Moncton, November 6, 2002
Language of Work in the Workaday World
Speech to the Symposium on Language of Work
Dr. Dyane Adam – Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
This evening we are discussing language of work. This is something that is dear to me, and I will speak to this issue, as you will discover as I move through my text, both as Commissioner but also as a psychologist; which although I am out of the profession officially, I am not sure I am still not doing a lot of psychology as Commissioner.
Thank you for inviting me today. It is a pleasure to be here with you. After more than 30 years of official bilingualism in Canada, I think we have finally reached the core of the matter where language of work is concerned; that is, how to function in the workaday world in both official languages. Of course, there has been a great deal of progress over the past years, since the Official Languages Act was first introduced in 1969. Back then, we were more or less starting from scratch: developing policies and directives - Treasury Board knows that - creating bilingual positions, creating a language training program, ensuring that core services for public servants - such as central and personnel services - were available in both official languages, and translating the main work instruments. These were the initial necessary conditions for achieving the Act's major objectives.
As you know, these building blocks of official bilingualism are far from finished and we must continue to work on them vigorously, and that's what my role is: to ensure that our government moves toward the full implementation of what we call a blueprint of Canada's linguistic duality. It is still a work in progress. What strikes me at this point in our linguistic history is that the system's founding values, its raison d'être, remain on the sidelines and are not yet really fully integrated into the culture of federal organizations. In an area as complex as the language of work, in which individual attitudes and operational needs combine in a dynamic that is often not conducive to free language choices, it seems to me absolutely essential that future initiatives focus on ways for accelerating a change in organizational culture.
Mme Robillard referred today to that change. I think she made important announcements today, and I reacted in the media today on a number of occasions. I have not been in the federal public service as long as many of you have been; I cannot judge the impact of her discourse or her announcements today over the long term. But what I have heard is basically an announcement of a change, a shift. After thirty years of official bilingualism; we are more or less stuck with policies and practices that were certainly quite justified 30 years ago or for the first 10, 15 years of implementation of the Act. But today, reality has changed, our society has changed; and we need to fundamentally change our approach. And this is, I think, quite a significant decision. We will see how it will, I guess, translate itself when we see the report for the modernization of human resources management. At the Office of the Commissioner, we made a number of suggestions to Mme Robillard ; the text will be available to you, you can compare the notes. She has in fact retained not one, but all of the elements that we suggested to her. So, if there is something missing, you can always say it is the Commissioner's fault. Our own suggestions and recommendations to Mme Robillard belong to you; that is, we listened to what you said and what we heard from managers, from the staff, and then we made our recommendations. Ultimately, we are just the conduit for your ideas.
But today, what I would like to do is to take a short look at these founding values and the progress they have produced, and to share with you my own working hypotheses for new avenues to explore in order to improve the situation. Mme Robillard has given you some views which happen to be quite close to mine; so I hope I won't be boring you.
One of the things I want to talk about to you is values. I hope, all of you have taken Psychology 101. And you may have run across an author called Victor Frankl. Victor Frankl was, I feel, one of the most influential in the area of existential psychology, and he talked about the will for many. Human beings need to make sense of and give meaning to the world they live in. That means that they need to know that whatever they do has a purpose and a meaning. That's a fundamental need that we all have. So, when we talk about a program or a policy or a piece of legislation, as managers or as people that are part of an organization, it is essential that we first ask ourselves whether we all understand, federal managers and employees alike. Why it is important that Francophones as well as Anglophones be able to use their language on a daily basis? What does it mean? If you are not able to answer that question for your employees, you will not be able to motivate them and embark them in that mission. That, for me, is the foundation of it. So behind legislation like the Official Languages Act are values and a vision of a country.
If we go back in time for a minute: The Official Languages Act was born of a long process of reflection on the state of our country. The Laurendeau -Dunton Commission, created in 1963, worked for seven years to produce a true portrait of Canadian society. It concluded that the country was going through a major crisis and that to resolve it, it was necessary to offer the two major language communities new ways of living together. Making the federal public service bilingual was one. Institutional bilingualism is thus rooted in the vision of a country, a vision based on the principle that in order to coexist harmoniously, Anglophones and Francophones must have the option of using their own language in dealings with federal institutions, be it as clients or employees. It is a question of respect and democracy.
