Annual Report 2020–2021

The COVID‑19 pandemic disrupted how most of us operate and in some cases revealed certain practices within the federal public service that were seen by Canadians and public servants as lacking respect for their language rights.

I recognize that federal institutions worked incredibly hard to ensure the health and safety of Canadians in the face of adversity. Unfortunately, shortcuts were also taken with regard to language obligations, particularly in terms of the use and status of French.

Imagine for a moment
a parent receiving an emergency text message about COVID‑19 in the official language he doesn’t understand… How does he know what the new threat is to him and to his family? How does he react to protect his loved ones? Whom does he turn to for answers in his first official language? During an emergency, the timely availability of clear and understandable messages in a person’s first official language is crucial. Failure to ensure this can result in serious consequences.

My office received 138 complaints related to the COVID‑19 pandemic, which is just over 7% of the total number of complaints for 2020–2021. Two thirds of these involved government communications with and services to the public. Many complaints concerned Health Canada’s decisions in March and April 2020 to temporarily allow English-only labelling of disinfectants and other products. Some complaints were about English-only text messages sent by the Government of Canada through the COVID‑19 Alert application, and several others involved the nonequivalent use of French during press conferences given by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health.

Although it is too early to draw conclusions from these complaints, most of which were still under investigation at the time of writing this annual report, I would like to state what should be obvious: any measure regarding the health or safety of Canadians is effective only if it is communicated to them in both of Canada’s official languages. Using both English and French ensures that 98% of Canadians can be reached. This is a basic public safety measure.

In 2020–2021, almost one third (40) of the complaints received in relation to the COVID‑19 pandemic were filed by federal public servants. These employees reported receiving English-only emails, briefing notes, conference calls and emergency alerts, despite the fact that they work in regions designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes. The complaints are still under investigation, but I can only say that this is an unacceptable recurring problem that has been documented in my office’s reports over the years.

The use of both official languages is not only a matter of respecting Canadians’ rights but also a matter of public safety, especially for vulnerable or disadvantaged people in an emergency situation, such as the COVID‑19 pandemic in 2020–2021. I encourage you to read my office’s October 2020 report, A Matter of Respect and Safety: The Impact of Emergency Situations on Official Languages.

The COVID‑19 pandemic and resulting lockdowns had an impact on the staffing of bilingual positions in the federal public service. The Public Service Commission of Canada, which plays a key role in administering the language tests required for this staffing, was forced to suspend its in-person operations in March 2020, which brought staffing to a halt for a time.

The Public Service Commission took steps to address this problem, first by granting temporary exemptions from the requirement to use its tests, then by giving federal institutions the authority to administer their own tests, and finally by gradually introducing new Public Service Commission online tests, both supervised and unsupervised.

I applaud the Public Service Commission for adapting quickly by shifting to digital technologies. However, I am concerned about federal institutions’ ability to ensure strict quality control and supervision of their language testing. Another concern is whether these in-house language tests may have led or may yet lead to supervisory positions’ being filled by candidates who do not meet the language requirements of the positions. When this happens, subordinate staff may not be able to work in the official language of their choice, as is their right in designated bilingual regions. Ultimately, both the public service’s bilingual capacity and the public’s right to services in the official language of their choice run the risk of being compromised. The Public Service Commission and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat are working together to try to minimize the impact of the new measures on federal public servants and their rights.

Like many of you, I spent most of the past year working from home and accessing the various online services that are helping me to live my life during the current health crisis. Effectively, the COVID‑19 pandemic has been a catalyst for ongoing transformations in services to the public and in the way work is structured both in Canadian society and, more specifically, within the public service.

The question is how will the principles and rules governing the government’s official languages obligations hold up in this shifting environment?

When defining their bilingual staffing needs, federal institutions will have to consider the fact that their services and workforces are becoming increasingly delocalized. My office has developed an online interactive tool to help determine the linguistic identification of positions. The Dionne case, discussed in this annual report, should serve as a warning about federal employees’ right to work in the official language of their choice.

Canada is currently actively preparing to modernize its Official Languages Act, including the new conditions under which the Act and its instruments will operate. I issued recommendations on the modernization of the Act in 2019.

My office will be closely monitoring these issues in the coming months.

In the wake of the government’s initial shortcomings in terms of communicating in both official languages during the COVID‑19 pandemic, I asked my office to conduct a broader study on the impact of emergencies on official languages. Through a questionnaire posted on our website, we consulted with over 2,200 people, and the key finding was that one official language, usually French, often takes a back seat in emergency situations. Few federal institutions have mechanisms, processes or procedures in place to ensure the use of both official languages in emergency communications. Unfortunately, this is also the case under normal circumstances, as well: teams operate in one official language, and the other is simply a translation.

