Ottawa, September 30, 2005
Enhancing the vitality of the Franco-Ontarian community: how can we do better?
Speaking notes for a seminar organized by the Institut franco-ontarien
Dr. Dyane Adam - Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
Ladies and Gentlemen:
First let me say how happy I am to be with you today. This is a place I know well, having worked here for a number of years, including a stint at Laurentian University. I often think fondly of the time I spent here, and especially of my valued friends and esteemed colleagues.
I particularly want to recognize the remarkable accomplishments of the Institut franco-ontarien, an institution that serves all of the province ’s Francophone communities.
I would also like to thank the organizers for all the energy you have put into organizing this event, so that we can all benefit from this exchange of views.
Introduction
The timing of this seminar could not be better. Its purpose is to reflect on the Franco-Ontarian community’s past in order to create a better future. The time has come to look at the scorecard for bilingualism in Ontario, and it’s not simply a matter of deciding whether the glass is half full or half empty. We need to know whether we’re drinking a fine wine or a second-rate one.
Avid readers among you will recall that my most recent Report marked the 35th anniversary of the Official Languages Act. In the Report I stated that the promises contained in the Constitution and the Official Languages Act have not yet been completely fulfilled. We will only be able to meet the challenges in the area of official languages if a serious examination of the state of its linguistic framework is conducted.
The same is true of the situation in Ontario concerning the French language. When it comes to language rights, failure to progress amounts to backsliding.
First I want to say a few words about the need for federal support in developing the Franco-Ontarian community. Then I’ll move on to the need to rethink the architecture of French services in Ontario and the importance of better tailoring these services to the community’s needs.
I – A committed, coherent approach to federal support for the development of the Franco-Ontarian community
Since my appointment six years ago, one of the key messages I have sought to convey is that Canadian linguistic duality must be a coherent whole.
There must be a single objective at work as we promote linguistic duality in Canadian society, the delivery of bilingual services, the use of French and English at work and before the courts, and the development of the official-language communities. That objective is the ongoing development of our two great language communities, so that they exist in a lasting and mutually beneficial association of equals.
Leadership in achieving this ambitious goal falls first and foremost to the federal government. Its support for linguistic duality – and more specifically for the development of the official-language communities living in minority situations – must be clear and consistent. And it must be supported with adequate resources.
It is therefore vital that legislation be introduced to clarify the scope of section 41 of the Official Languages Act, which commits the government to promoting our official languages and to supporting the development of the Francophone and Anglophone minorities. Hearings are currently being held on this bill by the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Official Languages; I will be attending the hearings next Thursday.
So far the implementation of the key elements of the Action Plan for Official Languages unveiled by Minister Stéphane Dion in the spring of 2003 has not been up to expectations. Still, the plan is important for all of us, as it represents 751 million dollars over 5 years for policy interventions in particular in relation to education, health and immigration. The accountability and coordination framework that these include, when fully implemented, should guarantee a greater accountability on the part of the federal government with respect to official languages,
Those of us who are committed to language rights have long been on the front line of the struggle for the development of Canada’s French-speaking community. The main risk is not that we will fail but that we will not be bold enough or think far enough in advance.
This need to be bold and think ahead is why I insist so much on research. I want to encourage serious research and new areas of research, stimulate expertise in the field of official languages, and take part in the development of institutions such as yours.
Earlier this week the Office of the Commissioner held round tables on the vitality of official-language minority communities and on the need to review federal regulations in the area of official languages. Also under way are studies on joint governance and on the international impact of Canadian linguistic duality. [Research and critical analysis are central to all of these activities. ]
The purpose of all these activities is to open windows and let in some fresh air. After 35 years of our official languages regime, it is time to examine it with a critical eye and compare existing practices with new ideas.
Your expertise and your deep understanding of Franco-Ontarian society are vital to our work, for Ontario’s Francophone community is in some ways a reflection of Canada’s francophone communities. The situations and challenges it faces give Ontario’s Francophone communities something in common with Francophone communities across the country as well as with Anglophone communities in Quebec. You have much to contribute to our planned studies, and also, I’m sure, much benefit to derive from them.
II – Rethinking the architecture of French services in Ontario
It will soon be the 20 th anniversary of the French Language Services Act – a major milestone. The Act was put into effect along with some key reforms concerning the use of French before the courts as well as the establishment of French-language school boards and postsecondary institutions. Far be it from me to minimize the beneficial effects of these reforms.
The gains both practical and symbolic have been real, indeed substantial. The French Language Services Act, the Education Act and the Courts of Justice Act, aside from symbolizing concrete improvements in the linguistic conditions under which Franco-Ontarians live, also testify to a slow but clear positive development in the mentality of the linguistic majority.
So much has been accomplished. But how can we do more, and in particular, how can we do things better?
How can the province’s language regime better serve Francophone communities, while better promoting their development?
How can it better reflect the changing face of Ontario’s French speakers, in particular those whose native language is not French?
[These are just a few examples of the many issues that are worth exploring.]
The guiding principle here is that the full development, indeed the expansion, of Franco-Ontarian communities will enrich Ontario and make a major contribution to its social cohesiveness. There is no longer any doubt, in the minds of most researchers, that linguistic and cultural under-development is costly in terms of money, inefficiency and loss of social mobility.
Therefore I believe that it is time to modernize the social model of bilingualism in Ontario, and make it a genuine policy of language management and language promotion.
The rationale of such a new policy would not be limited to optimizing the capacity of government institutions to deliver services in French but also to impede assimilation and promote Ontario’s French-speaking community through development.
