Ottawa, November 30, 1999
Speech delivered to the members of the
Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages
Dr. Dyane Adam - Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
INTRODUCTION
I would like first of all to thank you for allowing me to appear before you for the first time as Commissioner of Official Languages. You can be assured of my utmost cooperation in this capacity.
Formally recognized in section 88 of the Official Languages Act, the Standing Joint Committee is a vital instrument in the implementation of this quasi-constitutional Act. The Standing Committee allows members of the Senate and the House of Commons to follow and encourage the enforcement of the Act, in particular by examining reports by the Commissioner, the Treasury Board President and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
There is nothing better than the informed and persistent questions of members of this Committee to sensitize organizations showing poor performance in fulfilling their linguistic obligations, whether those obligations concern the active offer of bilingual service or efforts to promote the development of Francophone and Anglophone minorities. These communities regard the leadership provided by your Committee as a clear indication of Parliament's commitment to the defence and promotion of linguistic duality which is at the heart of our collective will to live together.
Since the Commissioner's report is the only one providing recommendations, this Committee might consider it timely this year to examine some of the key issues raised in our 1998 Annual Report and more recently in the political arena. It might wish to enquire about the intentions of central agencies with respect to the future of these major issues. Before delving into these issues, I would like to briefly outline my approach to my mandate.
THE COMMISSIONER'S MANDATE
You will not be surprised to hear that my approach to the major issues involved in the implementation of the Act is greatly influenced by my professional background. As a professional psychologist specializing in clinical psychology, my scientific approach is nearly always the same: carefully analyse the situation; arrive at a diagnosis; define and describe the options; and, finally, develop a treatment plan. I am not looking to uncover more and more problems, but rather to come up with more and more solutions.
What does this mean in practical terms for official languages? It means that our investigations will continue to be rigorous and complete. We will continue to see complaints as significant indicators, but they will not be our only guide. The Commissioner, as a good psychologist, must anticipate crises. She must treat the illness, not just cover up or alleviate the symptoms. Drastic remedies might even be required in rare cases. And I will not hesitate to take such action.
The Act provides the Commissioner with a whole range of tools to carry out her work. I intend to use them with both moderation and tenacity. I know that such an approach will be consistent with the wishes of members of this Committee to ensure the full implementation of Canadians' linguistic rights. It is only through an active approach, and perhaps even one involving intervention, that the Commissioner can fully execute the mandate set out in the Act, namely "to take all actions and measures within the authority of the Commissioner with a view to ensuring recognition of
the status of each of the official languages".
GOVERNMENT TRANSFORMATIONS
A few moments ago, I noted the interest your Committee has expressed in certain "hot" issues relating to official languages. It is no mere coincidence that these issues raise horizontal problems, which go beyond the scope of any single federal organization, and even involve different levels of government. For over a decade, we have witnessed an unprecedented devolution of federal powers to provincial and private organizations.
An unpublished study was prepared in November 1998 by public administration expert Donald Savoie, at the request of the Department of Canadian Heritage, Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office. This study proposed innovative solutions to allow federal departments and agencies to make a concerted contribution to the growth of Francophone communities outside Quebec. We do not know what the follow-up will be.
The Commissioner of Official Languages also produced in 1998, a study on the effects of government transformations on official languages programs in Canada, which concluded that it is time to change course, setting out five guiding principles for the protection of official languages in this context.
The Fontaine task force, established the same year by the government in response to the Commissioner's report, issued its own report and recommendations in January 1999. Furthermore, on November 16, your colleague, Senator Jean-Maurice Simard, published a constructive study on ensuring the development of official-language minority communities. All four reports suggest a depressing diagnosis. But as far as I know, if the government through the president of the Treasury Board, has accepted the conclusions of the Fontaine report, it did not hasten to adjust its course. We believe that the government will not formally respond to these reports. Will this be an implicitly meaningful silence?
This withdrawal by silence is the stumbling block to the court remedy sought by the Commissioner of Official Languages in relation to the Contraventions Act. It also raises fundamental questions about the scope and implementation of Part VII of the Act. In short, by supporting the action by the Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario (AJEFO) before the Federal Court, we would like to compel the Department of Justice to consult the official-language minority in Ontario, before concluding an agreement, in order to evaluate the impact of any amendment to the Contraventions Act on the linguistic rights of Franco-Ontarians. In other words, we would like to see to it that, in the towns and cities of Ontario, all proceedings relating to violations of federal statutes are conducted in accordance with citizens' linguistic rights.