The Canadians who responded to our questionnaire described the extent to which they feared for their health, safety and even their lives when they could not receive information in the official language of their choice from public authorities. On this issue, they made few distinctions between the various levels of government, the important thing being that all emergency communications must be released simultaneously in both official languages. My office received numerous complaints about this problem in 2020–2021.

I therefore recommended in my study report that the Government of Canada implement internal procedures and work tools for communications in both official languages, and then evaluate their effectiveness both in normal times and in times of crisis. I also asked certain federal institutions to encourage and support other levels of government to do the same. Over the course of the past year, I have spoken about this with federal deputy ministers and official languages champions. I am pleased to see that a number of parliamentarians have relayed my findings and recommendations to Parliament.

Failing to respect language rights, regardless of whether there are extenuating circumstances resulting from an emergency or crisis situation, is still a violation of rights guaranteed by quasi-constitutional legislation and cannot be excused.

Imagine for a moment
a person responsible for public safety in a federal institution who needs to fill a team leader position and who is reviewing the linguistic profile of this bilingual position… One of her employees has all the required experience and would be the ideal candidate, except for his second language skill levels BBB, which are below what is normally required CBC. She feels that this is not a problem because one of his colleagues is perfectly bilingual and could assist him, if necessary, and because the employee could also take training to improve his second language skills. The linguistic profile of the position is therefore set at the lower level BBB/BBB, and the employee is promoted.

What if the bilingual colleague is not in the office on the day of an emergency and the team leader cannot communicate safety instructions in the other official language? What if the bilingual colleague is a subordinate, a superior or a peer who is not in the same position (at the same group and level) and therefore does not have the same expertise as the team leader?

During times of crisis, the limited capacity of federal institutions to provide services to the public in both official languages becomes apparent. If a federal institution has underestimated the level of language skills required for its employees, despite the tasks and duties of their positions, then during an emergency situation, those employees will likely be unable to respond to the public with the same attention to detail and quality of service in both official languages. The same is true for managers when it comes to supporting their employees.

Failure to properly apply the Act in assessing the language requirements of positions can result in members of the public or even public servants becoming victims of an emergency situation because they do not receive vital information in the official language they understand.

I strongly believe in the importance of ensuring that all Canadians have access to education in their first official language and the opportunity to learn their second official language. However, learning French as a second language continues to be a significant challenge.

In 2020–2021, the COVID‑19 pandemic further highlighted the shortage of French second language teachers, including in French immersion programs. French language schools are also experiencing a teacher shortage. Faced with the difficulty of hiring enough qualified teachers for small, remote or hybrid classrooms, some schools have chosen to replace their French immersion program with a core program, which has fewer hours of instruction.

My office examined this ongoing problem, and we released our report, Accessing opportunity: A study on challenges in French-as-a-second-language education teacher supply and demand in Canada, in 2019. We are still in the process of following up on the recommendations I made in that report.

The actions being considered by the federal government on this issue in its reform document on the modernization of the Official Languages Act suggest that it is taking the problem seriously.

The University of Alberta’s Campus Saint-Jean in Edmonton is and has been one of the cornerstones of Western Canada’s French-language post-secondary education system for over a century. The Government of Alberta’s budget cuts in December 2019 and March 2020 hit this institution hard. It had to reduce its course offerings by 20% and is experiencing a significant budget shortfall. As part of a restructuring process and in light of current and future budget cuts, the University has even considered moving or eliminating Campus Saint-Jean.

I understand that this crisis, which has been well articulated by the Save Saint-Jean campaign, is the result of chronic operational and structural underfunding. Provincial per capita funding for the institution has been frozen for several years at a quota of just over 500 students, even though student enrolment is now almost double that, reflecting the growth of the Francophone community in Alberta. The province has also failed to invest in structural upgrades to the campus over the past 20 years, and federal funding for the Official Languages in Education Program has not increased since 2009.

Imagine for a moment

Imagine for a moment
the only institution in Alberta in which Francophones and Francophiles can pursue their studies in French at the college/university level having to close… What would the students do? Move to another province where they can study in French? Go to an English-language institution? Drop their chosen field of study? Closing Campus Saint-Jean would be an unacceptable step backward at a time when Canadians want to move forward in learning both official languages and when the labour market needs more and more bilingual workers.

Alberta’s Francophone community, represented by the Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta, has taken legal action against the provincial government and the University of Alberta to save Campus Saint-Jean. As part of its restructuring process, the University of Alberta now appears to recognize the autonomy and distinct status of Campus Saint-Jean. I  will continue to monitor this issue closely.

