Ottawa, December 2, 2002
Acting with diligence
Speaking notes for an address to the Senate Standing Committee
on Official Languages
Dr. Dyane Adam - Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
Ladies and gentlemen:
My presentation before you today is symbolic since it is a first, for myself and for the senators. It is a privilege for me.
The primary purpose of my presentation is to present the key findings of my latest annual report and explain our main courses of action.
The Prime Minister, who agreed with my first two diagnoses, invited me to recommend tangible actions. Through my report, I publicly responded to his request by including seven recommendations. My report also highlighted achievements and progress made, including the first Leon Leadership Award presented by my Office.
The report also reflects my approach, which is based on the search for solutions that lead to lasting results. The report describes problems but also achievements. This time, in contrast to the previous two reports, the tone is a bit more optimistic, since we have noted tangible evidence of coordinated and committed leadership. As well, the government's formal commitment, renewed in the latest Speech from the Throne, gives us reason to hope, if words really do translate into action.
Overall, this commitment to linguistic duality is consistent with the recommendations put forward in my annual report. The commitment reads as follows:
"Linguistic duality is at the heart of our collective identity. The government will implement an action plan on official languages that will focus on minority-language and second-language education, including the goal of doubling within ten years the number of high school graduates with a working knowledge of both English and French. It will support the development of minority English- and French-speaking communities, and expand access to services in their language in areas such as health. It will enhance the use of our two official languages in the federal public service, both in the workplace and when communicating with Canadians."
As you can see, this commitment includes very specific objectives. The government has thereby renewed hope for many Canadians and created very legitimate expectations. But will it be able to deliver? We are still missing a key element, the long-awaited action plan promised by Minister Dion . We are expecting a plan that will be the cornerstone for the renewal of the program. Revitalizing language rights is an urgent matter. The loss of previous gains, the integration of official languages in government operations, and the implementation of our recommendations require innovative approaches and a firm and sustained commitment from all levels in the government.
Resource allocation is an essential condition for revitalizing language rights. You will surely agree with me that the government must provide the sums of money required for the program if it wishes to translate its commitment into action. This condition, I hope, will receive unanimous support in Cabinet. The government must not limit itself to a succession of incoherent mini-reforms without a clear end goal. Once more, I call upon the government to develop an overall vision supported by objectives. This long-term vision must include deadlines and mechanisms to assess results and ensure that its action plan is implemented successfully. Canadians have a right to expect such a vision based on true leadership and respect for language rights.
We must reverse the trend of recent years, which saw the number of officials responsible for bilingualism in the federal government drop by more than half. Since 1990, investment in official languages has stagnated and declined-this is a recognized fact. We must now correct this situation throughout the federal government.
All federal institutions must have the necessary resources-human as well as financial-to fulfill their linguistic obligations. I have therefore recommended that the government allocate sufficient resources to allow the Treasury Board Secretariat to fully assume its role of overseeing and evaluating institutions subject to the Official Languages Act. It must also be able to fulfill its roles as language trainer, educator and auditor. I continue to express my concern about the slow pace of change, which is why I am insisting on the need for diligence.
We are all aware that implementing the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne requires concerted effort every day. The government moved forward in this direction last year by setting up the Ministerial Reference Group on Official Languages, chaired by Minister Dion . The government has thereby made it possible to act horizontally in a well-structured way. Greater coordination at the political level is required to ensure that the objectives of the Official Languages Act are achieved. This kind of integrated and horizontal action must be encouraged and supported. I therefore recommended this year that this group be given permanent committee status in order to encourage sustained leadership at the highest levels of the public service and to support the implementation of the government's action plan. There must be integration and continuity with respect to language rights.
The pacesetter in terms of administrative leadership is, without doubt, Ivan Fellegi, Chief Statistician of Canada, who received my first Leon Leadership Award. His institution has distinguished itself by the excellent bilingual services it provides to the public, by its workplace conducive to the use of both languages and, more generally, by the management of its language program. It is therefore possible to show leadership. But many more similar examples are required to guarantee the equality of English and French and ensure the vitality of Anglophone and Francophone communities across Canada.
