Ottawa, May 11, 2004
Speaking Notes for an Appearance before the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Official Languages
Dr. Dyane Adam - Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am very pleased to appear before you again to present the results of a Canada Post Corporation audit conducted by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. This is our first audit since that function was reinstated last year. I will also provide an update on two recent studies, one pertaining to language of work and another on respect for linguistic duality by businesses occupying federal buildings in the National Capital Region.
Audit of Canada Post
As you know, audits allow me to provide Parliament with an objective evaluation of the status of the official languages in institutions subject to the Official Languages Act. They also provide institutions with an external appraisal critical to the continuous improvement of their performance.
The Canada Post audit pertained to service at postal outlets. The Corporation manages 7,000 postal service points throughout the country, about 800 of which are designated bilingual. A number of them are dealer outlets operated by third parties on behalf of Canada Post. Every year, OCOL receives complaints from clients using bilingual service counters who have difficulty obtaining services in their official language.
During this audit, OCOL officials met with Canada Post managers at various levels and audited 64 corporate and dealer outlets in six regions across the country (36 dealer outlets and 28 corporate service counters). Finally, the team reviewed policies, documentation, key reports and the procedures implemented to oversee postal outlets.
This audit yielded some positive findings. In terms of its management framework, the Corporation has an official languages policy that complies with the Act and the regulations. It communicates the policy’s requirements to staff responsible for postal outlets and to its partners operating dealer outlets. It has also implemented a number of mechanisms to monitor compliance with these requirements.
These administrative measures are, however, not always sufficient to provide service of equal quality in both official languages.
In our sample of 64 corporate and dealer outlets designated bilingual, one out of four did not offer service of equal quality in both official languages. The results varied widely among the regions visited. With regard to service provided in person, the results ranged from 100% of service points meeting language requirements in the Eastern Townships of Quebec to only 50% in Alberta. Moreover, there are significant gaps between the service offered at Canada Post outlets and that offered at dealer outlets. While one in five Canada Post outlets could not provide service of equal quality in both languages, nearly one third of dealer outlets were unable to do so. However, it is worth mentioning that in four out of six provinces audited, in person service provided by dealer outlets was either equivalent or superior to that of corporate outlets.
Canadians rely on the services offered by Canada Post and the Corporation must take the necessary measures to provide services of equal quality in both official languages.
I have therefore issued fourteen recommendations to help Canada Post better serve the Canadian public in both official languages. The Corporation must in particular review its interaction with dealer operators to ensure that they are in line with their linguistic service obligations and responsibilities. Monitoring mechanisms should be enhanced in this regard. In terms of services, the Corporation should also take the necessary measures to ensure that the public can readily locate outlets offering service in the official language of their choice.
I wish to emphasize that Canada Post was extremely cooperative. The Corporation acknowledged the shortcomings in service in both official languages and committed to addressing them.
Moreover, while this is not directly related to our audit, I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate Canada Post for deciding to maintain bilingual service at over 60 offices that would have lost their bilingual designation based on the 2001 census data.
In accordance with our audit policy, we will conduct a follow-up in 12 to 18 months to evaluate the implementation of our recommendations. Given their commitment, we expect to see clear improvements in Canada Post’s performance.
After having reinstated this audit function, we wish to conduct three more major audits in 2004–2005. In the coming years, we intend to increase this number to four, while also conducting the required follow-ups.
Study on commercial leases for federal buildings
Our second recent study, which was released on March 29th, examined the issue of language of work in federal institutions in the National Capital Region.
With more than 460,000 employees working for departments and organisations subject to the Official Languages Act, the federal government is the country’s largest bilingual employer. In regions designated bilingual, such as the national capital region, employees in bilingual positions have the right to express themselves, be supervised and have access to working tools and internal services in the official language of their choice.
It should be noted that some progress has been made with respect to language of work in the last fifteen years. French is nevertheless still underused, as shown by two recent Treasury Board studies.1 In bilingual workplaces, for instance, Anglophones speak French 14% of the time while Francophones speak English 43% of the time. The purpose of our study was to go beyond this simple, well-documented finding in order to better understand the socio-linguistic environment and the intercultural dynamics that characterize a bilingual workplace. We sought to identify the factors conducive to the full use of both official languages.
In particular, we noted a number of factors among Francophone employees that lead to the underuse of their language, such as:
- a better understanding of their second language as compared to their Anglophone co-workers;
- a tendency to favour the supervisor’s language;
- the perception that English is the language for career advancement;
- a lack of availability of working tools in French.
The result is a highly disturbing degree of professional assimilation.
Anglophone employees are for their part exposed to an organizational culture that leads them to use English more often that they might wish. They have in fact indicated that they lack the necessary training to become functionally bilingual and feel that this limits their advancement opportunities.
Our study also shows that the language training offered to Anglophone managers is insufficient to allow them to supervise staff in French, which in turn has a significant impact on the language used by employees. That is why one in four Francophones feels that their work must be done in English.
I have made ten recommendations to address this issue. I also proposed a framework that would highlight and fully recognize the official languages in the workplace. This framework rests on three priorities:
- clear and consistent leadership, so managers must set an example;
- strengthening of individual abilities through training and also by ensuring that the workplace allows recently trained employees to practice their language skills; and
- strengthening institutional capacity, because language training and tests must not be an end in themselves. The next step is to encourage and support the daily use of both languages. In addition, to increase senior management accountability, the actual use of the language and the adoption of concrete measures to foster a bilingual workplace must be among the criteria used for performance evaluations and in promoting senior officials.
In the next two or three years, we will also turn our attention to other bilingual regions in the country. The socio-linguistic context in Montréal may for instance differ from that of the National Capital Region or New Brunswick. Moreover, the working environment in a Crown corporation may differ considerably from that in a department. In addition, it should also be noted that over half the employees of institutions subject to the Act work for Crown corporations and privatized agencies. This therefore requires closer examination.
I would like to end my remarks by touching on a current issue that may have an impact on the linguistic rights of the travelling public. I am referring of course to the future of Air Canada. For some time now, I have been concerned about whether Air Canada would continue to comply with its linguistic obligations, in light of its restructuring. We are following these developments very closely. Canadians expect their rights to be respected and any relaxing of Air Canada’s linguistic obligations would be unacceptable. This has been the government’s position until now, and I would hope that it will be maintained. The proposal to subject Air Canada’s main competitors to the same business conditions could be interesting, as long as there is no reduction in the bilingual services provided by Air Canada. The matter of competitive equilibrium among carriers is a complex issue that the federal government will eventually need to examine. Obviously, this equilibrium must be achieved without the language rights of Canadians being infringed.
Conclusion
I am seeking your support to help me monitor and move ahead on these matters, in particular by meeting periodically with the appropriate ministers and senior officials. This would be a means for you to encourage accountability among the institutions in question.
More specifically, with regard to language of work, I invite you to meet with those in charge of the new agency to identify potential solutions relating to our linguistic objectives. The establishment of new institutions such as the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency and the School of Public Service provides an opportunity to modernize practices and make changes to programs. Consideration must be given not only to language training but also to the training of officials in the management of a bilingual workplace. On another note, it would also be helpful to analyze the models used in other countries to optimize our efforts.
Thank you again for your commitment and you can be assured of my full cooperation. I am ready to answer your questions now.
Notes
1 Treasury Board of Canada, Attitudes Towards the Use of Both Official Languages Within the Public Service of Canada and the Public, service-wide employee survey, 2002.