Of course, the concept of institutional bilingualism has evolved over the years, and the concept of language of work in particular has made spectacular progress. The watershed was the second version of the Official Languages Act, in 1988, which clearly set out the obligations our Canadian government has to its employees. In my opinion, this legislative framework enshrines linguistic duality at work as one of the basic values of the federal administration. I think the spirit of the law is very clear: being able to work in the official language of their choice gives Anglophones as well as Francophones the opportunity to participate in managing the affairs of our nation. Is this not a fundamental democratic issue? Are we not touching Canada's very social and political fabric?
I think it is quite important that we remind ourselves and our staff, and the citizens of Canada, especially in these times that unfortunately offer so many examples of intolerance, that the collective values that I am referring to are based on the personal values of respect for other people and their identity, and openness to difference and diversity. Mme Robillard and Diana Monnet told us today that Treasury Board and the government are embracing a new approach towards official languages based on respect. I believe that's really a step forward.
As a clinical psychologist, I would venture to say that at the top of our collective values, stands one value above all, and that is the respect for human life. The human life is not only biological life; it is psychological life. Our psyche, our thoughts, our emotions, our beings are all dependent on and intimately linked to words, to language. Without words, you cannot make sense of your inner world, nor communicate to others what you have inside you, and understand what others have inside them. So, to be able to think, speak, write, laugh, in one's language in the workplace is allowing a person to be, to exist. It is allowing a person to live in accordance with his or her basic self; this is what psychologists would tell you.
When we consider that we spend more than half of our waking life at work, by embracing linguistic duality at work, the federal government is in fact endorsing one of the most fundamental human needs: to be true to oneself, to have the opportunity to grow and to contribute fully, not only to your own self, but to the collectivity. And that, for me, is the core and the fundamental reason why we have to be successful in the implementation of this aspect of our Act; it's a fundamental human issue.
The issue of values and attitudes transcends, if I may put it that way, all the issues that we are discussing today. And we must put it front and centre. We must speak about it; it is not just a question of money, it is a question of human conditions and human respect and human rights, to ultimately offer the best opportunities for individual and collective enrichment and the development of all of us. But there are, evidently, problems in carrying this out. The biggest problem with respect to language of work undoubtedly resides in its dynamic aspects; that is, in everyday exchanges. Certain data taken from the recent Treasury Board Secretariat study are revealing in this respect, and I will not go into it, because Diana Monnet has done that quite well.
Linguistic behaviour is defined by the Chrétien code. Human beings are creatures of habit. We behave in one way, rather than in another, by habit. Human beings are very well "designed"; they understand very quickly. If we address staff at a service counter in English or French and are answered in the other language, we may insist on using our preferred official language. However, if we experience this situation three or four times during the course of a day, what do you think happens the fifth time? We automatically switch to the other language. Human beings live by automatic response. Transposed into the workplace, every time our use of our preferred language meets with a negative reaction, we become conditioned, as psychologists would say, to avoiding this behaviour. When this occurs several times, it becomes "assimilation." In our workplaces, there surely are individuals who are very determined and who would nevertheless like to express themselves and work in their language, but, faced with the response of those around them - which is unconscious for the most part, I must add - these individuals will automatically avoid this behaviour. And that is what the Chrétien code is all about: no law, regulation, or Treasury Board directive will have any effect on this type of interaction among individuals in the workplace if we are not fully aware of our impact on others and of the extent to which we can change linguistic behaviour simply by reacting differently.
Really what I am saying is that the choice of one language or the other is based not only on organizational factors, but also on a complex series of interpersonal relations and attitudes. And this is one thing you cannot legislate.
