier—because you can't take chances when it comes to safety? You touched upon it briefly, but I would like you to elaborate please.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Well, you are asking me to deal with a matter that involves the House of Commons. It is up to you to legislate.

    Hon. Claude Drouin: I was only referring to the recommendations.

À  (1015)  

    Ms. Dyane Adam: I was responding to the question about Air Canada.

    Hon. Claude Drouin: I'm sorry.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: I apologize, I did not identify the question to which I was responding. With respect to Air Canada, you are asking if there should be some other way to legislate the airspace to ensure that, regardless of the air carrier, service will be provided in both official languages. That would involve our Constitution as well as the Official Languages Act. That decision would be up to parliamentarians and, in my opinion, could be entertained within the Canadian Constitution.

    Hon. Claude Drouin: Very well. Thank you for that answer.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: With respect to the other question, I might explain that we have different types of recommendations. For example, recommendation 9 states:

that the National Capital Commission and Public Works and Government Services assist their commercial tenants in meeting the linguistic obligations outlined in the language clauses in their lease through direct action or referral as appropriate.

    We can define the direct actions. These can be incentives, for example, providing the business owners with translation services, or there can be punitive measures. Our study has clearly demonstrated, however, that most people, groups or merchants respond positively when they realize that there are financial and commercial advantages to having signage in both languages.

    I don't really see any need for a punitive approach, except in isolated cases.

    Hon. Claude Drouin: Exceptions?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: These are really incentives. I think that the federal government and the institutions that are involved should take the lead by showing a strong leadership. If we make our linguistic duality more prominent, and explain how important it is to give our capital a bilingual face, the Canadian public, beginning with its merchants, will respond favourably.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Before we start the third round, I would also like to ask a question.

    If I understood correctly—and I believe this was in response to a question by Mr. Bigras or Mr. Reid—it is not possible, at this time, to prequalify if no position is available. However, a public servant might wish to fill a bilingual position in a year or two, but may not know whether or not his linguistic ability is adequate. One might consider oneself bilingual but want to be tested. Could we not allow those who are in this situation to sit a test to determine what type of upgrading they might require, whether it be oral, written or comprehension?

    I earned my university degree entirely by correspondence. I did this after having been elected to Parliament, and during most of that time I was a minister. It was for my own satisfaction. Of course, I didn't write the exams because I was hoping to find a better job—when one is a minister, the chances of being promoted are rather slim—but because I wanted to be able to know and to say that I had achieved a personal goal in reaching this level of knowledge.

    We can assume that the same applies to a large number of Canadians, when it comes to their linguistic abilities. A public servant would just naturally want to ensure that he or she is already qualified. That may also be the case for those who are not yet public servants, but who might want to work for the government some day.

    I would like to know how you feel about this.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, in the past, the commission advocated a combined approach.

    First comes the recruiting for people who might want to become public servants. An effort is made to target, wherever possible, those people who, in addition to various types of training, have made the effort to learn the two official languages.

    There is also the training that is provided early in one's career. Almost everyone who starts a new job is told, after a few years, whether or not she is management material. So, one way or another, a career path begins to take shape. We begin to invest in these people well before they have reached the age of 40 or 45, in fact, it begins when they are in their early thirties, as is the case in other professions.

    This should be part of the employee's career or training plan. There should even be work assignments in French-language or English-language environments. This is a big country, and it provides an ambitious employee with an opportunity to work in a very bilingual context, or in an environment that is almost entirely unilingual English or French. I think that type of training could be very fruitful.

À  (1020)  

    The Chair: I wasn't talking about training or learning. What I meant is that public servants should be given the opportunity to be tested so that they might know whether or not they should upgrade, if only out of curiosity, for their own satisfaction, or for any number of valid reasons. We haven't reached that point yet. Is that what you are telling us?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: I don't think that testing should be an end in itself. To me, a test is like an interview. You might have all of the necessary qualifications and diplomas, but still not get the job. Testing can be compared to a diploma. I think what is important is to provide as much access as possible to training, if the person has not had it before starting to work for the government, and to do it as early as possible. Of course, with access, one can test one's own knowledge. There are computer programs for that.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Reid.

[English]

    Mr. Scott Reid: I'd just like to follow up on the chairman's question, if I could.

