LANG Committee Report

A.        Public Service

The statement of the objectives of the Action Plan for Official Languages concerning the public service reads as follows: "The federal government cannot play a leadership role if it does not lead by example. The improvements sought will address the delivery of federal services to Canadians in both official languages, participation of English — and French‑speaking Canadians in the federal government, and the use of both languages in the work place."¹

Three institutions are mainly responsible for achieving these objectives: the Public Service Agency of Canada, the Public Service Commission, and the Canada School of Public Service.

Public Service Agency

On December 12, 2003, the Prime Minister announced the creation of the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada. It changed its name to the Public Service Agency of Canada in April 2007. That agency's mandate was to manage the application of the Public Service Modernization Act, which was passed in November 2003, "and to provide general direction and oversight to all institutions subject to the Official Languages Act."²

When the Agency was created, all the official languages responsibilities of the Treasury Board Secretariat, as codified in Part VIII of the Official Languages Act, were transferred to it. The new Agency, like the Treasury Board Secretariat before it, is responsible for the general direction and coordination of federal policies and programs relating to the implementation of provisions concerning language of service (Part IV), language of work (Part V) and the participation of English‑speaking and French‑speaking Canadians (Part VI) in all federal institutions other than the Senate, House of Commons and the Library of Parliament. In carrying out that mission, the Public Service Agency of Canada may:

1. establish policies, or recommend policies to the Governor in Council, to give effect to Parts IV, V and VI;
2. recommend regulations to the Governor in Council to give effect to Parts IV, V and VI;
3. issue directives to give effect to Parts IV, V and VI;
4. monitor and audit federal institutions in respect of which it has responsibility for their compliance with policies, directives and regulations of Treasury Board or the Governor in Council relating to the official languages of Canada;
5. evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of policies and programs of federal institutions relating to the official languages of Canada;
6. provide information to the public and to officers and employees of federal institutions relating to the policies and programs that give effect to Parts IV, V and VI; and
7. delegate any of its powers under this section to the deputy heads or other administrative heads of other federal institutions.³

All federal institutions are subject to the official languages policies administered by the Agency. The Official Languages Policy Framework comprises four main policies which provide that all institutions are subject to the relevant sections of the Official Languages Act. In the past, some of these policies applied only to those institutions for which Treasury Board was the employer, excluding for instance Crown corporations, the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Air Canada and even Revenue Canada, who were nonetheless required to draw on those policies. A number of directives set out how these policies are to be implemented; although they are not compulsory, they serve as tools for their application.  

The Agency therefore works with all federal institutions and actively offers its support in the implementation of their official languages programs. It is responsible for tabling an annual report in Parliament on the performance of official languages programs in the federal institutions concerned by its mission.

The Agency’s annual budget was $106.9 million in 2006‑2007, including $6.8 million for official languages.⁴ That budget will be cut by 36% from its 2006‑2007 level to $67.4 million in 2008‑2009. That reduction appears to be related to the termination of the transitional measures that followed implementation of the new Public Service Modernization Act. However, it was impossible to determine whether it would affect the oversight and support role that the Agency performs for federal institutions as a whole.

Recommendation 1

That the Government of Canada ensure that the cuts to the Public Service Agency’s budgets do not affect its ability to support the federal institutions in their implementation of the provisions of the Official Languages Act.

In September 2006, the government decided to terminate the Official Languages Innovation Program, for which the Agency was responsible, thus causing the Commissioner of Official Languages some concern. The Action Plan for Official Languages provided for $14 million over five years for that program, but only three years had been funded, for a total of approximately $6 million. The Commissioner wrote in his Annual Report 2006‑2007:

While the Prime Minister and the Minister for Official Languages repeated their commitment to linguistic duality several times, the government has, in fact, directly undermined the Action Plan over the past year. By eliminating the Official Languages Innovation Fund, a key component of the Action Plan, the government has adversely affected the Plan’s objectives. This Fund, as mentioned previously, financed projects aimed at improving the quality of services offered by the public service.⁵

Committee members acknowledge the possibility that the Action Plan’s objectives may be achieved by other means, but regret the fact that the government did not provide any explanation for the cancellation of this program, the results of which had been very positive to date. Consequently, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 2

That the government publicly state the reasons for the cancellation of the Official Languages Innovation Program in the public service.