We all want to do our work well, to gain recognition in the workplace, and this is why we will shape our behaviours according to what we perceive implicitly and explicitly as the codes of conduct or linguistic behaviours that are most valued or less valued, and according to what we perceive in our environment. Evidently, the more authority you have - DMs, ADMs, Directors, Managers - everyone is looking to you and you are sending messages, as Mme Robillard mentioned. But are you doing what you are saying, or what the legislation is in fact promoting, that is, are you walking the talk? And if you are not, forget it, you won't have any impact.
So as you see, I may be Commissioner, but the psychologist is still there...
So, how can we achieve a real change in culture? One must take stock, of course, but what we especially need to do is find ways to modify behaviour - and various people have provided examples here today - including people from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, which has undertaken a rigorous program to change its culture. Treasury Board is also expending great effort in this area. There is resistance to change out there. I am convinced that, as human beings, we are programmed to resist change. This is part of human nature - and this is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Nevertheless, we must remember that our instinctive reaction is always to resist change.
The first prerequisite for change is understanding the whys and wherefores, being clear on what is at stake, in order to get everyone involved, not only those in charge, but everyone. Management must not merely be onside; it must lead by example. This is one of the points raised this morning. There must be a critical mass of people who believe in the importance of this objective and who are willing to take action in order to achieve it. I have already seen many positive signs where language of work is concerned: the winds of change are certainly blowing within federal institutions. Treasury Board is, so to speak, setting the stage for change. And there have been other initiatives, including one by the Canadian Centre for Management Development, which his currently holding a roundtable on language of work; a document should be published in that regard subsequently. The more initiatives that see the light of day, the better. It is not only up to the Commissioner and Treasury Board. Just look at what you are doing here today, holding a symposium. Everything helps. Change can come about only with a critical mass of people looking in the same direction, especially when one is dealing with a system as vast and as complex as the federal government.
We, at OCOL, are carrying on with our work, for all the reasons that I have just mentioned. Therefore, we will examine other issues and undertake other studies on the sociolinguistic aspects of the workplace. In order to assist you, as managers or employees, we will be asking you what types of linguistic exchanges take place in your workplace and what conditions are conducive to employees using their preferred official language. This must not remain solely a matter of principle; it must become part of daily life. We have knowledge about these matters, especially as regards language, but not much research focuses specifically on the public service. Consequently, additional research is needed, and we will be working on that.
How do I envisage the language-of-work framework in practical terms, taking into account the dynamics of relationships as they unfold daily in the workplace? Public servants must first be made aware of their rights and obligations with regard to language of work. This symposium is designed not only to share experiences and knowledge, but also to correct erroneous perceptions. As was demonstrated by the study conducted by Treasury Board, there is much confusion and lack of awareness within the federal government. There is definitely a need for education and awareness-raising. You will probably have to do some yourselves in your workplaces, especially those of you in New Brunswick. I have high hopes as far as New Brunswick is concerned. If there is one province that I would like to see become an example for all, including the National Capital Region, it is you. In my view, your province is the perfect place to begin, since conditions there are ideal for effecting such a change.
In addition to this basic work required at the horizontal level, a more effective framework for language of work is needed. In order for such a framework to be successful, a clear commitment by senior management within each federal institution is essential. Earlier, Marcel Éthier spoke about a project that is still in progress and is moving forward quite quickly - it should be noted that the commitment of senior management was the pivotal condition for getting this project off the ground.
Many of you here today already play a leadership role. As we know, one does not have to be a manager in order to be a leader: some individuals have more influence in the workplace than the actual leader or manager. There sometimes are "ring leaders" in the workplace who have a rather negative attitude which influences others.
Thus, strong and continued leadership in the area of official languages, specifically with regard to language of work, is imperative. And what Mme Robillard has announced is, in my view, a positive step.
