Ottawa, September 26, 2001
Presentation to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages
Dr. Dyane Adam – Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
It has been thirty years since Keith Spicer tabled the very first report of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages in Parliament. At the time, the first Official Languages Act was barely two years old and many federal services were available in English only.
The first Commissioner, as well as politicians of all political stripes, including both Prime Minister Trudeau and the Leader of the Opposition, Robert Stanfield, worked hard to explain the objectives of linguistic duality to the population across the country and to encourage the two language groups to get to know each other better.
On our thirtieth anniversary, it is my pleasure to mark this milestone and to recognize the work of the four commissioners who preceded me by issuing a special publication which accompanies the annual report this year. It looks at the evolution of bilingualism in Canada over the past three decades - both our triumphs and our struggles.
Before presenting my annual report, I would like to briefly reflect on the road we have travelled. I think it is important to remember that official bilingualism is really about changing social attitudes and behaviour. Like all social change, it takes time to implement. Looking back over the years, it is clear that we have made progress, but we still have a long road ahead.
As was rightly stated in last year's Throne Speech, "linguistic duality is fundamental to our Canadian identity and is a key element of our vibrant society". This ideal aptly expresses the spirit of our country - a place in which people of diverse cultures and languages strive to live in harmony. In light of the events of the past weeks, I think it is important to reflect on how this value has shaped us as a democratic and tolerant society.
We can all be proud of the progress that we have made over the past thirty years, but, as I will tell you in a moment, much remains to be done and we must persevere, because building a society in which everyone feels truly at home is a tremendous challenge.
I am pleased to meet with you this afternoon to present my annual report. I would like to take all the time required to discuss my reading of the situation, to present the key issues that parliamentarians should examine over the coming year and, of course, to answer your questions.
My report is divided into five chapters - leadership on official languages, government transformations, community development, special studies and investigations and finally, citizen concerns, which provides an overview of some of the complaints that we have investigated over the course of the past year.
1) Chapter 1 - Leadership on Official Languages
The first chapter of my report describes the leadership provided over the past year by the key official languages stakeholders. I have devoted an entire chapter to this because it is crucial: progress cannot be made on official languages without a firm commitment and consistent leadership.
One year ago, as you will recall, I reviewed the federal government's action on official languages. My diagnosis was clear and direct: I expressed my concerns about the cumulative erosion of language rights and the striking lack of government leadership. There has been a lack of attention to this question and I issued a reality check.
One year later, I can now say that my message has been heard and understood, although it was difficult to swallow. Government leaders and senior officials have accepted my diagnosis. I have seen the first signs of serious reflection and a renewed will within government institutions to correct past wrongs and to work toward the full implementation of the Official Languages Act. The winds seem to have shifted.
Some decisions made over the past year truly suggest to me that we are on the right track:
- The government renewed its commitment to the protection and promotion of official languages and to minority official language communities in the January 2001 Speech from the Throne. This is the first time since 1985 that official languages have figured so prominently in a Speech from the Throne.
- The Prime Minister appointed a minister responsible for coordinating the issue of official languages, giving him the mandate to develop a new "framework for action" and to implement "new, vigorous measures".
- The Clerk of the Privy Council cited official languages as one of five priorities for government institutions.
- The Immigration Minister showed leadership by amending her bill to recognize that one of the objectives of immigration is to contribute to the development of both linguistic groups in Canada.
These signs all augur well for the future. Congratulations!
Change involves several steps, and the first step is acknowledging the problem. The government has made this first step. This is where we are at today.
I hear the talk, but there is still too much of a gap between the talk and the walk. The government now must move quickly to the next step and put their words into action. There is an urgent need to move beyond observations and good intentions.
So I must say that I was disappointed with the presentation given here last week by the new minister responsible for official languages. I was not disappointed by the diagnosis offered by Mr. Dion, but rather by the failure to present a draft action plan. I know that you mentioned this expectation to him as well. My report also points to the urgent need for an action plan.
As the switchman waiting for the train to leave the station, Mr. Dion obviously cannot alone respond to growing expectations without sufficient resources and a specific mandate allowing him to set things into motion. At present, these two requirements still appear to be missing.
Although I agree with the essence of the observations made last week by the Minister, I must add that the awaited action plan must make the development of minority official language communities a priority across the country. And to that end, it seems more essential than ever to give renewed life to Part VII of the Act by recognizing its binding nature. It was this omission in Mr. Dion's presentation that suggests to me that the government is still a long way away from formulating a concrete action plan capable of reversing strong current trends.
I am waiting for concrete, vigorous and quick action to follow through with the commitments made in the Speech from the Throne. There are many challenges and much work remains to be done.
Minority official language communities have many needs, especially as regards education and health, but the government still lacks a comprehensive plan to ensure their growth and vitality.