Public Service Commission

The reorganization of the management of the public service pursuant to the passing of the Public Service Modernization Act in the fall of 2003 profoundly altered the Public Service Commission’s mandate. The Public Service Employment Act was amended in the fall of 2003 further to the passing of the Public Service Modernization Act. The Commission’s official mandate is similar, but it must now encourage the delegation of its authorities to deputy heads of federal institutions. The Preamble of the new Public Service Employment Act states very clearly in this regard that:

authority to make appointments to and within the public service has been vested in the Public Service Commission, which can delegate this authority to deputy heads;

those to whom this appointment authority is delegated must exercise it within a framework that ensures that they are accountable for its proper use to the Commission, which in turn is accountable to Parliament;

delegation of staffing authority should be to as low a level as possible within the public service, and should afford public service managers the flexibility necessary to staff, to manage and to lead their personnel to achieve results for Canadians⁶

With this reorganization, the Commission also lost its responsibility for training public servants, including language training. This component was transferred to the School of Public Service, which began operations on April 1, 2004.

Further to these changes, the various official languages roles and responsibilities of the Public Service Commission fall under two components: the first describes the Commission’s statutory obligations, that is, those conferred on it by the Public Service Employment Act, and the second includes those delegated to it by Treasury Board or that it shares with Treasury Board.

In this regard, the Commission carries on any activity related to the Public Service Employment Act, thus to the staffing process. In that capacity, it:

1. regulates the staffing of positions, including bilingual positions;⁷
2. administers and updates the provisions of the Official Languages Exclusion Order, as necessary;
3. establishes and updates linguistic selection standards by determining to what levels "A" (Beginner), "B" (Intermediate) and "C" (Advanced) levels correspond;⁸

4. develops the language tests used to evaluate candidates’ second language skills;
5. evaluates second-language skills, either directly or by delegation;
6. develops and delivers training in the context of the evaluation examiners accreditation program;
7. provides certain linguistic recourse mechanisms related to the staffing process for public service employees (linguistic review committees, appeals and investigations);
8. verifies the use that the departments make of the statutory staffing powers that the Commission has delegated to deputy ministers, including the language aspect and the equitable participation of both language groups in the staffing process.

In the Action Plan for Official Languages, the government asked the Public Service Commission to favour the recruitment of candidates who are already bilingual ($2.5 million); to provide better access to language courses early in the careers of public servants who are not already bilingual; and to intensify efforts relating to retaining and improving language skills ($36.1 million). The last two aspects pertained directly to language training and were transferred to the School of Public Service as of April 1, 2004.

The Commission was however responsible for language training during the first fiscal year of the Action Plan.⁹ For fiscal year 2003-2004, with investments under the Action Plan, total expenditures on language training increased to $27 million from the $17 million planned initially.¹⁰

For fiscal years 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, the responsibility and budgets for language training were transferred to the School of Public Service. In addition to investments of $36.1 million over five years under the Action Plan, an additional $12 million was allocated to the School of Public Service from 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 to reduce waiting lists for language training. This additional funding was not renewed for 2007-2008.¹¹ Total expenditures for language training, including regular funding and funding under the Action Plan, increased to $29 million in 2005-2006 and then to $31 million in 2006-2007.¹²

With the redefinition of the mandate of the School of Public Service effective  April 1, 2007, the school no longer offers language training directly; the departments are now responsible for it. The School will essentially serve a coordinating role. This considerably reduced planned spending for language training for the last fiscal year of the Action Plan. For fiscal year 2007-2008, planned spending for language training fell to $19 million from $33.8 million in 2006-2007.¹³ The government has not indicated how the funding for language training included in the Action Plan for fiscal year 2007-2008 will be reallocated.

The measures put in place appear to have achieved good results. Between 2002‑2003 and 2006‑2007, the number of non-imperative appointments fell sharply from 4,505 to 2,294. However, the proportion of public servants not meeting the language requirements of their positions at the time of appointment remained essentially unchanged at approximately 15%.

