Ottawa, October 26, 2004
Presentation of the 2003-04 Annual Report
Notes for an appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages
Dr. Dyane Adam – Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
Honourable Chairman,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Last week, I tabled my fifth annual report, and I am here today to share the highlights with you.
As a complement to my presentation, I have distributed copies of the 11 recommendations contained in my report.
But before getting to the heart of the matter, I would like to welcome all the members of this committee, especially those of you that are new.
I would also like to thank our two veterans, Mr. Godin and Mr. Simard, for their dedicated work in advancing the cause of linguistic duality in Canada. No doubt the Committee will ensure the continuity of the work that has already been done. Your predecessors called on several managers of various federal institutions to appear before them to give an account of how their organizations are applying the Official Languages Act. They provided a series of reports and recommendations that I endorse wholeheartedly, and which in many cases, support my own work.
Our two official languages, English and French, are the embodiment of an invaluable Canadian principle that we as Canadians are justly proud of. They are a value at the heart of our collective identity and well-being. This issue touches on nearly all policy areas: labour, health, justice, education, immigration, and many more.
My annual report examines this fundamental Canadian value and provides a year in review for official languages from the perspective of ordinary citizens – their rights and expectations.
I want to start out by mentioning that the Government of Canada’s commitment to linguistic duality in the last Speech from the Throne is very encouraging. However, we have just experienced a year of government transition that overall, slowed progress in this area and raised many questions for Canadians, including myself.
Questions raised by the spending review
The Official Languages Act turned 35 this fall, and while it has had its share of success, its full implementation remains a work in progress. The Government of Canada still cannot say, “Mission completed” and pat itself on the back. More than ever, firm and resolute leadership is required to ensure that the objectives of the Act are fully realized. This is definitely not the time to let our guard down.
This leads me to one of my main concerns. In the current context of the Government of Canada’s expenditure review, I have a disturbing feeling of déjà vu. As they say, once bitten, twice shy. You may recall that the budget cutbacks and government transformations of the 90s brought about a significant erosion of linguistic rights in this country. At the time, I called for a recovery plan, and in March 2003 the Government of Canada responded with the adoption of its Action Plan for Official Languages.
The Action Plan for Official Languages was the acknowledgement that there had been a definite setback and it represents the Government of Canada’s commitment to rectify the situation. The Action Plan has received new investments – $750 million over 5 years – in addition to what is already allocated within the federal system for official languages. The government has made a clear commitment to fully implement the Action Plan in the Speech from the Throne. Though the Action Plan is essential, we must remember that it is not a panacea. The focus on the cure should not be at the expense of the patient’s overall state of health! It is not just the funding provided in the Action Plan that is at stake, but the resources devoted to the entire Official Languages program. This government must learn from the past, and parliamentarians should continue to be vigilant, to build on a foundation that must remain solid.
This is why I have recommended that the government maintain intact the level of funding for the official languages program as a whole in the context of the current expenditure review. The linguistic and constitutional rights of Canadians are not negotiable – only progress is acceptable. This message must be clearly heard throughout the federal government.
Review of Year I of the Action Plan
My report also provides a review of the first year of the implementation of the Government of Canada’s Action Plan for Official Languages.
Let’s start by mentioning some important initiatives. This includes the adoption of new Treasury Board policies on the staffing of bilingual positions and increased access to language training for public servants. There was also the creation of the new Canada School of the Public Service, progress in the areas of health and immigration, and a firm commitment to implementing the Action Plan for Official Languages. Parliamentarians, especially the members of the two Standing Committees, played a key role in achieving this progress. Previous committees were constantly vigilant by calling on those responsible for the official languages program to report on the progress accomplished.
I encourage you to continue these efforts because as I have noted, progress has slowed down when it should be accelerated. There are delays on many levels: the piece-meal way in which funds are allocated, the few tangible achievements to date, stagnating negotiations on federal-provincial agreements on education, and an accountability framework that is still in the works. The government will need to get back on track to make up for lost time and deliver on its commitments to Canadians.
