Ottawa, October 24, 2007
Clearing Up the Administrative Fog Surrounding Part VII
Address to the Symposium sur les langues officielles de l’Ontario
Graham Fraser – Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
Good morning,
I am very happy to be participating in the Symposium. I was wondering whether I was going to be invited now that Ontario has its own French Language Services Commissioner! But our respective roles are complementary, and we both have the same goal: the full recognition of all Canadians’ language rights.
In my opinion, achieving this objective starts with rigorous application of the Official Languages Act, but also involves promoting both English and French as Canadian languages that belong to all of us. During the past year, I have come to see these roles as complementary. The promotion efforts encourage a culture of accepting linguistic duality in the federal public service. And the notion of respect that is at the core of linguistic duality is meaningless unless the legislation is followed and diligently applied. I am therefore trying to engage federal institutions in continually improving their practices. In short, I want to establish a dialogue with them rather than just preparing reports.
As Commissioner of Official Languages, I have to convince federal institutions, as well as the Canadian public, of the importance of linguistic duality. My role consists of supporting official language communities in their development, because without their energy, Canada would be left with a strictly territorial linguistic duality, a policy that is exclusive instead of inclusive, restrictive instead of far-reaching.
It is on this point that both your commissioners agree. I was disappointed to lose François as a legal counsel, but happy to be able to work with him as a colleague and ally. Based on the reaction of the Ontario Francophone community, we all feel like we’ve made a significant step forward. The appointment of a French Language Services Commissioner is a victory worth celebrating.
And it is important to celebrate our victories. Anniversaries too. The 25th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was last April, and the 20th anniversary of the Ontario French Language Services Act was last year. The anniversaries are opportunities to highlight our achievements, but also to measure our progress.
In exactly one month, it will also be the second anniversary of conclusion of a long-term project accomplished mostly by former senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: the passage of a bill amending the Official Languages Act. So what are the federal institutions doing in response to the changes?
Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t need to tell you to tell you that a lot of public servants were initially confused about their new obligations, and confusion rarely results in action. I therefore think it is important to help clear up some of the administrative fog surrounding the application of what some people have started calling “the new Part VII.”
I should mention that other people have also worked to clarify the new obligations. Canadian Heritage distributed a Part VII application guide, which was very well done. Justice Canada provided information sessions. Several official languages groups have tried to prepare their community networks, and the issue was discussed at the Francophone and Acadian Community Summit last June. This is a good illustration of the need for everyone involved to work towards a common goal.
But what is this goal?
The Act now stipulates that every federal institution has the duty to ensure that “positive measures” are taken to support their development and foster linguistic duality. Cases of non-compliance may be subject to OCOL investigations and, eventually, legal remedy.
This seems clear. Except that the expression “positive measures” has never been used in legislation before, and the Act does not provide a definition.
Some people think this is a problem, but I don’t. On the contrary, this leaves the door wide open for a wide range of initiatives adapted to the mission and resources of each federal institution. The only criterion to which I referred in my annual report is that positive measures have to produce real results.
This symposium is, in itself, a good example of cooperation between governments and the Franco-Ontarian community. It is certainly worth reproducing this initiative in other parts of the country. Here are some other examples of measures taken over the past two years:
- Parks Canada management in Jasper, Alberta gives free access to its facilities to the local Francophone association, in exchange for the association offering French classes to Parks Canada employees and members of the community.
- The National Film Board offers training workshops to Francophone filmmakers in Ontario. A similar program exists in Acadia for animated films.
- In Winnipeg, bilingual service centres have been set up in cooperation with municipal, provincial, and federal governments, to offer a range of French-language services under one roof.
- At a national level, Via Rail wanted to do its part as well. They ended up becoming one of the main sponsors of this summer’s Francophone and Acadian Community Summit.
It can be as simple as providing access to meeting rooms or telecommunication equipment, or providing distribution lists, facilities for community events, or access to specialized data or knowledge.
In short, any action that promotes community development or official languages can be a positive measure.
All these examples help relieve concerns about these new legislative obligations. Part VII may require certain institutions to modify their policies and programs so the official language communities are treated fairly, rather than just treating them exactly the same. But in many cases, taking positive measures is not necessarily difficult or complicated.
Based on the experience of the past two years, we can identify three main principles in implementing Part VII :
First principle: Federal institutions must develop the “Part VII reflex.” This means a proactive and systematic approach and targeted treatment. Official languages must be taken into account from the initial design phase and throughout the decision-making process, in any decision that affects these policies and programs.