One of the most important factors in ensuring the provision of federal services in both official languages is ensuring that designated bilingual positions are in fact occupied by bilingual persons. In his Annual Report 2006‑2007, the Commissioner of Official Languages expressed concern over the numerous cases of non-compliance. That finding was based on the data to March 31, 2005. The situation has completely changed since that time. In its 2006‑2007 Annual Report, the Public Service Commission stated that it was "encouraged to note that in 2006‑2007, organizations reduced the number of cases that do not respect the provisions of the Order when initial exemption periods have expired. There has also been a continued decrease in applications for extended exemptions for the Executive Group."¹⁴The number of non-compliant cases fell sharply from 892 in March 2005 to 320 in March 2006 and 218 in March 2007.¹⁵

The imperative staffing of designated bilingual positions still raises questions about the balance that should be struck between the hiring of candidates who are already bilingual and the need to attract Canadians from all geographic origins to the public service. Sixty-eight percent of the some 70,000 bilingual positions in the public service are located in the National Capital Region, 20% in Quebec and 4% in New Brunswick.¹⁶ Bilingualism in the public service is thus mainly an asset in those three regions. The Committee invites the government to consider offering training based more on immersion than on courses that do not allow the language to be used on an everyday basis. Francophones clearly benefit more from bilingual imperative staffing actions, which may give the impression that Francophones are privileged in the federal public service. That argument must be offset, however, by the virtual non-existence of unilingual Francophone candidates for the non-imperative staffing of bilingual positions and the very small number of unilingual Francophone positions outside Quebec. The New Brunswick example is eloquent in this regard, since half of the 6,000 federal public service positions in that province are designated bilingual. The remaining 3,000 positions are unilingual Anglophone. There are only 28 unilingual Anglophone positions in New Brunswick, despite the fact that one-third of the population is Francophone. In Quebec, one-third of positions are unilingual Francophone, even though the percentage of Francophones is greater than the percentage of Anglophones in New Brunswick, and two-thirds are bilingual. There are some 110 unilingual Anglophone positions in Quebec. Approximately 7% of bilingual positions in Quebec were occupied by Anglophones, and some 60% of bilingual positions in the National Capital Region were occupied by Francophones.

It is therefore clear that the percentage of Francophones occupying bilingual positions is distinctly greater than their demographic weight. According to the Public Service Commission, two-thirds of the 4,538 imperative appointments to bilingual positions went to Francophones in 2006‑2007.¹⁷ Any raising of the bilingualism requirements in the public service thus constitutes an advantage for Francophones, since a greater percentage of Francophones are bilingual. Increasing the number of unilingual positions in the National Capital Region would have the effect of excluding Francophones since it is unrealistic to imagine that Francophones could work solely in French in the federal public administration in the NCR, whereas the equivalent opportunity exists for Anglophones, since virtually all Francophones working in the NCR are bilingual. The challenge is thus to attract more bilingual Anglophone candidates, which is only possible by increasing the number of bilingual Anglophones, especially outside Quebec and the NCR. The public service must set an example and carry the bilingualism torch across the country. In exchange, the Government of Canada must ensure that its federal administration, particularly in the NCR, is representative of the country’s geographic diversity. The challenge is thus to maintain high bilingualism requirements in the public service while recruiting more bilingual Anglophones.

There are two ways to do this: hire Anglophones who are already bilingual and encourage Anglophone public servants to learn French. The first option involves relying on the education system, taking into account the fact that the Government of Canada has very little direct control over educational institutions. The second option consists in improving the quality of language training offered to federal employees, from the start of their careers, rather than when they reach higher positions and language requirements seem an additional burden or a de facto privilege granted to Francophones.

Committee members unanimously acknowledge the fundamental importance of the education system in promoting linguistic duality. The comments of the Commissioner of Official Languages in his appearance before the Committee reinforced the view of Committee members:

We need to increase awareness among Canadians, particularly parents, about the importance of learning a second language and of asking for stronger French programs in schools. Also, universities need to contribute by training bilingual graduates and providing options for students graduating from immersion programs. Young bilingual graduates need to see that there are real and numerous career opportunities that require their second official language.