Accountability
You will notice that many of my recommendations touch on the issue of accountability. Increasingly, Canadians expect the governments that serve them to be accountable and be able to show results. This principle applies to official languages as well.
To guide the actions of all federal institutions along these lines, I recommend that the Government of Canada reinforce its management accountability framework by ensuring that official languages are front and centre when providing services to the public. What this implies is the establishment of explicit performance criteria, and above all, ensuring that results are attained and assessed.
Meeting the needs of communities
When it comes to the vitality of official language communities, the Government of Canada must take the lead in its dealings with other levels of government. The key will be to adopt an approach that is tailored to the needs of communities. Agreements on immigration are a fine example; these could be used as a model in other areas such as education, health care, and early childhood development.
Canadians recognize the advantages of bilingualism and want to give their children a chance to learn their second official language. A recent survey by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada showed that 77% of Canadians believe it is important to keep English and French as official languages. What’s more, 8 out of 10 Anglophones believe it is important for their children to learn a second language, and three-fourths of them think that language should be French. The demand is there but the investments have not kept pace.
Given that half of the Action Plan funds cover education in minority communities and second language learning, it is important that Canadian Heritage, in its negotiations with the provinces and territories, ensure that investments target these specific objectives and that governments show concrete results.
In the area of health care, recent talks have opened the door to one of the Romanow Commission’s recommendations: to adapt the Government of Canada’s agreements with the provinces and territories to the needs of official language minority communities. Given the importance of this issue for these communities, I reiterate this recommendation in my annual report.
Other recommendations also touch on the areas of air transportation, an area in which any setback to the rights of the travelling public and staff members in the context of the Air Canada reorganization must be avoided.
There is also the issue of equitable access to justice in both official languages, which is not always possible, in large part because of the shortage of bilingual judges. For this reason, I recommended that the process for appointing Superior and Federal Court judges be reviewed, to ensure that the court system has an adequate bilingual capacity. Those subject to court jurisdiction should be able to be heard and understood in the official language of their choice. Although this recommendation is addressed to the Office of the Privy Council, it can only be implemented with the cooperation of the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for appointing judges to Superior Court. As you are aware, Minister Cotler recently announced that he intends to review the process for appointing judges. He has been made aware of the problems caused by the shortage of bilingual judges, and I urge him to take this issue into account.
At the end of the day, for the government to truly promote the vitality of official language minority communities, as it has committed to do in the latest Speech from the Throne, it is essential that the federal system receive unequivocal instructions and feels compelled to act. The message must be clear: with regard to Part VII, every federal institution has a duty to take the necessary measures to enhance the vitality of official language communities and to promote English and French in Canadian society.
According to the government’s interpretation, section 41 merely states a political commitment and does not bind federal institutions in any way. Minority communities have had to take on the costs of court cases to have the mandatory, enforceable nature of this government commitment clarified. The Regroupement des maires de la Péninsule acadienne has asked the Supreme Court to hear this issue. And while legal experts discuss what legislators intended, the federal institutions are at a loss as to what is expected of them.
The ambivalence created by this lack of clarity paralyses the action of federal institutions for minority communities and undermines the trust of Canadians in a State that proclaims its commitment but refrains from action. Minority communities are entitled to a legal commitment from the government, not just a political one. Indeed, I believe that the government’s Action Plan will not be fully implemented without a clarification of the scope of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
Rather than having recourse to the courts, parliamentarians can shed light on this issue for us. In my annual report, I recommend that the scope of Part VII be clarified through legislative or regulatory measures. Furthermore, I fully support Senator Gauthier’s bill and I ask that you to give this proposed legislation the support it deserves. The passage of this bill will in my opinion help official language communities respond to many challenges, and contribute to strengthening their means to develop. This bill would also ensure that our linguistic duality is reflected to a greater extent across the country.
Conclusion
To conclude, the coming year will surely be full of challenges, but I am convinced that the government and parliamentarians will make the most of opportunities to make progress for official languages. For the government, this means transforming the commitments already contained in the Speech from the Throne into concrete, specific and measurable actions for all Canadians.
I would like to thank you again for your commitment and I assure you of my full cooperation. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