Industry Canada is currently working to develop the “Section 41 Lens”, a tool to systematically examine its programs from the official languages perspective. Canadian Heritage has produced a similar guide for Memoranda to Cabinet.
Second principle: Citizens must participate actively in the process. This involves working together in a climate of trust and cooperation.
Service Canada in Saskatchewan recently worked with the Franco-Saskatchewanian community and the provincial government to determine the best locations for its bilingual offices.
Third principle: There must be an ongoing improvement process for programs in terms of Part VII. For decisions to be based on reliable data, effective measurement tools and progress indicators must be designed. OCOL has published a research study and, recently, three case studies on community vitality. These resources are just some of the tools that can help guide federal institutions and communities.
You will find a discussion of these three principles in my latest annual report, which is posted on our Web site. In my opinion, these principles can be summarized in one sentence: all federal institutions must participate in official language community vitality and promotion of linguistic duality in Canadian society.
Part VII does not mean the federal government is taking charge of the communities. It is not federal interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction. Nor is it a utopia.
What it is, is recognition that English and French are the two languages that built the Canada of today, and that they will build Canada’s future. It’s a concrete hand up for communities who have fought for their most basic rights: to manage their own schools, share their culture, have access to the legal system, and take their place in Canadian society.
Does this really need to be a legal obligation? I think it does. First, because there was considerable ambiguity surrounding the previous wording. But especially because it is an obligation that the federal government does not know how to uphold. Our investigation into the budget cuts to various programs in September 2006 shows the need to be able to resort to legal remedies if needed.
Cooperation under Part VII of the Act is like seeds planted in land that is already fertile. Either through meticulous planning or simply because of their inherent characteristics, each community has developed along a specific path. I have had the opportunity to observe this phenomenon many times in recent months.
In British Columbia, I spoke with an economic development officer about the growth in tourism businesses run by French-speaking entrepreneurs. In Saskatchewan, I heard about the close cooperation between the University of Regina’s Institut français and the federal public service, as well as the development of an "urban village" concept to make the community more visible. Here in Sudbury, I’ve seen the difference that institutions like Collège Boréal and Laurentian University can make for the entire community. In Toronto, I met representatives of organizations that reflect the demographic transformation of a new Francophone community meeting new challenges. In Quebec, I was told about the community’s efforts to redefine its place in a society that has changed significantly in two generations. In Acadia, I renewed my acquaintance with the vitality of Acadian culture and the richness of its history.
The main thing I’ve noticed is the energy of the new networks that bring together specific groups such as youth, seniors, women, or business people, or that deal with a specific component of community vitality such as immigration, economic development, health care, justice, or education. Canada’s Francophone community is well on the way to increasing its areas of influence, and it is progressively introducing French into new areas of everyday life. It is often within these networks of solidarity that federal institutions and other governments can anchor their initiatives.
I have often heard Franco-Ontarians called an “invisible minority.” I think this is an interesting expression, because it creates the image of a community that is based on the majority, in contrast to the province’s ethnocultural richness. However, I think that this expression is quite outdated.
Because, of course, the Franco-Ontarian community has become more diverse in recent years. Francophones from around the world have already had a major influence on Ontario’s French-language schools, where, in some cases, their children are the majority. They are rightfully claiming their place both in the Canadian Francophone community and in Ontario’s multicultural mosaic.
Adding this identity dimension to the already-complex definition of Franco-Ontarian energizes the community and opens new horizons. But, in this area, the Francophone community is simply following the same demographic patterns as the rest of the province and the country.
In fact, I find it fairer to say that Franco-Ontarians were an inaudible minority, but now they are making their voices heard. Not so long ago, you could spend the day in a town like Alexandria in Eastern Ontario, or Sudbury in Northern Ontario, without hearing a word of French. It was largely a private language, absent from the workplace. French was absent from public space.
This has been completely revolutionized. The French language is now a fact of life in Ontario’s cities. It is no longer a secret code for those who learned this language from the cradle, but is also spoken enthusiastically by young Ontarians who learned it later in life. A good example of this phenomenon is Toronto’s Festival Cinéfranco, where the majority of the audience did not grow up in French.
And, of course, French is making itself heard with full force when necessary, whether at the Festival franco-ontarien or to stop the closing of the Montfort hospital.
In an evolving community that is constantly asserting itself, federal institutions have many opportunities to get involved. I will continue to guide and encourage them in these efforts.
Thank you.