Post-secondary institutions that operate in the language of the official language minority community are part of the educational fabric that is crucial to the vitality of these communities. They are also a valuable resource for Canadians who want to enhance their skills in their second official language.

The Government of Canada has recognized this over the years by helping to support the operation of these institutions and even helping to create new ones. It must continue to do so and, if necessary—as in the case of Toronto’s new Université de l’Ontario français—use its spending power to encourage the provinces and territories to consider the singular value of these institutions.

Federal, provincial and territorial cooperation in minority language education and second language instruction is achieved through agreements that are renewed every five years. The 2018–2023 cycle of agreements represents a federal investment of $1.2 billion, but negotiations for these agreements have extended into the current year, causing serious delays in accessing funds.

I have seen the real-world impact of these delays. For example, at Campus Saint-Jean in Edmonton, a plan was announced to open satellite sites in September 2021; however, the University of Alberta suspended Campus Saint-Jean’s funding for three months because of the delay in signing the agreement, which threatened to set back the opening of the satellites. Fortunately, the problem was eventually resolved with no major repercussions.

In the previous round of agreements (2013–2018), my predecessors conducted several investigations following complaints about the lack of transparency of provinces and territories in the allocation of federal funding.

Canadian Heritage responded by making a commitment to the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Commission nationale des parents francophones to advance their priorities and improve accountability and transparency regarding these agreements. I highlighted and commended this effort in my 2018–2019 annual report.

Imagine for a moment

Imagine for a moment
Quebec’s English-language school boards no longer knowing whether they are getting federal funding to support official language education, let alone how much, because Quebec has opted out of the agreement, with financial compensation to ensure that the province receives its share of federal funding… What kind of support would the boards have for their initiatives? Under what government priorities could they plan their development? If Quebec has the right to opt out of an agreement that includes accountability provisions, it is only fair that the province’s English-speaking community be ensured transparency regarding the allocation of funds received from the federal government.

In the current cycle, the federal government agreed to add a clause allowing Quebec to opt out of its agreement. In my 2019–2020 annual report, I highlighted the fact that Quebec’s English-speaking community would still like the province to be transparent about the allocation of federal funds earmarked for learning in the official language of the minority community.

Canadian Heritage has not yet confirmed how it intends to monitor and audit the provinces and territories with respect to accountability and transparency in the allocation of funds.

The current cycle of agreements has brought both good and bad news. I am very pleased, for example, that Yukon and the Northwest Territories have received increased funding to hire more teachers to meet demand. On a similar note, I commend Alberta for new transparency mechanisms, such as a stakeholder advisory council and a website that shows how the funds are being allocated.

Despite these positive signs, I am hearing from some school boards that they are still not being consulted across the country in the negotiations and that there is still no way of knowing where negotiations stand in a process that still lacks transparency.

Linguistic insecurity is the sense of unease, discomfort or anxiety a person experiences when using or trying to use their first or second official language. It can have a negative impact on a person’s confidence or comfort in speaking the official language of their choice. Nearly 11,000 federal government employees shared their experiences in a survey conducted for my office.

Imagine for a moment

Imagine for a moment
a federal public servant working in a region that is designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes and in an office where her first official language is rarely used in her work relationships, in her meetings or with her team leader, even though she has the right to use it… Would she feel comfortable speaking it? She would probably be feeling linguistically insecure.

Our study highlights the importance public servants place on the use of official languages in the workplace, and I am happy to see that many of them would like more opportunities to use both official languages at work. However, a good number of people whose first official language is not the predominant language in their workplace or who want to use their second official language at work are experiencing feelings of linguistic insecurity.

This is not a new problem in the public service, but I am pleased that we have been able to provide new documentation based on the experience of federal employees. Those employees have suggested several ways to address this issue, including offering ongoing encouragement for public servants to use the official language of their choice and providing non-judgemental environments in which to take risks in using and hearing their second official language.

Imagine for a moment

Imagine for a moment
a federal public servant fresh out of second language training, trying to articulate his ideas in that language about a complex subject using a fraction of the words he would normally use, and his colleagues respond to him in his first official language… Would he feel comfortable continuing to use his second language? He would probably be feeling linguistically insecure.

My office has posted tools online that can help people gain a better understanding of linguistic insecurity and that suggest best practices for creating a bilingual, inclusive and safe workplace in which public servants can thrive in either official language.

Our survey has sparked a conversation about linguistic insecurity in federal institutions, and my office will help to keep it going by sharing the results of our research with public servants. We will encourage federal institutions to explore other opportunities to better understand this issue, including the experiences of public servants in different regions, the relationship between language of work and language of service, and the impact of linguistic insecurity on well-being in the workplace. By identifying challenges and finding solutions, we can all work together to promote greater linguistic security in the federal public service, which will result in better communications with and services to the Canadian public.