… Bilingualism must be recognized as a key characteristic of leadership in the public service and a crucial element of renewal. The public service must recruit more bilingual employees and promote itself as an employer of choice for young Canadians across the country. Achieving this goal requires cooperation with the post secondary sector and it requires that we provide Canadians with fair and equitable access to quality second language training at all levels of the education system.¹⁸

Where bilingualism is genuinely considered a professional asset in the school system, it is an undeniable advantage for students, as the Edmonton example shows:

Regarding the secondary and primary levels, I would like to point out the role played by the Edmonton Public Schools school board. It is really ahead of the other school boards in Canada. It offers quality programs. One of the results of this program is that the vast majority of the students studying at the St‑Jean Campus, the Francophone campus of the University of Alberta, have followed an immersion program that enabled them to acquire the skills for doing their postsecondary studies in French, as well as the confidence that they will succeed.¹⁹

The benefit of increased involvement by postsecondary institutions was reinforced by the testimony of one official from the Public Service Agency:

In terms of universities, we are the biggest employer in Canada and we hire the widest range, actually, of degrees in the country as an employer, so we have an enormous reach into the universities and colleges. I don’t know of anything really formal, but I certainly know I’ve been on a panel myself where there has been a lot of the leaders of like the Masters of Public Administration programs, where we’ve just said that it would be really helpful if there were some offerings in French training as part of the programs. But in terms of anything formal, I can’t comment on particular discussions that I’m aware of, beyond saying that it would make sense to be encouraging students, particularly in programs that tend to be feeders into the public service, such as public administration or the MBA.²⁰>

Recommendation 3

That the Government of Canada, as the largest employer in Canada, examine, together with provincial and territorial governments and postsecondary institutions, the best ways to encourage postsecondary educational institutions to promote bilingualism among their students, particularly in the programs which train a lot of public servants, by setting language requirements for admission to their programs or as a condition of graduation, or by any other method they deem appropriate.

Recommendation 4

That the Government of Canada invite the heads of postsecondary institutions in Canada to engage in discussions with it and other interested stakeholders on how to meet the federal public service’s need for qualified bilingual employees.

Recommendation 5

That the Government of Canada raise awareness of the language skills required in the federal public service.

The Commissioner of Official Languages also expressed reservations about the overall coherence of the language tests for which the Public Service Commission is responsible:

I would like to make a general comment about something of concern to me. I think there is a problem we must deal with. I’m sure there are some people in the public service who can communicate in the second official langue, but who do not pass their test. There are others who do pass the test, but who cannot communicate in the other language. I do not know whether it is the work place environment that causes people who’ve had language training not to use their second language, or whether there is a difference between the two groups, because of the nature of the test. I do know that the Public Service Commission has just changed the test public servants have to take to determine their language skills.²¹

Without prejudging the outcome of the introduction of this new test, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 6

That the Public Service Commission provide the Committee with a presentation on the changes made to the language tests, and on the problems to which those changes should provide a response.

School of Public Service

The Government of Canada cannot rely solely on the education system to provide an adequate number of bilingual candidates from all regions of the country. That is why language training must compensate for the limits of the education system. Coordination of that training is the responsibility of the School of Public Service.

The Canada School of Public Service (the School), which was established on April 1, 2004, is the result of the merger of three institutions dedicated to learning in the public service: the Canadian Centre for Management Development (1991), Training and Development Canada (1990) and Language Training Canada (1964). In 2006‑2007, the School’s total budget was $113 million, $31 million of which was allocated to maintaining the bilingual capability of the federal public service, essentially through language training.²²

The limited accessibility of adequate language training is the cause of union disagreement over an excessive increase in the number of positions designated "bilingual imperative", requiring candidates to be bilingual when they are hired. The position of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada is utterly clear on this point:

Until such time as the educational infrastructure of Canada supports proficiency in both languages by all students, the federal public service must continue to provide linguistic training. This training must be available as new hires enter the public service and be maintained and monitored throughout their careers.²³

The School of Public Service has not been responsible for the language training of federal public servants since April 1, 2007. Every department and agency is now responsible for hiring the resources it deems appropriate to offer language training to its employees. The $30 million that the School received every year will therefore be absorbed by each of the departments that choose to send their employees on language training. This obligation may further reduce departments’ interest in language training. The Committee therefore recommends:

Recommendation 7

That the Government of Canada establish sufficient funding for language training for every federal institution so that employees required or wishing to take language training in Canada may do so, in accordance with the Policy on Official Languages for Human Resources Management of the Canada Public Service Agency.

