Ottawa, May 16, 2001
Presentation by the Commissioner of Official Languages
to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages
Dr. Dyane Adam – Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
Thank you for inviting me to meet with you once again so that we may continue the discussions we began during our meeting of April 24, 2001.
Before I begin, I would like first of all to take a few minutes to report to you on the status of some key issues of mutual interest and at the same time respond to some questions raised at our last meeting. I will also give you an overview of the issues on the horizon for OCOL that will no doubt figure on the agenda of your future meetings.
Ottawa as a bilingual city
I could not begin today without first expressing my satisfaction in seeing that a bilingualism policy was passed last week by the new Ottawa City Council. Through this policy, the municipal government has undertaken to offer services in English and French throughout its jurisdiction.
We all recognize however that this policy is merely the first step. The new restructured city of Ottawa consists of 11 former municipalities with a range of linguistic provisions. In order to implement this policy, the new city will therefore need the solid support of several partners, including the federal government.
I believe the federal government has an obligation to be attentive to the city's needs in the implementation of this program. In addition to offering special assistance to the new City of Ottawa, which could include language training, translation and simultaneous interpretation services as well as expert advice, the federal government should exercise the leadership role set out in section 43 of the Official Languages Act in order to encourage the Ontario government to amend the 1999 City of Ottawa Act to require that the administration of the city and the provision of municipal services to the public be in English and French, in accordance with the bilingualism policy.
Municipal Amalgamations in Quebec
Still at the municipal level, the Quebec government passed Bill 170 in December 2000, amalgamating the 28 municipalities of Montreal Island into a new large city. It also passed Bill 171 amending the Charter of the French Language, and thereby creating a new criterion for the bilingual designation of municipalities. As you know, several municipalities have already decided to legally contest the amalgamation process set out in these new laws. For my part, I officially requested intervener status on May 15 for this case to be heard before the Quebec Superior Court. My sole purpose is to ensure the recognition of the legal scope of the constitutional principle of the advancement toward equality of status of English and French and the principle of protection and development of Anglophone and Francophone linguistic minorities, as provided in section 16(3) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I consider it my duty to intervene as amicus curiae to prevent legal assent through Bill 171 of a principle and a situation in which an official-language minority community must not only be in a numerical majority, but indeed as measured by the least generous criterion, namely, by mother tongue in the case of Quebec, to have access to the benefits intended for this minority under the Charter of the French Language.
In its statement of defence, the Quebec government argued that section 16(3) does not grant any rights and is instead a simple statement and that governments are free to take measures to protect the language rights of minority communities if they so wish. We maintain however that section 16(1) creates obligations for governments and does not allow for any decline in existing rights and protections. As Commissioner, I have a national mandate and it is therefore essential that I intervene in this case since a restrictive interpretation of section 16(3) of the Charter by this court could lead to an erosion of minority language rights right across the country.
The scope of Part VII of the Act
Shifting our attention from municipal affairs, I would like now to address the most technical aspect of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. During my last appearance here, several committee members expressed an interest in learning more about my position on the debate on the scope of Part VII. It is noteworthy in this regard that Justice Blais did not make a final ruling on the scope of Part VII, but instead only on the federal government's obligations as regards a transfer of its responsibilities to the provinces.
Before I give you a summary of the judgement and our arguments, I would like to share with you my understanding of the issues in this debate. I believe that we must first agree on the diagnosis before we can discuss potential solutions. Let me briefly reiterate the principle elements in the current context.
Since the OLA was passed in 1988, no Speech from the Throne has placed so much emphasis on official languages as is evident in the commitment made in the January 30 Speech. To me, and to you as well, no doubt, this is an encouraging sign of the will to mobilize the federal machinery of government. The minister newly designated to coordinate official language issues must be seen as further evidence of this commitment.
It seems however, in spite of the good intentions included in the Throne Speech, and judging from the interpretations of the Department of Justice, that the machinery of government has chosen since 1988 to take a minimalist approach to the scope of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
The Department of Justice has thus far maintained that Part VII of the Official Languages Act should be regarded as declaratory rather than enforceable. This opinion was indeed defended by attorneys representing the Minister of Justice in the proceedings on the Contraventions Act. In our opinion, Parliament adopted Part VII in order to give full force to section 16, thereby making these two provisions inseparable from each other.
It would therefore be appropriate for the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages to review the scope of Part VII and to invite the key players to testify on the application of this legislative provision which is of vital importance to the future of official language communities and linguistic duality in Canada. Such consultations would make it possible to evaluate before the autumn the suitability of a referral to the Supreme Court in this regard or the need for legislative clarification or any other measure deemed necessary.
Judgment on the Contraventions Act
That said, I would now like to give you a summary of the judgement made by Justice Blais with regard to the Contraventions Act.
