Ottawa, April 11, 2005
Notes for an appearance before the Standing Committee
on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology
Dyane Adam - Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
Mr. Chairman and Committee members,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today as part of your hearings on the Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC). I would like to share with you today my concern on the impact of the relocation of the CTC head office on the language rights of its employees.
1. Official Languages Act and the CTC
Before getting to the heart of the matter, I will provide a very brief overview of the provisions of the Official Languages Act for those of you who are not familiar with this quasi-constitutional legislation.
Three main parts of the Act are relevant to the matter at hand:
- Part IV of the Act guarantees Canadians the right to be able to receive services in the official language of their choice from the head offices and certain regional offices of federal institutions.
- Part V of the Act guarantees federal employees the right to work in the official language of their choice in designated bilingual regions.
- Finally, Part VII of the Act establishes the Government of Canada’s obligation to support the development and enhance the vitality of official language minority communities. The government must also foster the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.
The CTC head office will continue to be subject to the same requirements regarding language of service to the public, whether it is located in the National Capital Region or in Vancouver. In fact, the Honourable David Emerson has already indicated that he will ensure that the CTC continues to fulfil its obligations in this regard. As the Officer of Parliament in charge of verifying the compliance of federal departments and agencies with the Official Languages Act, I will monitor the CTC’s performance after the move.
I am fairly confident that the public’s language of service rights will be maintained; however, I am very concerned about what will happen to the right of Commission employees to work in the official language of their choice. Vancouver is not a designated bilingual region for language of work purposes.
It is important to understand what all this means for Commission employees. For example, the Act guarantees them the right to receive documents they require, in English or French, to perform their duties. Employees must be provided with softwareand other tools that is configured in the official language of their choice. Supervisors are required to respect the language preferences of their employees when communicating with them. Employees must also be given access to professional development opportunities in the official language of their choice.
According to the information provided by the CTC, there are close to 50 employees working at the head office who use French as their language of work. These employees, as well as Anglophones trying to become proficient in French, would miss out on a work environment that promotes the use of both official languages, unless appropriate measures are taken.
It is clear that if no action is taken, Commission employees will lose their quasi-constitutional right to work in the official language of their choice overnight. This right is very important to them.
2. Preserving the rights of employees
When the announcement of CTC’s relocation to Vancouver was made, I asked my Legal Affairs Branch to examine the various measures to be taken to protect the language rights of Commission employees. We quickly concluded that administrative measures alone, applied on a voluntary basis, would not be enough to guarantee a bilingual work environment in the long term. Following our analysis, we feel that two measures are particularly appropriate.
In the immediate future, we support the adoption of an order establishing that the new Canadian Tourism Commission head office still be deemed to be in the National Capital Region for the purposes of Part V of the Official Languages Act. This would ensure that Commission employees would continue to have the same language rights, without imposing additional obligations on the Commission.
In the context of increased decentralization of federal government activities, other relocations may follow that of the CCT. Therefore, it is critical that the government consider adopting a regulation to uphold the obligations set out in Part V of the Official Languages Act of head offices in non-designated regions in terms of language of work and of institutions undergoing major workforce decentralization to such regions.
Adoption of such a regulation would avoid our having to intervene each time the head office of a federal institution is relocated from a bilingual to a unilingual region. It would also allow us to make up for any inequality faced by employees working at the head offices of institutions that are already in unilingual regions. This is the case of the Canadian Space Agency, whose head office is in St-Hubert, a unilingual French region, and Veterans Affairs Canada, whose head office is in Charlottetown, a unilingual English region in terms of language of work.
3. Conclusion
I am in no way against the relocation of the Canadian Tourism Commission to Vancouver. On the contrary, in terms of Part VII of the Official Languages Act, relocating its head office to British Columbia may provide a good opportunity for the government to enhance the vitality of the Francophone community in British Columbia.
In fact, if safeguards were implemented to preserve a bilingual work environment at the CTC, such an initiative would bring a group of Francophones from the National Capital Region to British Columbia and would provide employment opportunities for bilingual individuals in the Vancouver area. This would raise the profile of French and enhance linguistic duality in British Columbia.
To preserve the language rights of these employees and prevent a gradual erosion of the Official Languages Act, it is imperative that the Government of Canada demonstrate leadership. As is the case in many official language matters, the willingness of parliamentarians and senior public servants to act makes all the difference.
Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions and hear your comments.