How can we get there? The machinery of government is heavy. It takes time to react and to act. Too much time! Setting it in motion requires ongoing and concerted efforts by a whole series of stakeholders, acting and thinking in tandem to reach the same objective. I am counting on the political commitment of each member of Cabinet to achieve this objective, and the machinery of government must follow suit.
What are my expectations for the coming year as regards leadership?
a) Action Plan
First and foremost, I am waiting for the government to quickly unveil an action plan with clear objectives, well-targeted measures and coordination mechanisms leading to measurable results.
This plan must address the issue of official languages in the public service, the provision of quality services to the people of Canada, a comprehensive and consistent approach to the development of official language communities and measures to promote official languages in Canadian society.
b) Necessary Resources
Secondly, the resources available for official languages must be more effectively distributed and invested. But an adequate investment of resources, both human and financial, is also essential to produce concrete, lasting and measurable results in the short term. In recent years, the number of individuals responsible for bilingualism in federal institutions has dropped by more than half. Investments in official languages have remained unchanged and even dropped off since 1990. The government acknowledges this. If official languages are truly a priority, an investment is required to follow through on the commitments made.
c) The role of the provinces and territories
Thirdly, linguistic duality is not just the responsibility of the federal government - all parts of Canadian society have a role to play and in particular, the provinces and territories. Provincial and territorial authorities have not always seemed to grasp the scope of their responsibilities relating to linguistic duality since the adoption of the Charter in 1982. The implementation of minority education rights across the country was a long and arduous process, even though this right was guaranteed by the Constitution. Too often, governments have waited for the courts to remind them of their responsibilities and obligations. From now on, the federal government must better coordinate its action with the provinces and territories. This coordinated approach is essential to provide support since the growth and vitality of minority official language communities depends on a great many factors that are provincial or shared responsibilities - such as education, immigration, municipal services or health services.
2) Chapter 2 - Government Transformations
The second chapter of my report deals with government transformations. Year after year, the government signs agreements to transfer some responsibilities to other orders of government or to the private sector. Too often, these agreements do not reflect the public's established language rights, and the quality and quantity of services offered in both official languages suffer as a result of these transfers. I appeal to the government to implement an effective policy to protect language rights during government transformations.
In 1997, my office identified this as a major issue for the public's language rights. More than four years after this diagnosis, we are still waiting for a policy to effectively foster progress toward the equality of English and French. This shows a clear discrepancy between words and action. This is not the first time the Office of the Commissioner has raised the issue, but it must now be the last. This type of slow response cannot be allowed in areas relating to official languages as respect for our constitutional rights are at issue. We will never be able to fulfill the commitments made in the Speech from the Throne at this rate. Action is good, but acting promptly is better.
My report cites several specific examples of transformations and devolution that affect the public's language rights.
a) The Contraventions Act
The Contraventions Act is a case in point that requires the government to put words into action and to show leadership. As you know, the Department of Justice must take all the required measures by March 23, 2002 to comply with the Federal Court decision. I will follow these developments very closely because this issue has an impact right across the country. I expect the Department of Justice to make amendments to the Contraventions Act, its regulations and the agreements reached with the Government of Ontario and its municipalities to guarantee that accused parties in Canada can truly exercise their language rights. I still have some concerns about the implementation of these amendments and I would ask you to follow this matter very closely.
b) Municipal Mergers
As you know, over the past year, my office has been involved in the municipal merger issue both in Quebec and Ontario. As I have often stated, the established language rights of minority communities must be protected when amalgamations occur.
Since the end of the period covered by my annual report, we intervened before the courts in Quebec concerning an amendment made to the Charter of the French Language. By making the criteria for municipalities or boroughs to obtain a bilingual status more stringent, we argued that the Quebec government was diminishing the existing rights of the English speaking minority. We are awaiting the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal on this issue.
In Ontario, I worked to support municipal bilingualism in Sudbury and Ottawa. The newly amalgamated cities have now adopted policies for service to the public in both official languages.
In the case of Ottawa, our national capital, the province has up until now refused to act on the request made by the municipality to amend the City of Ottawa Act to recognize the equal status of English and French in the capital.
The provincial government will have another opportunity to change its mind when a private member's bill is presented in the coming days. The Ontario government must realize that it is a tremendous privilege and advantage to have the national capital on its territory, but with this privilege come obligations and responsibilities towards the entire country. Should this new attempt to modify the City of Ottawa Act fail, the federal government must demonstrate leadership and intervene to find a solution. The capital of a bilingual country must be officially bilingual.
3) Chapter 3 - Community Development
Many people agree that minority official language communities represent the very essence of our country's spirit and values. In spite of this, they nevertheless face multiple obstacles that hamper their growth and development. In order to achieve full growth and vitality, minority communities require more support from government institutions.