The judgement includes five key points that I would like to emphasize:
- First of all, the judgment confirms the principle that the government cannot neglect its linguistic obligations, set out in the OLA or the Charter, by transferring or delegating to other orders of government or to third parties its responsibilities relating to services to the Canadian public. This principle is reiterated in section 25 of the OLA.
- It allows the Commissioner to raise, in any recourse pursuant to the OLA, not only violations against the obligations set out in the OLA but also any failure to fulfill constitutional obligations set out in the Charter.
- It recognizes that any failure to comply with the provisions of the OLA can be enforceable.
- The judge recognized the importance of the public right to file a complaint with the Commissioner for any infringement of language rights.
- The Court ordered Justice Canada to take necessary legislative, regulatory or other measures in order to comply with this judgement.
Although the judge did not make a ruling on violations under Part VII, since the OLA does not allow the Commissioner to take recourse regarding a violation of this part, he did note that:
Sections 2 and 4 of the Act "sent a clear message to all Canadians regarding the equality of status of the two official languages of Canada and the firm intention of the government to strive to achieve the ultimate goal of equal status between the two languages".
Finally, we argued in this regard that the federal government had not fulfilled all of its obligations provided in Parts IV and VII of the OLA in its application of the Contraventions Act, as amended, and its constitutional obligations pursuant to section 16 of the Charter. For your information, the text of this decision is available on our Internet site. We have nevertheless brought a summary of the judgment and the arguments we presented in court.
Immigration and the development of communities
I would like to touch briefly on the issue of immigration which is of vital importance to the development of minority communities.
In my last annual report, I identified immigration as a central issue. I believe that Canada's approach should be part of a demographic approach that respects the government commitments set out in Part VII of the Official Languages Act. An immigration policy must not be based, as at present, entirely on economic considerations. It must help build Canada's social fabric by helping to strengthen the vitality of official language minority communities.
As this matter is of great concern to me, I ordered a special study on the subject last summer. The study will be completed within the coming month, but some of its findings confirm our observations regarding the lack of effort to recruit Francophone immigrants to communities outside Quebec and the integration problems of Francophone immigrants in official language minority communities. I presented my recommendations in this regard last March to the committee studying Bill C-11, emphasizing in particular the fact that the Government of Canada, through its immigration policy, must "enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and support and assist their development". I am delighted that the Honourable Minister Caplan received our recommendations favourably and that the Citizenship and Immigration Committee has agreed to make three amendments to this bill in accordance to reflect this priority.
Government On-Line
The issue of government on-line is also of concern to me. In the Speech from the Throne of October 1999, the Government of Canada announced that by 2004 it would be highly connected with its citizens electronically, so that Canadians would have access to all government information and services on-line, at the time and place of their choice. These services must of course be offered in both official languages. This means not only that the information and updates on federal sites must be published simultaneously in both official languages, but also that this sites must include linguistic tools suited to create an equivalent level of use in English and French.
I therefore undertake to study this matter in greater detail and the new issues it raises and hope soon to be able to make very specific recommendations to the government.
Parliamentary votes for official languages
These are some of the current issues of concern to me as Commissioner of Official Languages. There is not enough time to speak about the other key issues I am following closely such as the implementation of Part VII of the Act and related programs, language of work and human resources renewal in the public service. The growing number of interventions involving the Office of the Commissioner and the very nature of the major issues on the horizon for official languages finally bring us to the matter of the funding needed to ensure the full implementation of the OLA and the viability of existing programs. Since OCOL's budget has been cut by approximately 28% since 1992-1993, it is essential that we obtain increased financial support from the government. Since I assumed office as Commissioner, we have launched a full strategic planning process in order to thoroughly examine the available resources and our organization's additional requirements. Discussions in this regard have also begun with Treasury Board.
We also know that the human resources devoted to official languages, including those in central agencies, have been greatly reduced in recent years. A recent Treasury Board study showed that the number of FTEs in all departments with some responsibility for official languages dropped from 225 in 1995 to 111 in 2000, a 50% drop in 5 years. The irony is that the cost of internal and external official languages programs, which was $654 million in 1990-1991, had dropped to $510 million in 1998-1999, the same nominal level as in 1977-1978, prior to the 1982 Charter, the 1988 OLA and recent landmark Supreme Court decisions.
Conclusion
As I stated earlier today before the Senate Committee on Privileges, Standing Order and Rules, my role as Commissioner of Official Languages is not limited to ensuring that the OLA is merely respected by the federal institutions in question. As an agent of change, I also intend to promote the values underlying linguistic duality and the development of official language minority communities, one of the key priorities of my mandate. But in view of my rather limited resources, I rely tremendously on your influence and support.
In closing, I would like to add that Senator Joval made a fine point recently in stressing to his colleagues in the Senate the need for cooperation between the Joint Committee and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. You will agree, I hope, that it is essential for us to pool are efforts and engage in joint reflection in order to make progress on official languages as set out in section 88 of the Act.
Thank you for your attention.