This decentralization of responsibilities may also make it difficult to gather information on the number of employees actually taking training, and on training outcomes based on the various learning methods and the various subcontractors. Good knowledge of outcomes based on the expenditures of each institution would also help encourage the adoption of best practices. For that reason, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 8

That the School of Public Service gather specific data, on an ongoing basis, on the number of federal employees who have received language training, on the outcome of that training for employees’ skills and on the cost of training for each of the departments and institutions.

One of the main reasons advanced for subcontracting language training rather than centralizing it at the School of Public Service was the undue lengthening of the waiting list that followed the reduction in the number of non-imperative staffing actions. In other words, the waiting list grew when the government became stricter about the need for bilingual positions to be occupied by bilingual candidates.

The 2006‑2007 Departmental Performance Report of the School of Public Service states: "The waiting list was reduced from more than 1,200 individuals in 2005-06 to 85 in 2006-07. This reduction is due to two factors: a moratorium imposed on the waiting list to provide a transition period towards the new model; and a training validation exercise that led to individuals being removed from the list due to a reassessment of their training requirements."

Committee members are obviously pleased with this impressive reduction in the waiting list, but would like to learn more about its actual causes. Knowing that demand for language training varied between 50 and 100 a month from 2002‑2003 until the moratorium,²⁴the Committee therefore recommends:

Recommendation 9

That the Government of Canada inform the Committee of the number of persons who were unable to receive language training as a result of the moratorium designed to allow the transition to the new service delivery model.

Recommendation 10

That the Government of Canada inform the Committee of the number of persons who were removed from the waiting list for language training as a result of the traning validation exercise, and of the reasons for their removal.

The public service unions have expressed their concern about the decentralization of training responsibilities:

You may have noticed that, here in this region in particular, private language schools, which we don’t think are of the same quality, are spreading like wildfire. We can’t be assured of the same quality as that previously offered by the School of Public Service."²⁵

Suppliers appear to be making efforts, but it is impossible to assess the results of those efforts for the moment. However, promising initiatives were mentioned:

We’re sitting down at the table together to find a supply method that would work for the public service, which is represented by the School and which also works for the private schools, to enable them to have a way of taking part in this need and also to have a way to validate the quality offered by the schools.²⁶

Recommendation 11

That the School of Public Service establish an evaluation system to ensure the quality of subcontractors providing language training to employees of the federal public service.

It appears that the best way to achieve these results would be, where possible, to replace two or three hours of training a week with an immersion program of several weeks in length similar to those offered by postsecondary institutions in the summer.

Recommendation 12

That the Canada Public Service Agency promote language training methods recognized as offering the best chances of success, particularly immersion over a number of weeks in an environment in Canada where the language learned is the majority language.

B.        Language Industry

The Action Plan for Official Languages provided for a $20 million budget over five years to support the Canadian language industry:

• $10 million to fund the establishment and operation of the Research Centre for Language Technologies (RCLT);
• $9.3 million from Economic Development Canada and an additional $5 million granted by the MDERR (Government of Quebec) were used to fund the construction of a new building on the campus of the Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO). Since 2006, that building has housed the UQO Linguistics Department, the RCLT, the technolinguistic service of the Translation Bureau, AILIA and language industry start‑up businesses. The purpose of this project is to establish a unique growth and expertise centre for the language industry;
• $5 million to Industry Canada over a five-year period to promote the Canadian language industry in and outside Canada;
• $2 million invested over a five-year period to fund the Language Industry Program (LIP). Direct funding will be granted to language industry businesses to assist them in their marketing and development projects;
• $3 million paid over a five-year period to fund the Language Industry Association (AILIA). AILIA must be able to finance itself by the end of 2007‑2008 fiscal year.