    I'm sure we've all had the experience of taking a test and learning how to take the test during the test. Just to give a simple example from my own history, when I lived in Australia I had to take a driving test. They, of course, drive on the left side of the road. I took two tests, failed the first one, but passed the second one with perfect marks. The reason was that I learned in the course of the first one what they were looking for.

    Something similar, I think, helps to explain the very high rate of failure that seems to be occurring and points the way to some kind of standardization of the tests within the public service with those that are used for other tests outside the public service, something that I had the sense you were not uncomfortable with.

    I guess it doesn't really matter whether or not the test is the one taken from the public service right now and spread outside, or the public service accepting the tests that come inside. The important thing is that the standards be made available.

    If you look around, it seems to me that some of the best and most objective tests that exist out there—I think of the graduate record examination tests, for example—allow you to take the test on your own, learn how to take the test, study for the test to get the sense of how the test works in order to execute the test well when you finally take it. It seems to me that this helps to eliminate the kinds of cultural factors that cause some groups to do better than others initially. And if we believe those groups exist when we talk about university entrance examinations for, for example, one racial or ethnic group versus another, I find it hard to believe that kind of environmental and background factor would not also exist when it comes to language testing for admission to the public service.

    Therefore, it seems to me that expanding to a standardized test that follows that which exists outside or is the same as that which exists outside the public service would be very helpful and would genuinely increase the level of fairness and openness for all Canadians.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Adam.

[English]

    Ms. Dyane Adam: In psychology, one thing we learn in testing and measurement is that there is no culture-free test. It's part of the discipline that the moment you test someone, whether it's using objective, or supposedly objective, criteria, or even having a group of individuals testing a person, an interviewee, there is always some form of bias that is linked to the tester or the test instrument, because it's been created in a certain environment based on cultures, values, or exposure to the environment itself.

    This is why we can argue over the validity or objectivity of tests. But you know what? We are a society of testers, in any—

À  (1025)  

    Mr. Scott Reid: That's true.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: So why would you now question the validity of tests while we use that in all of our universities, colleges, and school systems? This is something—

    Mr. Scott Reid: You misunderstood me as questioning the validity of the test. I'm really speaking in favour of a standardization across--

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Okay, but again I can tell you, based on my own expertise in testing and psychology, there is no magic test. We know from the research we do on this that you establish an index of validity and reliability. It will move up and down depending on what population you use your test on. So I do not know about those indices with respect to our linguistic testing in the public service, but I gather they're made by psychologists. They should be good, but again I cannot tell you.

    I think your questions are right, but I want you to keep in mind—and I know all your questions are geared toward testing—that we are in an environment in Canada and in the U.S.A, where we value testing and we constantly use that type of measurement to test human skills.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Jobin.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: I would like to go back to the clause in leases with respect to the obligation to announce and provide services in both official languages, a matter that Mr. Bigras raised earlier.

    In your report, you stated that 41 per cent of the 207 businesses audited had clauses in their lease with respect to bilingual signage and services. You also said that in these 207 cases, 78 per cent of the leases under National Capital Commission responsibility contained such clauses, whereas only 18 per cent of the Public Works and Government Services Canada leases did. Is that correct? Does that mean that 82 per cent of the leases that were audited and which come under the responsibility of Public Works Canada do not include bilingualism clauses?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: That is not the statistic. I realize that communication and vocabulary are very important. This report was probably poorly written, and I am sorry to have to say this, but when more than two or three people read something and appear to be understanding it in that way, it may be that there is a problem with the translation.

    We looked at all of the leases, 207 of them, and we noted that only 41 per cent contained language clauses.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: All right.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: When you look at this 41 per cent, you can see that 78 per cent of the leases that the National Capital Commission signed with its tenants included language clauses.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: Are you referring to the 207 or the 41 per cent?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Forty one per cent.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: All right.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: And only 18 per cent of the leases signed by Public Works with businesses contained language clauses. We have subdivided the 41 per cent in order to create a sub-sampling.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: So,in the case of Public Works, it is unacceptable.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: It is unacceptable. Yes, Public Works has some work to do.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: Is the minister responsible for enforcement of the Official Languages Act aware of your report? He told us that, every season, he would be meeting with the ministers responsible for enforcement of the act, namely the ministers in charge of Heritage Canada, Public Works...

    So it would be appropriate to inform the minister responsible for the enforcement of the act of this alarming situation. Everything is going well on one side of the river, but when you cross to the other side, there are problems. Perhaps the leases should be signed on board a ship sitting in the middle of the river. That might solve the problem.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: That was not included in our recommendations.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: Perhaps you should think about it.

