Ottawa, November 6, 2006
Speaking Notes for an Appearance before the
Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages
Graham Fraser - Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
Honourable Senators,
Thank you for the invitation to appear before you.
I hope that my first appearance as Commissioner before the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages will mark the beginning of a successful collaboration between us; I have already learned that we share the goal of advancing official languages in Canada. My predecessors greatly benefited from your support, and minority official language communities have used the results of your many initiatives and studies over the years. As I begin my mandate, I note that your projects and inquiries continue to reflect the concerns expressed by Canadians on the future of official languages.
With those thoughts in mind, it is with optimism and considerable enthusiasm that I undertake the mandate I have been given.
As you may recall from my last appearance before you, when you considered my nomination, Canada's linguistic duality has always been of great concern to me. Last spring, as a journalist, I was very impressed to hear Minister Josée Verner express her commitment, and that of her government, to the changes made to the Official Languages Act and the 2003 Action Plan for Official Languages. Those statements are very encouraging and a source of great hope for all Canadians.
I must also point out that since taking office, the government has tabled some legislation related to official languages, under which Air Canada is affected in particular. In addition, the government has indicated that it will never do less than what was set out in the Action Plan for Official Languages—that the Plan is a minimum that can always be improved.
On the other hand, this same government announced budget cuts in September. I cannot comment in detail on those actions, as complaints have been filed with my Office and an investigation is now underway.
I must say, however, that I have difficulty reconciling the government's words with its actions. And so, I am calling on the government to seize every opportunity to put into action the statements it made last spring.
There are many themes worthy of the government's attention. The studies and deliberations undertaken by the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages on such files as the 2010 Winter Olympics and the relocation of headquarters to unilingual regions are important issues, and expectations in those areas are high.
The same holds true for the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations, to which an amendment has been proposed with regard to services provided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) on the Trans-Canada Highway.
2010 Olympic Games
As indicated in studies conducted on high-performance sport by my Office, English is the language of international sport. At the 2006 Olympic Winter Games in Turin, English was predominant, while French was used only at the opening and closing ceremonies, even though French is an official language of the Olympics.
In 2010, in Vancouver, here in Canada, we will need to do much better. This is a perfect opportunity for Canada to promote its linguistic duality internationally. The Organizing Committee must ensure that the requirements set out in the agreement signed with the Government of Canada for services to the public, athletes and cultural events, are fully respected.
The Committee has already signed agreements with various organizations and the Government of Quebec to ensure that the Games are a symbol of Canada's linguistic duality, and I applaud them for these initiatives. As far as I am concerned, I feel it is important that the announced cost overruns do not compromise the bilingual nature of the Games. During a recent trip to Vancouver, I had the opportunity to meet with John Furlong, the CEO of the Vancouver Organizing Committee, and we discussed these issues. I was impressed by his sensitivity and his respect for linguistic duality, and by the efforts he has already made to ensure that the Games reflect that reality.
The broadcasting of the Games is also of concern to me. The English-language broadcasting rights are held by the CTV network, which is available live throughout Canada. The French-language broadcasting rights are shared by TQS and RDS. Outside Quebec, in most cases, those channels are available only on digital cable or by satellite.
This means, for example, that Francophones in British Columbia who do not subscribe to those services will be unable to watch the Games in their own language. The air time devoted to the Games in each official language is also unequal: CTV plans to air 1,117 hours of the Games in English, compared with 550 hours on the French networks.
This puts all Francophones in the country at a disadvantage, especially those in minority communities. A solution is needed to ensure that broadcasting of the Games is accessible, in equal quality, in both official languages for all Canadians.
The production of the Games is another concern of mine. I would point out that the CTV network will be responsible for the entire production, and interviews and analysis may well be only in English. As a former journalist, I am aware of the importance of telling the stories of our Olympic athletes, both English-speaking and French-speaking. One of the remarkable things in the French-language coverage of previous Olympic Games has been the number of Anglophone Canadian medallists who, still panting with exertion, have been able to give articulate interviews in both official languages. And so I fear that no French-language team will be on site at the event, and that Francophone athletes will be left without media coverage. It is important for CTV to look into potential partnerships. Radio-Canada, for example, could be a potential partner.