Committee members were convinced of the value of the initiatives presented by language industry representatives. However, the results of the 2006 formative evaluation leave some doubt as to whether support for this industry should be included in the Action Plan, since demand for linguistic products and services has not risen as anticipated when the Action Plan was launched:

However, the review team notes that the relationship between the LII and the Action Plan for Official Languages needs to be redefined. At first, the relevance of the LII as an element of the Plan was based in part on expectations of an increase in national demand for language products and services in the four sectors of the industry. The evaluation has shown that there is no formal data to support the Action Plan’s effect on this demand. The review team also notes that the Initiative puts greater emphasis on the idea of multilingualism than on bilingualism, a central element of the Action Plan that includes development of the official language minority communities. Therefore the relevance of the LII in terms of the Action Plan could be affected.²⁷

The investments the Committee would like to see in the renewal of the Action Plan will have to be more clearly in keeping with the plan’s objectives, in particular the promotion of bilingualism in the public service, and should not serve solely to support the expansion of a promising industry.

In addition, $3 million in grants over five years from Industry Canada were to enable the Language Industry Association to become self-sufficient after the Action Plan expired. This $600,000 a year represented virtually the entire budget of the organization in 2004‑2005, and, excluding a non-recurring grant from Human Resources Development Canada, the situation was the same in 2006‑2007. It would therefore be surprising if the association were able to achieve self-sufficiency without multi-year support from the federal government.

Regarding the Action Plan’s investments that provided for the creation of the Language Technologies Research Centre (LTRC), the Rector of the Université du Québec en Outaouais recalled that:

The research centre is bound to become a world leader in the establishment of language technology R&D standards. Since its inception, however, the LTRC has not had the necessary funding to ensure its full emergence. (…) I think $6 million a year would be one factor that would enable Canada to have the necessary strike force in research and development at the LTRC. Obviously, it is also extremely important that funding for the Language Industry Association be renewed, because it is these industries, those currently emerging that take the research centre's achievements and market them for Canada's benefit.²⁸

The Committee therefore recommends:

Recommendation 13

That the Government of Canada increase its financial support to the language industries in the the renewal of the Action Plan for Official Languages.

C.        Access to Justice

A representative of the Department of Justice informed Committee members of the constructive achievements of the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund. That fund derived considerable benefit from the $18.5 million invested over five years under the Action Plan for Official Languages. A detailed evaluation of the Fund’s results was published in May 2007, and Committee members would very much like to support its recommendations. The main findings of the evaluation were as follows:

Overall, activities funded by the Support Fund have contributed to improving access to justice services in both official languages by increasing the capacity of actors in the justice system to offer those services. The Support Fund has enabled associations of French-speaking jurists to carry out their mandate more effectively, contributed to the development of jurilinguistic tools and to professional development for legal professionals, and brought together a variety of stakeholders so that they could coordinate their efforts. As well, the leading stakeholders have been made aware of the needs that exist in relation to access to justice and have become involved in identifying and implementing activities in that regard.

However, because the Support Fund is limited to criminal law and matters under federal jurisdiction, many needs associated with access to justice in both official languages, such as those relating to family law, have still not been addressed. As well, the needs that are identified and that are dealt with by the Support Fund are ongoing and should be pursued. Furthermore, given the low visibility of the Support Fund in the Anglophone community in Quebec, the Support Fund’s capacity to improve access to justice services in English for that community is limited.²⁹

Although there are improvements that could be made to the Support Fund, it does not seem that there are any alternatives that would be more effective and would cost less. The Support Fund is an effective and appropriate mechanism for meeting the needs identified.³⁰

Adopting the findings of that evaluation, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 14

That the Government of Canada acknowledge the positive results of the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund and grant it long-term support when the Action Plan for Official Languages is renewed.

Recommendation 15

That the Department of Justice promote greater involvement by Quebec’s Anglophone community in measures designed to ensure better access to justice for the minority language communities.

Recommendation 16

That the Department of Justice consider the appropriateness of expanding the scope of the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund to other areas of shared jurisdiction.