As I said earlier, it is essential that federal institutions fulfill their obligations as regards community development and the recognition of English and French, as provided in Part VII of the Official Languages Act. This is a key obligation and the duty to provide leadership must be fully met by the government, without leaving any room for doubt in key institutions.
The various institutions must therefore work together and coordinate their efforts to crystallize their commitment to minority communities. The scope of the federal commitment to minority official language communities must be spelled out so that all institutions subject to the Official Languages Act implement an appropriate implementation system. There must be no doubt as to the urgent nature of this commitment.
While this government obligation cannot be overemphasized, we must also recognize that much remains to be done to ensure that government grasps all its ramifications and incorporates them into its daily activities.
The role played by schools in passing on language and culture, and in preserving and fostering the growth of official language communities in Canada is more vital than ever. In view of this crucial role, I ordered a study last year to analyze the changes in school population at French language schools and to identify the challenges in attracting and recruiting the target school population and providing first-rate education.
The study shows that, in spite of some progress, enrolment in French language schools has levelled off in the past ten years to just more than half the target school population. This presents a major challenge since enrolment in these schools must be increased to strengthen the vitality of minority Francophone communities. The study presents a plan to recover the target school population over the next ten years. To achieve this objective, several stakeholders must clearly be mobilized: political leaders, to be sure, but also French-language school boards, the leaders of Francophone and Acadian communities, education professionals and, above all, families who must be made aware of the importance of passing French on from one generation to the next.
Immigration is another key to ensuring the growth of these communities. This also represents a great challenge to ensure demographic balance and the future of linguistic duality from sea to sea. Immigration has accounted for about 50% of demographic growth in Canada in the last fifteen years. Canada's Francophone communities have not benefited equitably from immigration. Although this is nothing new in our country's history, its current effects give cause for concern due to the recent drop in birth rates in Francophone communities.
I have stated these priorities to this Committee and to the parliamentary committee reviewing the new immigration bill. Therefore, I am delighted that Minister Caplan has agreed to make amendments reflecting this priority. As you know, this bill is currently before the Senate.
Health care is another key sector for the development of minority Anglophone and Francophone communities. Health Canada made a step in the right direction by creating a national committee of officials and Francophone representatives who have met about ten times. A similar committee was also created to tackle the challenges facing the Anglophone community in Quebec.
Although these two committees are quite new, it is already clear that this outstanding cooperation will lead to innovative solutions to overcome the difficulties encountered by minority Anglophone and Francophone communities in obtaining access to front-line health care services in their own language.
A truly key issue, the Montfort Hospital case saw some important developments in 2000 when the Government of Ontario decided to appeal the trial court judgment. You will recall that on November 29, 1999, the Ontario Superior Court ruled in favour of the Montfort Hospital on the basis of the unwritten constitutional principle of the protection of minorities. I intervened in this regard, and in the matter of municipal mergers and other matters involving the public's language rights, to protect the existing rights of our minority official language communities and to defend the principle of the advancement of language rights.
With this matter still pending, the Government of Canada and the provinces must at a minimum ensure that the measures they adopt do not compromise or result in a setback to the hard-won language rights of the country's minority official language communities. It is deplorable that communities must still today appear before the courts in defence of these rights.
4) Chapter 4 - Special studies and investigations
The fourth chapter of my report provides an overview of the main investigations and studies published during the last reporting period. I have often stated that the recommendations made at the end of an investigation do not always result in permanent change in federal institutions. I intend to conduct more special studies and investigations since they allow us to examine systemic problems from every angle and to propose more comprehensive measures. Moreover, we wish to involve institutions in the process in order to achieve lasting solutions.
I would like to discuss here two specific issues from this chapter: service to the public in English and French by our federal institutions and Air Canada.
a) National Report on Service to the Public
On April 24, I tabled before this Committee a national report on service to the public in English and French. This report points to a measure of stagnation in the offer of bilingual services. Government transformations resulted in the closing of 25% of bilingual offices since 1994 and the overall capacity of offices designated bilingual to provide services in English and French has dropped by 10% since 1994, falling from 76% to 66%. This decline is unacceptable.
The report offers several courses of action to help the federal government follow through on the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne to mobilize its efforts to ensure that all Canadians can communicate with the government in the official language of their choice.
Most of my recommendations are directed to Treasury Board, which will have to play a more active role in monitoring and evaluating the official languages program in federal institutions.