    I think that it would be appropriate to advise the minister in charge of enforcing the act that one of his colleagues, the Minister of Public Works, is currently not enforcing the act in a satisfactory manner.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: I have already met with Minister Owen with respect to this report, before it was even released, to make him aware of the seriousness of the situation and to discuss with him the challenges that that may entail for the department. I know that our respective teams are currently working together to prepare an action plan or a plan to correct the situation.

    Yesterday, at the Senate committee, representatives from the department spoke about that matter. But I must confess to you that it is clear that the department needs to be made aware of this issue, not only by the commissioner but also by the parliamentarians.

À  (1030)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Bigras, go ahead.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I would like to go back to the matter pertaining to Canada Post, because this is the issue that probably is of the greatest concern to me. Why? Over the past few years, we have seen Canada Post Corporation undergo significant restructuring that has resulted in, and we have witnesses this in our communities, postal offices being closed down and services transferred to small businesses. In my opinion, this is a very worrisome situation with respect to the provision of services and the respect of language obligations.

    Further to your analysis and report, have you concluded that the restructuring of Canada Post, which is still underway, has been done simply to enhance profitability without any consideration being given to the corporation's language obligations?

    This situation concerns me somewhat. We may or may not agree with Canada Post's decision to reorganize in order to achieve greater profitability, but this is not the matter that is of concern to us here. Do you feel that there is a potential danger, given that the corporation is still proceeding with this reorganization?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, 64 out of 800 postal outlets have been designated bilingual, but the experts are telling us that this sampling is sufficiently large to give us a general idea of what is going on. Some of the data is interesting. When we examine the following two criteria, namely the provision of bilingual services either in person or by phone, we note that, generally speaking, the Canada Post Corporation outlets do a much better job than the dealer outlets. However, when we look at the situation regionally, we can see that dealer outlets do just as good a job and sometimes an even better job than the Canada Post Corporation service counters in at least three or four out of six provinces.

    Refer to page 19 of the audit, if you have it. Look at the services provided in person and by telephone. "Not applicable" means that the Canada Post Corporation outlet does not provide services by telephone. We can see that in Nova Scotia, dealer outlets provide a service in the minority language that is as satisfactory as that provided by the Canada Post Corporation outlets. This also occurs in New Brunswick and the service provided is even better. In Quebec, we see the same thing. We start having problems in Ontario. We can see that the services provided by corporate outlets are a great deal less satisfactory in the two Ontario regions that were audited. In Saskatchewan, the service is more or less the same or even better than the service provided in the dealer outlets. In Alberta, it is terrible.

    We did not audit British Columbia because the Treasury Board Secretariat had already conducted an audit. There are problems in that province as well.

    It is clear that Canada Post Corporation will have to rethink the way it provides services, probably as these services pertain to the environment or type of region. In some instances, postal outlets may not be the way to go.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I have a question about Canada Post Corporation. I will explain what I've understood, and you will correct my if I am mistaken.

    First of all, we have been told that, as far as corporate postal offices are concerned, namely Canada Post Corporation offices, a moratorium has been in effect since 1994. So there have not been any post office closures in rural areas. Last year, perhaps half a dozen out of the 4,000 or 5,000 post offices were closed.

    Secondly, I will explain how I see the structure. There are post offices, and that doesn't mean that they are in a building all by itself. In my town, we have a post office located inside a hardware store. This is not a dealer outlet nor is it a postal outlet, it is a post office, the woman who works there is a postmaster. She is authorized to take oaths, etc., in addition to her role as a postmaster. The second category pertains to postal outlets, such as the one located in my neighbouring town, for instance, not far from where you or I live, in St-Albert. There is a postal outlet in a store and it looks a lot that the one located in my town, except that it is not a post office at all. It is a postal outlet, a private operation. The third category pertains to dealer outlets, which fall somewhere in between the two categories that I have just described, if my interpretation is correct. The postal outlet is not owned by Canada Post Corporation either. Am I wrong? Are these the right categories?

    Earlier, you spoke about postal outlets as if they belonged to Canada Post Corporation where I've always thought that it was just the opposite. Someone in the room indicate that it is the case. Could you clarify that?

À  (1035)  

    Mr. Gérard Finn (Advisor to the Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): If I understand correctly, there are indeed postal outlets established as a result of agreements or contracts with pharmacies, convenient stores, etc. and these outlets do not belong to Canada Post. However, the services are provided on behalf of Canada Post. Regardless of whether the outlets are privately owned or not, the language obligations remain the same.

