June 7, 2000
Address to the members of the
Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications
Dr.Dyane Adam - Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
I wish to thank the Chair and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications for hearing me today as part of its examination of Bill C-26.
You will recall that in the brief that I submitted to your committee on November 8, 1999, when you were considering the future of the airline industry in Canada, I recommended that the government ensure that the Official Languages Act, in its entirety, continue to apply to Air Canada, regardless of its new structure, or to a future "dominant carrier." I insisted that the regional carriers and other subsidiaries linked to this entity be subject to Part IV (Communications with and Services to the Public), Part IX (Commissioner of Official Languages) and Part X (Court Remedy) of the Act. In addition, I noted that, because of the present situation, the federal government had a unique opportunity to give linguistic duality its rightful place in this important sector of activity of Canadian society.
This stance of mine, it goes without saying, was taken against the background of major transformations of the federal administration occurring for over a decade. These transformations had contributed to what we had described as "a subtle but cumulative erosion of language rights" across the country.
By privatizing, transferring or devolving its activities and programs, the federal government had acted pragmatically, on a case-by-case basis. It had not always respected the acquired rights of the official language minority communities - for example, in the context of the Contraventions Act - or those of the federal employees affected - in the case of the federal-provincial agreements on labour market development concluded under the Employment Insurance Act.
Our study of the impact of federal government transformations on official languages programs was published in 1998. At that time we extended to all government transformations the five guiding principles that, in our view, should guide any devolution. Allow me to remind you of the gist of these principles.
Any federal institution that signs a delegation agreement with a province must ensure, at the very least, that this agreement provides for:
1. clearly guaranteeing the members of the public concerned the right to services as stipulated in the Act and official languages regulations;
2. a mechanism for adequate remedy and, if appropriate, redress of the situation;
3. effective accountability and control mechanisms;
4. a commitment to support the development of the minority official language communities, to consult those communities with regard to their needs and to take concrete measures accordingly; and
5. protection for the existing language rights of federal employees.
These principles were designed to prevent any further erosion of language rights. However, the overriding principle that must guide the actions of Parliament and the Government of Canada goes well beyond the preservation of existing rights. This overriding constitutional principle is that of advancement toward the equality of English and French and the vitality and development of the official language communities, particularly those in a minority situation.
At first, the Department of Transport's bill on the restructuring of the Canadian airline industry seemed to fly in the face of this principle.
We therefore had to intervene immediately, as we did at the administrative and political levels of the government.
Your Committee lent an attentive ear to our intervention in the public arena and once again reaffirmed its historic role as a protector of minorities. Needless to say, I was very pleased with your recommendation on bilingual services in your report of last December. Since then, the situation has evolved very quickly.
In February, we were pleased to learn of the federal government's decision to reaffirm Air Canada's linguistic obligations and to clarify those that apply to its air carriers. The bill tabled by the Minister of Transport, Mr. Collenette, confirmed that Air Canada remained subject to the Official Languages Act.
Bill C-26 provides that linguistic obligations with respect to service to the public apply not only to subsidiaries wholly owned by Air Canada but also to any subsidiary of which it holds 50% plus one of the shares. Canadians will also be able to lodge complaints with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages if they believe that Air Canada and its subsidiaries are not meeting their linguistic obligations. By legislating in this way, Parliament gives effect to the principle of advancement toward the equality of English and French set out in section 16, subsection 3, of the Constitution Act, 1982.
It is also against this background that we must now approach the very real and legitimate concerns that have been publicly expressed, notably by the Association des gens de l'air du Québec, and the new suggestions being made to further improve the language provisions of the Bill by including provisions on the use of English and French as languages of work and on the equitable participation of English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians.
It will be recalled that, in the federal administration, the language of work regime applies in the National Capital Region and in the so-called bilingual regions designated for this purpose in New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. Moreover, Part VI of the Act is intended to ensure that English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians have equal opportunities for employment and advancement and that "the composition of the workforce of federal institutions tends to reflect the presence of both the official language communities of Canada, taking into account the characteristics of individual institutions, including their mandates, the public they serve and their location."
In addition, it is a fact that, year after year, Air Canada shows poor performance with respect to the application of the Official Languages Act. It has often held first place for the number of complaints over the past 30 years. We still continue to investigate on numerous issues of service to the public, as well as on complaints relating to language of work and participation. With regard to its regional carriers and present subsidiaries, we currently have very little information on the linguistic situation of their employees. To manage effectively, it is indispensable to have complete and reliable data, and this is not the case at present.
Air Canada's Official Languages Act application scheme needs to be strengthened considerably.
A particular accountability framework for Air Canada is required during this period of implementation of the new structure in the corporation. This framework involves the Act in its entirety. With regard to service to the public, I expect concrete measures to ensure service of equal quality in each of Canada's official languages at airports and aboard flights with significant demand. Regarding language of work, I propose that there be a visible commitment by Air Canada's senior management to establish an environment conducive to the use of both official languages in the new corporation in the bilingual regions. Finally, with regard to the equitable participation of the two linguistic groups, it is essential that Air Canada introduce a better system for gathering official languages data from its employees and that the Treasury Board Secretariat monitor this situation closely.
None of this is new to Air Canada. Such a framework should have been put in place long ago and should be part of the business plan for the transition. It will be all the more important to implement it given the new structure of Air Canada. I propose this framework as an evaluation parameter for the independent observers who will monitor, among other things, the implementation of Air Canada's linguistic obligations.
Your Committee may wish to make specific recommendations in this regard.
In my opinion, the new Air Canada will have to change its attitude and in future meet its linguistic obligations in a proactive manner. Linguistic duality will have to have an important place in the organization's culture. This seems all the more necessary because, by integrating the employees of Canadian International, Air Canada will have to meet the challenge of full compliance with the Act with a workforce with proportionately weaker bilingual capacity and a smaller percentage of Francophones.
I am delighted that you are taking the time to examine this Bill in depth. Personally, I am very concerned about the legacy of government transformations. In issues involving Canada's official languages and the protection and vitality of Canada's linguistic minorities, your vigilance is indispensable.
If the Official Languages Act and the linguistic provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982 are not respected by the new Air Canada, the Minister may have to return to this Committee to defend new legislative proposals designed to tighten Air Canada's linguistic obligations.
Thank you.