In a similar vein, I feel compelled to emphasize the profound concern of the Franco Ontarian community, which I fully share, over the inclusion of future linguistic provisions in the labour market development agreement currently being negotiated. Ontario's Francophone community accounts for nearly half of all Francophones outside Quebec. The federal government and the government of Ontario have, in the past, worked hand-in-hand to ensure and expand French-language services in this province. So where is the problem? An official silence is a breeding ground for rumour. I would therefore invite the federal government to state that the necessary linguistic provisions will indeed be included in the agreement.
I should also like to inform you that I recently appeared before your colleagues of the Standing Committee on Transport and the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications in the context of their complementary studies on the future of the airline industry in Canada. I have also asked that the Clerk of your Committee be provided with copies of that presentation for those of you wishing to read it. Permit me, however, to summarize the nature of our concerns in this regard.
You will remember that we have for several years now reproached Air Canada for its less than enthusiastic regard for passengers' linguistic rights, especially in the area of services provided by its regional carriers, which are in fact wholly-owned Air Canada subsidiaries. We applied for a referral to the Federal Court on this matter, as well as applications regarding the ground services offered by Air Canada at Toronto's Lester B. Pearson Airport and Halifax International Airport.
As the government was undertaking a thorough review of the structure of the air transport industry, we recommended that it ensure that the Official Languages Act continue to apply in its entirety to Air Canada, regardless of its new structure or to a future dominant carrier. We would like to ensure that Air Canada's regional carriers and other subsidiaries are subject to Part IV (Communications with and Services to the Public), Part IX (Commissioner of Official Languages) and Part X (Court Remedy) of this Act. In our opinion, such provisions would simply recognize Air Canada's symbolic and real importance to our national identity. In view of the current market conditions in the air transport industry, the federal government has a unique opportunity to take historic action and accord linguistic duality its rightful place. Our objective is clear. Canadians must, in keeping with the Official Languages Act and Regulations, have access to air transport in the official language of their choice, where there is significant demand.
At the end of August this year, I released two studies on linguistic duality and the Internet, which are truly of the broad scope likely to interest the Standing Joint Committee.
The first study, The Government of Canada and French on the Internet, highlights the urgent need for the federal government to take specific action to increase French language content on the Internet. The study's twelve recommendations are intended to accelerate the development of, and improve access to, French-language content on this medium by means of translation, digitization, and free access to linguistic tools and data banks.
The second study, Use of the Internet by Federal Institutions, follows up on a study published in 1996. While some progress has been made in respecting linguistic obligations, problems persist. In particular, we note the occasional failure to disseminate information simultaneously in both official languages and the poor quality of French found on some federal department and agency sites. When these two studies were made public, we asked that the government provide answers to our recommendations by December 1, tomorrow.
Finally, in this brief review of official languages "hot topics," I must mention my Office's launch, earlier this fall, of a major study on the use of French in the world of performance sport. This study is intended to determine whether the training environments subsidized by Sport Canada (Department of Canadian Heritage), and in particular publicly funded national sport centres, allow athletes to pursue their goals in the official language of their choice. Work is proceeding well and we hope to present our results and recommendations early next summer.
BUDGET
With regard to the budget, the amount of $446,000 listed in the 1999-2000 Supplementary Estimates "A" for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages is carried forward from the 1998-1999 fiscal year.
For a few years now, departments have been allowed to carry forward, as required, any parliamentary votes (authorized spending) in excess of actual expenditures during the fiscal period in question. This amount is, however, limited to 5% of the Department's operating budget for the fiscal period.
ANNUAL REPORT
In conclusion, I would like to mention that I recently wrote to the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons and to the Co-Chairs of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages to inform them that our annual report will, from now on, cover the fiscal year rather than the calendar year. This is in keeping with the practice of most other federal departments and agencies.
We are also considering major changes to the presentation and content of this report to make it a more concise tool, that better meets the needs of Parliamentarians and other readers. In particular, we seek not only to avoid overlap between the Commissioner's report and those of the Treasury Board President and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, but also to provide more relevant information about our key activities and our mandate. We are making progress on this new presentation and hope, at the right time, to consult informally with members of the Committee on this change in direction.
CONCLUSION
The reasons why you wished to meet me are clear. It is very important that English and French, the two languages formally granted equal status in our constitution, are not only our principal means of cultural expression, but equally reflect our common heritage and a not unimportant human currency which provides a unique access to the international community. But times are changing. The vitality of our official-language minority communities is becoming increasingly fragile. They are therefore turning to the federal government, whose very policy it is to foster their growth and development. Without the active vigilance of this Committee, the transformations underway in the federal government could strengthen the two solitudes rather than create linguistic ties from sea to sea.
Thank you for your attention