    The Chair: Perhaps, but that is not what my question was about.

    Mr. Gérard Finn: The audit did not make this distinction. We examined whether or not the service provided at the counter met the language obligations regardless of who the “owner” was.

    The Chair: I'm not challenging the obligation to provide language services, but earlier, a comparison was drawn between the quality of services at Canada Post outlets and privately owned postal outlets. When I say “privately owned”, I'm not talking about the building, because many post offices are located in private buildings. Moreover, you cannot tell from the outside of the building whether or not it is a post office. At least, I can't, but perhaps someone from Canada Post Corporation could clarify this for me.

    However, this is not what my question is all about. In your report, you talked about one category that was better than the other, and I'm wondering whether or not the two categories have been reversed.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: No. I hate having to contradict our chair. The auditors did the work, and it appears that there are two categories of postal outlets, if we can call them that.

    The Chair: Are there any private categories in addition to the post offices?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: No, there are only two.

    The Chair: All right.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: On the one hand, we have the r service outlets that belong to the corporation. They come in all shapes and sizes. They may be located in a small individual house or they may be found in a federal building, in a business. On the other hand, we have the dealer outlets, which hire a third party or partner, and these can vary as well. According to our experts, that these are the only two ways to operate. To the citizen, it may look as though all of this is different, but as far as the crown corporation is concerned, there are two types of services, two ways of managing services.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Simard, would you like to ask a final question before we conclude? After that, I would like to take a brief look at the agenda of our next meetings to determine whether or not you want some of these issues to be dealt with by other witnesses. So I would like to have a few minutes at the end so that we can continue this conversation.

    Mr. Simard, the floor is yours.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman.

    This is more of a comment than a question. Last weekend, I had the privilege and pleasure of attending two events: the first event was a speaking contest for young students registered in the immersion program and it was sponsored by the organization called Canadian Parents for French, and the second event was the graduation ceremony at the St. Boniface University College. A third of the graduates had come from the immersion program. I can tell you that this was very encouraging. I said to myself that some of these individuals will no doubt become our future public servants. Their level of bilingualism is, at the outset, much higher than what it was in the past. Have you noticed that?

À  (1040)  

    Ms. Dyane Adam: According to the studies that I mentioned, there is no doubt that many young people, who come from all parts of the country, have a good level of bilingualism, as demonstrated by the census. In the category of young people aged 15 to 19, 25% are bilingual. We did not have this same percentage 20 or 30 years ago. I believe that we really do have to back that program and continue. This is why the federal government has invested more in the Action Plan for Official Languages. The organization Canadian Parents for French and other groups are very committed. That is perhaps the path of the future. We should be able to harvest these investments and find these young people.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Let us first of all take a look at the agenda for the next few meetings. This will not take very long. Tomorrow, at 4:30 p.m., there will be a meeting with representatives from CBC with respect to its obligations under part VII of the Official Languages Act. We know that a member of our committee, Mr. Godin, requested this evidence.

    Then, we have a draft letter for the Minister of Transport with respect to Air Canada. This issue was also raised the other day. You will recall that we do not know the length of our mandate. If we are to speak on this issue now, we need to draft this letter. We will have this draft letter prepared by tomorrow.

    Furthermore, I have been told that neither the Minister of Transport nor the Minister of Justice is available to appear this week. We will therefore be hearing from representatives for CBC tomorrow.

    Further to this morning's testimony, and that is providing that there will be other meetings next week of course, do you wish to hear, once again, from the minister in charge of the public service agency in order to discuss certain issues which were raised this morning? Do you have any interest in doing that?

    Mr. Bigras, the floor is yours.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Further to the commissioner's testimony and presentation, it seems to me that it would be appropriate to hear from Canada Post Corporation management. After all, we are talking about direct services to the people, and that was, moreover, the recommendation made by the commissioner.

    The Chair: That was one of the recommendations.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: I asked one question dealing solely with this issue, but there seemed to be a great deal of interest for this matter on the government side. It may therefore be interesting to hear from Canada Post management.

    The Chair: Do any other members wish to make comments pertaining to Canada Post Corporation?

    We will therefore give priority to that, providing that there is going to be a meeting in two weeks, which we are all hoping for, I'm sure.

    The meeting is adjourned.