For Francophone athletes, however, the problem of respect for linguistic duality arises well before the Games, as they often struggle with language barriers in addition to athletic challenges. Despite the progress made by Sport Canada and some sports organizations to incorporate linguistic duality into the sports system, much remains to be done to ensure that support mechanisms and services are available to athletes in both official languages.
Relocation of Federal Head Offices
The relocation of central head offices from a bilingual region to a unilingual one is becoming more frequent—an occurrence that has significant repercussions. Case in point: the Canadian Tourism Commission.
The Commission must not lose sight of the Francophone tourism market. When I was in Vancouver, I learned that that is the province’s only tourism growth sector, thanks in part to the institutions of the minority community and their efforts to sell Francophone travellers on British Columbia.
Relocation must not affect the right of employees to work in the official language of their choice. Thus, it is important to make provisions for permanent measures to safeguard employees’ language-of-work rights as well as those of future hires. On June 27, 2005, Treasury Board established a temporary implementation principle, but its scope is rather limited. Indeed, under this principle, institutions relocating their head office to a unilingual region are only required to maintain the status quo as regards the rights of employees choosing to relocate.
It is my opinion that the government should adopt regulations that confer language-of-work rights on employees working in head offices located in unilingual regions. This would eliminate the need to intervene each time the head office of a federal institution is relocated from a bilingual region to a unilingual one.
Lastly, the government could use its regulatory power under subsection 38(1) of the Official Languages Act to recognize the special situation of single-vocation institutions like the RCMP training academy in Regina, the military school in Kingston and the Coast Guard school in Nova Scotia, and grant language-of-work rights to the employees of these institutions.
Modernizing the Regulations
The need to adopt regulations is also felt in the implementation of institutions’ obligations in terms of communications with and services to the public. As you are aware, the Treasury Board President published in the Canada Gazette a proposed amendment to the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations in order to act on the decision handed down by the Federal Court in Doucet v. Canada. This case had to do with the RCMP’s obligations concerning the section of the Trans-Canada Highway served by the Amherst detachment in Nova Scotia.
In her last annual report, my predecessor indicated that the federal government should take the opportunity to look at the possibility of revising the Regulations. Instead, the government opted for a minimalist approach that will impose language obligations on a single RCMP detachment.
Indeed, the amendment to the Regulations will impose obligations on RCMP detachments that provide services on a section of the Trans-Canada Highway where there is a point of entry to a bilingual province. However, the way the proposed regulations are worded, the detachment would have obligations only if the demand for services by the public throughout the year is at least 5 per cent in one or the other official language. I simply cannot endorse this amendment as currently worded.
The approach, which imposes the assessment of demand on the basis of the proportionality criterion, is unacceptable. It does not take into account the Federal Court judgment that accepted the evidence that the demand for services in French on the part of the travelling public was well in excess of 5 per cent of annual overall demand. Furthermore, the second criterion employed in the proposed regulations, that is, the presence of a point of entry along the section to an officially bilingual province, makes it futile to impose the criterion of proportionality.
To improve these regulations, I recommend that the government amend them by removing the obligation to assess demand. Moreover, I propose that the government consider modernizing the regulations in order to clarify the implementation of federal institutions’ obligations.
I must tell you that I take Canadian travellers’ language rights seriously, whether these travellers are French- or English-speaking. I think that it is extremely important that language policy be designed to consider the travelling public. It is critical that Canadians be able to travel in this country knowing that their language rights are being taken into specific consideration.
The efforts you are undertaking on the issues I have discussed here are very important. The government must listen to the official language minority communities and adopt concrete measures to demonstrate its commitment to linguistic duality.
Honourable Senators, I am now ready to answer your questions.