In 2020–2021, we continued our work on the appeal of the Federal Court’s decision in Dionne v Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, which introduced a narrow interpretation of federal institutions’ obligations regarding language of work under Part V of the Act.

André Dionne works in a federal government office in Montréal, Quebec, which is in a region designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes. Mr. Dionne, whose language of work is French, complained that he often had to call on the services of unilingual English-speaking specialists who work in his federal institution’s office in Toronto, Ontario, which is in a region that is not designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes. The Commissioner concluded that his complaint was founded, and Mr. Dionne took his case to the Federal Court. The court dismissed his complaint.

The Federal Court’s decision runs the risk of having a major impact on federal employees’ right to work in the official language of their choice. Given that virtual teamwork is becoming increasingly common, it is important that this practice be subject to the fundamental rights recognized by Part V of the Act.

If this ruling is used as a precedent in future cases, it could have a negative impact on all language rights in Canada.

My office developed the Official Languages Maturity Model to help federal institutions better integrate official languages into all their activities. The objective of the approach is not to judge the quality of initiatives within a federal institution or to evaluate its compliance with the Act. Rather, the goal is to give institutions tools to get a detailed overview of the processes and measures that are in place and then provide them with a roadmap to help them strengthen their capacity and consistently meet their language obligations.

The Official Languages Maturity Model allows organizations to see where they stand on a scale based on established standards, so that they can better define their strengths, identify their shortcomings and establish what they have to do to move forward and improve. These standards, taken from the Act, are broken down into 28 indicators covering service delivery and communications with the public; governance, leadership and strategic direction; and people management. The maturity scale shows where a federal institution stands with respect to its organizational processes according to the following levels:

• Somewhat informal practices (levels 1 and 2)
• An integrated structure with clearly defined mechanisms and processes (levels 3 and 4)
• An organization that demonstrates innovation and leadership (level 5)

The Official Languages Maturity Model gives my office an overview of organizational maturity in terms of official languages across the federal government.

In 2019–2020, the first group of selected federal institutions completed the Official Languages Maturity Model exercise. They included Natural Resources Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency, four institutions from the Health portfolio, and six institutions from the Innovation, Science and Economic Development portfolio.

Each group of selected federal institutions goes through a three-step process:

1. The institution conducts a self-assessment.
2. My office validates the self-assessment results based on the information provided by the institution.
3. The institution develops a progress plan to improve its organizational maturity.

Nearly all of the first 12 participating federal institutions developed and submitted a progress plan in 2020–2021. Although the institutions generally did not achieve the highest levels of maturity on most indicators, some areas stood out. For example, many federal institutions showed higher levels of maturity on governance and leadership indicators, thanks in part to the creation of structures such as official languages champions and official languages teams. The indicators with the lowest levels of maturity included accountability, language of work, people management and communications with the public, which means that the institutions generally do not have formal processes in place to help them consistently meet their official languages obligations.

The 2019–2020 exercise highlighted several practices that attest to a higher level of organizational maturity. Here are some examples.

The Official Languages Maturity Model can be used effectively in a wide variety of federal institutions, whether they are large or small, centralized or decentralized, or veteran or newcomer in terms of official languages. This tool is already generating interest among other federal institutions, among provincial and municipal administrations, and among community associations. I am confident that the tool’s proactive (as opposed to reactive) approach will help advance official languages in Canada.

I am proud of the Official Languages Maturity Model that we have implemented over the past year—it creates a collaborative culture that values, defends and promotes official languages rights and obligations.

Imagine for a moment

Imagine for a moment
a French-speaking immigrant family who have recently become Canadian citizens visiting the nation’s capital to see Parliament—the heart of the democracy they have embraced and that has welcomed them—only to be told by a security guard on the Hill, “Sorry, I don’t speak French…” This would be both discouraging and deplorable.

The Parliamentary Protective Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have generated numerous complaints about problems obtaining services in French from them on Parliament Hill. It is patently unacceptable that both official languages are not being treated equally on the very site where the equality of their status was passed into law. This is not only a question of Canadian identity but also a matter of public safety.

The Parliamentary Protective Service has been investigated, has received recommendations and has been monitored by my office. It therefore recently decided to conduct a self-assessment of its organizational maturity in terms of official languages using the Official Languages Maturity Model. I am heartened by this decision, as the process could help the institution to gain a better understanding of its strengths and weaknesses and to develop the capacities it needs to be able to fully meet its language obligations.

