Ottawa, June 5, 2008
Notes for an appearance before the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Official Languages
Graham Fraser – Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
Good morning ladies and gentlemen, members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages,
I would like to start by thanking you for inviting me to present my annual report and comment on the preparations for the 2010 Olympic Games.
When I tabled my first annual report last year, I drew attention to the fact that the government’s actions did not reflect its words. I asked the government to show strong political leadership and take concrete measures to reinforce the progress that had been made.
In my evaluation this year, I have made a number of observations on the government’s position on official languages. I have continued my reflection on leadership and official languages, and I reaffirm that to be a leader in the public service, it is necessary to be able to inform, evaluate, explain, give advice and inspire in both English and French.
This definition of leadership must encompass all federal institutions, including the Supreme Court. It seems clear to me that Canadians have the right to be heard and judged in the official language of their choice. As I recently stated before this committee, judges in Canada’s highest court should understand both versions of the laws, arguments made in court and all discussions with their colleagues regardless of which official language is used.
The government reiterated its support for Canada’s linguistic duality in its October 2007 Throne Speech. Yet, it did not set aside any funding for this area in the February 26 budget.
The tentativeness and the lack of leadership are now evident. Despite the government’s many statements in support of Canada’s linguistic duality, there is no global vision in terms of government policies and the public service.
This lack of leadership has resulted in a plateau being reached and, in some cases, a deterioration in the application of the official languages policy. I have noted that, yet again this year, very little progress has been made in several areas of activity, and the situation has even worsened in some institutions.
The initiative that will replace the Action Plan for Official Languages is an example of a commitment that is slow in being honoured and an example of tentative and uncertain leadership.
The deadline of March 31, 2008, is set out in the Action Plan; nevertheless, the government has not had the foresight to create a new initiative or a replacement initiative before this deadline, and Canadians are still waiting for new developments.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages has had the report on the latest consultations undertaken on this subject for several months, but has still not announced any concrete measures.
In fact, it almost feels like a Samuel Beckett play, which could be called Waiting for the Action Plan. I sincerely hope that I will not have to spend another year watching a drama in suspended animation as the government bides its time.
I would also add that I was happy to hear Minister Verner say in the House that the new Plan will be made public “very soon.”
The government must establish a clear direction and implement initiatives that will lead to concrete results. Some of the partners involved are concerned, since they do not know what the objectives of the future initiative will be, or how much funding will be granted.
Over the past year, I have closely examined official languages coordination. A clear, strong and ongoing commitment from the Prime Minister remains an essential condition for good governance. I therefore make seven recommendations in my annual report to encourage the government to show stronger leadership.
In particular, I recommend that the Prime Minister create an ad hoc committee of ministers to oversee the full implementation of the new action plan and language requirements in federal institutions.
Similarly, I recommend that Cabinet review official languages matters at least once a year. In order to translate political commitment into action at the administrative level, I recommend that the Official Languages Secretariat be given the authority it needs to fulfill a horizontal coordination role in order to implement the Official Languages Act in its entirety. The goal of these recommendations is tangible results for Canadians.
We need a better coordinated effort to effectively resolve the language of work problems that have plagued the federal government for 40 years. I recommend that by December 31, 2008, deputy heads of all federal institutions report on the actions they have taken to create a work environment that makes it possible for employees in regions designated by the Act to use the official language of their choice. These regions are New Brunswick, the National Capital Region and several parts of Quebec and Ontario.
Linguistic duality is a fundamental component of Canada’s public service. In an environment where Anglophones and Francophones work side by side, bilingualism is an essential part of leadership in a modern and efficient public service that reflects our country’s values. However, over the years, the number of positions designated bilingual has not changed. These positions include mainly those that involve providing service to the public, and in some cases, supervisory positions.
Public service renewal must make it possible to better anchor Canada’s linguistic duality at the heart of the values and priorities of federal institutions. As 15,000 people are expected to join the public service every year, Canada’s linguistic duality must be a consideration in the recruitment, training and upgrading of skills.
Successful implementation of policies on communications with and service to the public, language of work and human resources management hinges on employees having access to high quality language training from the beginning of their careers in the federal government. We must stop the practice of sending an employee on language training only once they have been appointed to a supervisor position.
I call on the government to show greater coherence and put its good intentions into practice. In short, I ask the government to show leadership instead of simply managing the file.
Through stronger leadership, the government will also have an influence on the changes that may affect Canada’s linguistic duality. Studies published over the last few months by Statistics Canada describe how vibrant the official language communities are, but also describe the many challenges that must be met in a changing social context.
I want to underscore that some federal institutions are providing significant support for linguistic duality and are making a concerted effort to ensure that both official languages can be used in the workplace, provide services in both languages and implement positive measures to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities. Their work deserves to be recognized. I give several examples in my annual report, and I invite all deputy heads to draw inspiration from them.
Federal institutions obtain better and longer lasting results for Canadians when the government, senior management and public servants show strong leadership by recognizing the rights and values related to official languages and linguistic duality and by ensuring these rights and values are respected. The 40th anniversary of the Official Languages Act, which will be celebrated in 2009, seems to me to be an ideal time to turn this vision into action.
The Olympic Games
As I pointed out in my annual report, my office has undertaken a study on the bilingualism of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The study focuses on the readiness of the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games (VANOC) to meet the language requirements identified in Annex A of the Multiparty Agreement signed in November 2002. Our study does not examine the broadcasting of the Games in both official languages. This study is a preventive step, because I do not want to go to the organizers after the Games, with complaints in hand, telling them what they should have done. Our study should help VANOC address potential shortcomings before the Games.
I emphasize that VANOC clearly considers linguistic duality to be an important value and a key consideration in planning the Games. VANOC is committed to exceeding its official languages responsibilities. Although study of this matter is still underway, we have already identified some key issues, particularly regarding resources allocated to official languages within VANOC, growing demand for translation and simultaneous interpretation, signage, and volunteer recruitment.
VANOC would be much better able to become a model of bilingualism for the next Games and achieve the vision of a bilingual Games were it to implement effective solutions to resolve these issues.
In terms of signage in the Vancouver-Whistler corridor, the federal government, along with VANOC, should provide leadership and work with its provincial and municipal counterparts to ensure that Canada’s linguistic duality is apparent to everyone in any location where the Games are featured.
Recruiting a sufficient number of qualified bilingual volunteers from across the country is essential to the provision of high-quality bilingual services at all sites to athletes, Olympic officials, the media and the public.
However, we cannot forget that not everything happens at the Games sites. Many federal institutions (border services, the RCMP, airport security, etc.) will play a key role in projecting Canada’s image as a host country in both official languages. My office is already working with these institutions to ensure that this aspect of the Games is also successful.
I believe that the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games are a golden opportunity to showcase Canada’s linguistic duality to the world.
Thank you. I would now like to take some time to answer your questions.