To ensure that offices designated bilingual offer quality services in English and French, it must be clearly established that the official languages program is a fundamental value in federal institutions, in all parts of the country. Each employee in the federal public service must contribute to changing the internal organizational culture. The public service must become a model of linguistic duality. To reach this objective, we must emphasize the value of a bilingual public service, rather than strictly pushing rules and regulations. If the government succeeds in making this change, we will see an improvement in the quality of services offered to the public in both official languages, as well as greater respect for the right of federal employees to work in the official language of their choice in designated regions.
Over the next few years, the federal government will face the challenge of renewing its workforce. This presents an incredible opportunity for the government to reap the benefits of its investment in immersion and second-language education programs by hiring young bilingual recruits. Across the country, we have a pool of young people who are twice as bilingual as thirty years ago and who can assist the public service in making the transition towards fully integrating the values of linguistic duality.
I ask the members of this Committee to support our efforts to improve public services in both official languages and to ensure that the public service reflects the values of linguistic duality. The Committee could review the recommendations contained in our report and hear from the agencies that must play a key role in their implementation - Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission and the Canadian Centre for Management Development.
The government recently created a working group on the modernization of human resources management, under the direction of the Treasury Board President. I regard the official languages as an inescapable part of any major reform of the public service. I recently wrote to Ms. Robillard to share my recommendations with her and I ask you to follow this process very closely.
b) Air Canada
Air Canada is probably the best example of an institution that has been chronically delinquent in matters of official languages. Over the years, Air Canada has repeatedly appeared at the top of our list of institutions having the greatest number of complaints for violations of the Official Languages Act. Repeated investigations by my office have shown Air Canada's inability to adequately provide air and ground services in both official languages.
Recommendations have been made by successive commissioners, but the carrier has failed to act on them. With this record, Air Canada's senior executives have a lot of work to do to convince travellers that they truly care about the needs and rights of their clientele to be served in the official language of their choice.
Our national carrier must offer services of equal quality in both of Canada's official languages. I am asking Air Canada to change its attitude and to work towards implementing a strategy drafted by my office in order to strengthen and better manage the official languages program at all levels of the company, both for service to the public, and for its own employees in its internal operations. We are willing to work closely with the airline and the Department of Transport to ensure that this happens. Airlines are understandably concerned about their bottom line, more than ever in these exceptional times, but Canadians would expect that respecting and caring about travellers' linguistic needs would also be on their checklist of sound business practices.
This Committee began a study on Air Canada last spring and I understand that you will be completing your examination of this issue over the coming weeks. I trust that your final report will be forceful and that it will contain targeted recommendations to ensure that Air Canada complies with its language obligations.
5) Chapter 5 - Citizen Concerns
The final chapter of my report deals with complaints about the linguistic shortcomings of institutions subject to the Official Languages Act. Since our time is limited, I will just give an overview of the communications received last year by the Office of the Commissioner.
During the last fiscal year, I received over 2,500 communications from the public, including 1,320 complaints. Eighty percent (80%) of these complaints were admissible. Sixty percent (60%) of the complaints were from the National Capital Region and elsewhere in Ontario and Quebec, and 80% of complainants were Francophone. The incidents reported again this year involve a hundred or so institutions, fifteen (15) of which were the object of two-thirds of all complaints.
As you may recall, there are two main types of complaints: those from members of the public unable to obtain effective service in the official language of their choice, and those lodged by federal employees claiming that their language rights in the workplace are not being respected. The first group accounts for 75% of all complaints, while the second category accounts for 16% of all complaints. The remaining complaints pertain to the language requirements for specific positions in federal institutions, the equitable participation of Anglophones and Francophones in the public service and equal employment and advancement opportunities.
The specific complaints cited in my report show once again how important it is to inform the public of the full range of linguistic guarantees and language programs available to them and, secondly, to inform federal institutions of the scope of their official language obligations.
Conclusion
To sum up, the government now seems to understand what it needs to do. However, there are still many discrepancies between the "talk" and the "walk". The commitments made in the Throne Speech must set the tone for the years to come, but we need to see more than good intentions. The hard part now is to make this commitment a reality.
The work of this Committee can go a long way towards helping the government to reach this goal. If I were to identify issues from my report that need to be examined more closely by you over the course of the coming months, I would ask that you concentrate on three key areas:
1. Official languages and Air Canada and how we can better ensure that the airline respects its language obligations.
2. A study of Part VII of the Act to examine:
- the legal scope of the government's commitment to minority official language communities and;
- an appropriate implementation scheme to ensure that all institutions subject to the Act work together to foster the development and vitality of minority communities;
- the impact of government transformations on community development and existing language rights.
and finally,
3. Services to the public in both English and French and the effective implementation of my recommendations by the Treasury Board Secretariat.
My first report pushed the federal government to take some initial steps in the right direction; this second report must now incite it to take vigorous action in the near future.
The road to linguistic duality may be paved with good intentions, but it can only be achieved through concrete action and tangible results.