The policy should also allow all Ontarians, whatever their origin, to participate more fully in the creation of our national linguistic heritage and to better equip themselves for globalization. In short, we must redefine French Ontario.
What we need is an Ontario that is as proud of its inclusive bilingualism as it is of its growing diversity. My approach is very simple. How can we hope to create better understanding among people with different cultures and values if we are not able to bring about understanding and language equality here at home, between our two main language communities? They go hand in hand.
But what would that mean in practice for Ontario?
Ontario’s language regime needs to be rationalized, strengthened and consolidated. Such a consolidation would make it possible to better articulate the situation of French and shore up language guarantees in the areas of education, health, access to the courts, delivery of basic services, and teaching of French as a second language.
For example, the Government of Ontario could formally declare, through a revised language statute, its commitment to moving toward equality of status or equality in the use of English and French, by actively supporting the development of the province’s Francophone communities. And obviously, this assumes adequate resources.
No doubt you will tell me that the province already supports this kind of development, that it goes without saying. And I will reply, in the words of Talleyrand, that if it goes without saying, then it will go even better if we say it.
I have a number of specific concerns: real weaknesses in the quality of delivery of certain provincial government services; slowness in moving toward bilingual municipal services; hesitation in the volunteer and private sectors to commit to enhancing and promoting linguistic duality. Such a commitment should be a matter of principle rather than an exception.
What would help in this context, I think, is closer cooperation between the federal and provincial governments to harmonize the approach to language guarantees and delivery of high-quality bilingual services. This must be the first order of business.
My observation is that where the federal government, Ontario and the communities work together, striking successes are achieved. Just think of Collège Boréal, Cité collégiale (community college), Collège d’Alfred,the television station TFO, Destination Nord (the French-language travel guide to Ontario) or the Réseau de Santé du Moyen-Nord (Central and Northern Ontario health network).
It is true that these initiatives met with success because of the efforts of community activists. No minority can do without credible, committed spokesmen and women who sustain and motivate their elected officials. And we may note in passing that if these leaders are to be credible, researchers must provide them with relevant and reliable data on the situation in the communities and the potential for action. That said, another reason for the success of the above initiatives was that they encouraged a lot of lateral thinking and creativity.
III – Tailoring services
In my opinion, lateral thinking and creativity are basic principles that should guide the actions of the federal and Ontario governments in their common efforts to ensure the development of Franco-Ontarian communities. Joint projects should be innovative and closely tied to needs. Obviously they should also aim at concrete, measurable results.
In many cases it will be necessary to completely rethink the way services are delivered in order to tailor them better to community needs. These services form a whole, a continuum. They therefore require an integrated, holistic approach.
Such an approach assumes that the rules governing service delivery are sufficiently flexible to encourage innovation, and that they are not full of loopholes that allow inaction.
For example, there are already a number of models of electronic service delivery. There are also some promising initiatives in health, in human resources development and in immigration, both in Ontario and in other jurisdictions.
Centres that combine a school with community services are one possible formula that seems to work well in certain situations.
In Manitoba, the Saint-Boniface Services Centre offers a range of federal, provincial and municipal services in French, and the experience has been repeated in Notre Dame de Lourdes and Saint-Pierre-Jolys. One of the keys to their success was to create a truly French work environment, so that the people who work there maintain and improve their ability to service the public in French. As I see it, the governments of Canada and Ontario as well as local governments could do more to pool their efforts, as Manitoba has done.
Given modern communications, nit-picking calculations of significant demand are becoming less and less relevant in Ontario. What is important is to deliver equivalent services of equal quality to all Francophone communities, while allowing the method of delivery to vary considerably.
The basic objective of any transformation of services is simple: to enable Ontario’s Francophone communities to develop, and create centres where the use of French will clearly predominate and from which it can spread.
This kind of transformation also assumes a new accountability framework, one that is more transparent and more assertive. A comprehensive horizontal management and accountability framework and performance indicators that measure tangible outcomes. Such a framework would include consultation mechanisms or—better yet—mechanisms for joint governance with the communities.
Finally, I think the time has come for Ontario to have a language commissioner or ombudsman. To do a proper job, the incumbent would of course need to have independence, financial autonomy, investigative powers, the power to make recommendations and issue special reports, not to mention the right to go to court to seek remedies.
I will probably be accused of preaching to the converted, but then the converted are such a fine group! I think my function of being a linguistic conscience and an agent of change has proven its worth, to the point that it has even been adopted abroad, in Ireland for example.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I’m an optimist. I believe Ontario’s Francophone community will find its way to the path of growth, both numerical growth and cultural and social growth. It will do so through the support it receives, through immigration, and through its inherent vibrancy as a community.
As I said in my most recent Annual Report, it is time to rethink the nature of the collective identity which the Canadian government promotes. Given the size of Ontario’s Francophone community and its growing diversity, this province should be a leader in the rethinking process.
[Increasingly one can observe the growth of capital supporting the francophone community at the heart of political and administrative power, at all levels of government. This is largely due to the fact that the first waves of graduates of immersion programs are now business leaders, representatives and senior officials who are implementing federal policies. However in order to truly be able to call upon this capital and to bring about major reforms at the heart of public policies. Even elected officials that are most committed to the cause, and most attentive, must be inspired by community leaders. In addition to being themselves agents of change, researchers have a special role to play: that of furthering mutual understanding and in many cases, developing pathways to solutions, which are necessary to influence decision makers in a credible manner.
It is thanks to your participation in this seminar that we will be able to make progress on the road to change]
Thank you.