Recent studies on the use of both official languages within the federal public service clearly show that an enormous amount of work remains to be done to ensure that both official languages are used equitably. I identified language of work as a priority since I believe that the public service must embody a dynamic culture of linguistic duality. A Treasury Board study, Attitudes towards the Use of Both Official Languages Within the Public Service of Canada, shows that public service employees support the basic principles underlying language policies.
Support is especially high with respect to service to the public: 92 per cent of public service employees believe that it is important for them to serve the public in both official languages, and 86 per cent stated that they would be willing to make a personal effort to encourage bilingualism in the workplace. The study also reveals that 42 per cent identify themselves as bilingual and 37 per cent of positions require a knowledge of both official languages. On average, bilingual Anglophones working in a bilingual environment speak French 14 per cent of the time, while bilingual Francophones in a bilingual environment speak English 43 per cent of their time.
I was pleased to see that public servants generally support the key principles underlying the government's language policies. However, there is still a lot of confusion or lack of knowledge about the way these principles can be put into daily practice. The President of the Treasury Board, Lucienne Robillard , who shares this view, has taken a proactive approach in this regard. In fact, to remedy the current situation, I had recommended courses of action she could take.
One of these arises from the unanimous view that it is time for a change in culture and that senior management must lead by example. I have therefore recommended that the achievement of the three objectives of the Official Languages Act remains one of the priorities of the Clerk of the Privy Council for the next three years. Public service administrators must allocate the time and resources needed to implement the Official Languages Program in their workplaces.
Another approach focuses on the modernization of the management of human resources underway in the federal government. I have suggested that, during this exercise, the public service should fully integrate official languages into its activities. The culture change will be achieved through the modernization of the public service. During this process, action must be taken to:
- make senior federal management more accountable by redefining the governance framework for official languages;
- promote bilingualism as a basic skill;
- staff bilingual positions with people who have a knowledge of both official languages (imperative staffing);
- rethink language training; and emphasize receptive bilingualism.
Regarding the dynamics of workplace communications, many factors are constantly interacting. In order to identify them, I have commissioned a sociolinguistic study that will primarily focus on the situation in headquarters in the National Capital Region and will extend to regions designated as bilingual. We must make every effort to find ways to increase the use of French in the public service if we want it to reflect linguistic duality, one of the fundamental values of Canadian identity.
Along the same lines, during the Symposium on Language of Work, which took place in New Brunswick in early November, Minister Robillard repeated the government's desire and commitment by sending a clear message to managers who will not be able to meet the language requirements of their positions by March 31, 2003. She tried to mobilize them by spelling out expectations and the punitive measures that could be taken, if necessary. I am pleased to see that my recommendations are leading to both political and administrative actions. However, I am disappointed that the measures do not also apply to deputy ministers, who are currently exempt from language requirements. It is puzzling, to say the least, that the federal government requires its managers to be bilingual but not its senior leaders. As soon as new senior public service managers arrive, they should be informed of the requirements of the Official Languages Act and its underlying values. They need guidance and preparation to manage the Official Languages Program. They must be made aware that they are the officials primarily responsible for integrating these values into their institutions' organizational cultures. In short, they must put into practice the government's commitment to the equality of status and use of both official languages and to the right of employees to work in the official language of their choice.
My role is to constantly monitor the situation in a structured way and to intervene before Parliament, as required. I am therefore taking a proactive approach by getting involved at the drafting stage of acts, regulations, policies and programs to ensure that our leaders give high priority to language rights. I have performed this role in various areas involving many sectors of activity. For example, I intervened with the minister responsible and before parliamentary committees to ensure that the policy and bill on physical activity and sport gave consideration to linguistic duality. You will remember that I produced a report in 2000 that showed that Francophones are facing major barriers, preventing them from fully participating in various sporting activities.
I am also closely monitoring other key issues such as broadcasting, including subtitling, the Internet, minority press, the broadcast of parliamentary debates, and Government On-Line, to mention only a few.