Over the years, my office has documented the problem of narrow interpretation and application of language obligations to the travelling public. We have received thousands of complaints. Over the past seven years, we have audited the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, but our recommendations have been only partially implemented. In 2020–2021, I had to revisit this recurring problem on several occasions.

Imagine for a moment

Imagine for a moment
a French-speaking Canadian who lands at an international airport in a major Canadian city in September 2020 and is unable to understand the lockdown instructions posted solely in English by the authorities or to have them explained in his official language by a bilingual employee… This would be unacceptable. In Canada, emergency measures are not just for one language group.

In my report, A Matter of Respect and Safety: The Impact of Emergency Situations on Official Languages, I pointed out that Canadian international airports lacked services in French for Canadians returning home from abroad during the COVID‑19 pandemic, including from the Canada Border Services Agency.

In the fall of 2020, I obtained intervener status in two legal cases that raise several issues concerning the interpretation of the travelling public’s language rights: Michel Thibodeau v  St. John’s International Airport Authority (T-1023-19) and Michel Thibodeau v  Greater Toronto Airports Authority (T-2013-19). In these proceedings, I intend to seek a broad and liberal interpretation of the Official Languages Act with respect to bilingual services and communications provided to the travelling public by airport authorities, in order to clarify the requirements of the Act.

In the Speech from the Throne on September 23, 2020, the Government of Canada recognized the importance of protecting official languages and minority language rights and committed to strengthening the Act. There have been delays in the timetable announced, but I remain steadfast in my position that the government must effect a meaningful, in-depth modernization of the Act as soon as possible. I will be following this process closely, and my office will continue to provide its unique perspective on the issues specific to the Act and its enforcement.

In November 2020, my office published a report containing an in-depth analysis of the issue of improper assessment of language requirements for positions being staffed in the federal public service. We also released an accompanying tool to help federal institutions address the problem.

In-depth analysis

Imagine for a moment

Imagine for a moment
a young unilingual English-speaking Canadian who is recruited to a federal institution in the National Capital Region (Ottawa side) and whose duties require him to respond to members of the public who speak French… This public servant would end up unintentionally failing to respect his employer’s language obligations, and the public would pay the price.

The in-depth analysis was based on over 600 complaint investigations, the vast majority of which were founded, but few of which led to changes in staffing practices, despite the repeated recommendations in the investigation reports. It showed that federal institutions often fail to objectively establish the language requirements of positions in regions designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes. As a result, people hired to work for the federal government are often unable to communicate with or provide service to the public in the official language of their clients’ choice or to provide supervision in the official language of their employees’ choice. Like other professional skills, language skills are essential to quality service to the public and to a bilingual work environment.

I am pleased to note that our report triggered a decision by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat to create an interdepartmental working group to examine this issue.

The Government of Canada’s long-anticipated reform document was released in February 2021 by the Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages. It has been almost two years since the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages published their reports and recommendations on this issue. My office released publications in 2018 (Modernizing the Official Languages Act: Vision of the Commissioner of Official Languages) and 2019 (Modernizing the Official Languages Act: The Commissioner of Official Languages’ Recommendations for an Act that is Relevant, Dynamic and Strong), and various other stakeholders have released reports and recommendations, as well.

I am pleased to see that the Government of Canada’s proposed overhaul is based on the principle of substantive equality, because beyond guaranteeing the equal status of English and French, the new Act must provide the means to actually achieve this equality.

Now that we know the broad outlines of the reform, there will be a period during which everyone can provide comments on what the bill should include. I will be listening to your feedback to ensure that everyone is heard.

I am also pleased to see that the reform document reflects many of the recommendations I made in 2019, such as providing greater support to official language minority communities, expanding the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages and appointing bilingual judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

At the time of writing this annual report, the bill had not yet been tabled. I would now like to see the government move from talking about its good intentions to putting them into action and immediately introducing legislation that makes the Act relevant, dynamic and strong. This should be the government’s priority when it comes to official languages.

The COVID‑19 pandemic effectively derailed the second exercise of the Official Languages Maturity Model planned for 2020–2021. Of the federal institutions originally selected for this exercise, only Elections Canada was able to complete the exercise and is currently preparing its progress plan to strengthen its official languages capacity.

Nine federal institutions will begin their self-assessment exercise in May 2021 and another nine will begin theirs in October 2021. They are all part of major departmental portfolios, including Public Services and Procurement Canada; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; Public Safety Canada; and Transport Canada.

In the coming years, other federal institutions will be invited to participate in Official Languages Maturity Model exercises. I am confident that the institutions that take part in these exercises will be able to better identify their strengths and weaknesses and improve their level of maturity with respect to official languages.