And, now, once individuals know that they have rights, what determines whether they will exercise those rights or not? That is where we have a role to play. In order to use a minority language, individuals need a great amount of encouragement. They must be urged, exhorted. One must demonstrate and lead by example. And initiative and creativity are the name of the game, since there is no proven formula for success in these matters... It is a question of influence, of awareness, of what leads those around us to alter their behaviour... Just try it, and you will see: I encourage everyone to effect a change in behaviour, to undertake what in my field is called behavioural change. For example, you are chairing a meeting in both official languages. But just watch: when someone speaks in the minority language of your workplace, observe what takes place around you - Does anyone respond? Is the statement ignored, as though the speaker has not even spoken? As chairperson (or simply as participant), draw attention to what has just been said in the other language. Say: "This person said this in English or in French, but no one has commented." Do this once or twice, and I promise you that the dynamics of the meeting will change radically. Much can be achieved through small gestures.
Today, the media were asking me how much Mme Robillard 's announcement will cost. I informed them that it would not cost anything at all, that all it entails is a change in behaviour, and this is not something on which one can put a figure. There is no doubt that this road is a longer one, one that will require developing much greater awareness of others than one normally has in the workplace. However, in my view, there is no other way to achieve lasting change...
One of the new approaches that have been touted is supporting receptive bilingualism. This approach certainly has potential. Some of our colleagues find the requirement or goal of becoming perfectly bilingual, or of being able to express oneself in both official languages, to very high. Effectively, one can fully participate in a bilingual environment if one simply understands what is being said. It may not be necessary for public servants, especially for those who are not managers, to be proficient in their second official language, both written and spoken. Has the federal government invested in developing receptive-bilingualism skills among public servants or demonstrated that it values this skill? This would be an interesting concept to explore and indeed pursue.
Let's now talk about language training. During my time in university administration, I heard just about everything there is to hear about language training. And I have heard the same thing here. Second-language training must be examined and rethought. We heard today that there is a will to bring about this change. Taking language training for the sake of passing exams is not really what we are looking for. Taxpayers are still footing the bill when people are encouraged to develop second-language skills but are not required to use that language. This is difficult to justify. Instead, should we not be saying: yes, we are willing to invest in you; we will send you on language training; however, when you return, we expect new things, an improved outcome in the workplace?
In my view, these concepts and ideas must be put on the table and discussed.
As my time is almost up, I will leave you with a few thoughts on possible ways in which we could work together to make improvements in this area. In my view, we must examine this issue in greater depth. We have taken initial steps in this regard; there is a spirit, a drive; and new avenues are coming into focus. Let me add that this cannot happen without leadership, leadership at both levels. Since becoming Commissioner, I have been stressing the importance of leaders. By that, I mean the leaders of our two arms - the administrative arm and the political arm. In my view, one cannot exist without the other. If the leaders and decision makers from both arms are not on board, it will be very difficult for us all to achieve the objectives of the Act, since, even though we are addressing this matter by way of values, we are still dealing with a law.
In closing, let me say that I hope the change in culture that we are seeking will come about quickly, that the pace of change will really pick up. Let us strike the iron while it is hot... It is important to reflect on this matter, but, more and more, I am urging people, public servants in this case, to take action. I deplore the slow pace at which change has been taking place thus far in many areas, the inaction and inertia that I have witnessed. I cannot pass judgment on matters other than official languages. However, I have found that public servants are afraid to act. No one can learn without taking action, without taking a step. It is by taking action that we can determine whether we are on the right track, whether we are making the right choices. It is like playing any sport, such as tennis or golf: we cannot develop skills in sports by only reading about them in books. The same applies to an objective such as this.
This morning, while we were listening to Mme Robillard , some public servants slightly more experienced than I am, who probably witnessed the coming into effect of the Official Languages Act, who saw it grow and evolve, who have witnessed change and progress, told me that her speech showed tremendous courage and innovation, and that they had not heard anything like it in a very long time.
This is the note on which I would like to close today. At the end of the day, the Commissioner can only be a conscience. You are the ones who have the true power to act and to effect change, you along with political and administrative decision makers. However, you are the ones ultimately responsible for implementing this Act and for creating a workplace that is respectful of both official languages.
I wish you "good luck." You can count on me and on my team. Of course, we are already sold on the idea; this is what we do, by definition. We are here to assist you, not just to criticize you, as the Commissioner's mandate requires.
Thank you for your attention. Bon appétit!