For example, with respect to immigration, from the beginning of my term I wanted to raise awareness of the fact that Canadian population growth and the survival of official language minority communities depend on immigrants. The two studies I commissioned on immigration confirmed this and, in particular, revealed a lack of effective measures that could help communities recruit and integrate Francophone immigrants. I worked hard to ensure that the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Regulations pay special attention to the development of both official language groups in Canada and, in particular, minority Francophone communities, which are clearly disadvantaged by the demographic imbalance that has been growing in recent years. Much work remains to be done in order to correct this imbalance. According to current data from Statistics Canada, in the Anglophone population one person in five is an immigrant, whereas in the Francophone population both in Quebec and across the country, the figure is one immigrant in 20. Like our country's ethnocultural diversity, linguistic duality is at the heart of our Canadian identity, and immigration must contribute to consolidating these values of our society. I recommended that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration develop support programs to implement the language provisions of the new Act. It is also important to promote our linguistic duality abroad by raising the profile of our official language minority communities and helping these communities develop adequate infrastructures to welcome newcomers.
Regarding national health, I noticed last May that linguistic duality was absent from the deliberations of the Romanow Commission. I therefore made a submission. I have reviewed the final report, which was tabled on November 28. I acknowledge the significant efforts made in this area, since the linguistic dimension is addressed in one of the Commission's recommendations. However, I would have liked to have seen it go further. The principle of giving Canadians access to health services in the official language of their choice should be explicitly recognized in the Canada Health Act. I am concerned about the absence of a national legal guarantee. I also noted that, although a number of recommendations include deadlines, there are no deadlines with respect to the provision of health care in the minority official language. This is not enough! This indicates to me that our leaders need to be informed about this issue. I therefore intend to present my view before parliamentary committees, in particular the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to ensure that the linguistic dimension of health for official language minority communities is taken into account. As a clinical psychologist, I know firsthand about the importance of communication in fostering a climate of trust between patient and physician, or any other health care professional. It is a very important condition of any healing process. In order to provide care, you must first be able to understand the patient. In this respect, I will make recommendations to the members of the Senate Committee in the hope that Parliament will be able to enact legislative provisions best able to guarantee equality in terms of health for Canada's Anglophone and Francophone communities.
Access to justice in both official languages is also a major issue. Last August, the Department of Justice published its Environmental Scan. This study identified barriers to obtaining legal services in English and French across Canada, as well as a variety of possible solutions from the minority communities. The Department of Justice, in co-operation with its provincial and territorial counterparts, must now make efforts to review the solutions proposed in the study and implement those that are most likely to address the needs of minority communities. In this regard, the department's initiative to set up a federal/provincial/territorial working group, spun off from the forum of deputy ministers of Justice, is certainly a step in the right direction. I therefore expect to see this initiative result in tangible actions from the department. The necessary measures must now be taken to help provincial and territorial governments set up the appropriate institutional structures to allow Canadians access to the justice system in both official languages.
In one of its last reports, the Joint Committee addressed a series of recommendations to the Department of Justice, the first of which dealt with reinforcing the application of Part VII of the Official Languages Act and the importance of working with the communities on this question. I recommended that the government clarify the legal scope of the commitment set out in section 41 of the Act and take the measures required to effectively fulfill its responsibilities under this section.
On another matter, I encourage you to examine the relevance of the current provisions of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations developed by the Treasury Board Secretariat. I believe that the time has come to review them, and I have made my position known to Ministers Robillard and Dion .
You will have noticed that my role as ombudsman involves a number of areas, one of which pertains to complaints and investigations. I have re-examined my Office's investigation process, since complaints remain a powerful tool for change when our recommendations are implemented. Beyond complaints, however, we must remain proactive. Like the Auditor General, we need to fulfill a monitoring role for all institutions subject to the Official Languages Act. We need to be able to report accurately to Parliament on the language situation within the federal government and Crown corporations, agencies and privatized institutions that are not under Treasury Board's responsibility or do not have it as their employer. There are over a 100 such institutions. I therefore intend to enhance the auditing function of my Office, as we are the independent body responsible for monitoring compliance with the Act.
Among the key courses of action I am encouraging you to examine are the government's action plan, the Environmental Scan study, modernization of the public service, the status of official languages in Crown corporations and other institutions subject to the Official Languages Act, language of work, and the accountability framework. If we succeed in creating the necessary synergy, we should work to ensure that Canadians properly recognize linguistic duality as a fundamental value of our country.
The government must act, but it must act with diligence. It can no longer afford to turn a blind eye. It must take action in a timely manner and refuse to accept unjustified delays or evasion.
I know that I can count on you; I also wish to pledge my full co-operation. Your meetings are among my priorities and I will try to take part as often as possible.
Thank you for your attention. I will be pleased to answer your questions.
