Official Languages Committee on June 6th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

We will begin the meeting. I would like to welcome our guests, who are Ms. Dyane Adam, Mr. Renald Dussault, Ms. Louise Guertin and Ms. Johane Tremblay. I would like to welcome the members of the committee.

Ms. Adam, you now have the floor. Following that, the members of the committee will have questions for you.

[Dyane Adam, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, committee members, I am pleased to meet with you today for what is most likely my last appearance before you as Commissioner of Official Languages.

On May 9, I filed my seventh and final annual report, and I am pleased to present the highlights to you today. I have also included a copy of my four recommendations to the government. A further recommendation will have to be added concerning Air Canada and I will address that issue later on.

This new report is entitled “Official Languages in Canada: Taking on the New Challenge”. It's presented to a new government. This report sets out the courses of action for implementing the significant changes that were approved by Parliament over the last year. This is a forward-looking annual report and a call for action in governmental responsibility. It reiterates what I have been saying over the past seven years, that without ongoing leadership by the government, the official languages file cannot move forward and may even lose ground.

With the strengthening of the Official Languages Act last November, each institution must henceforth take positive measures to enhance the vitality of official language communities and promote linguistic duality. My annual report suggests courses of actions that I believe are essential to the government's firm commitment to renewal and consolidation. It also contains the second addition of the report card for federal institutions.

Apart from that, my recommendations focus mainly on four areas: horizontal governance, promoting linguistic duality, vitality of official language communities, and new regulations.

The most significant amendment made to the act in the past year requires that federal institutions establish a strategy to foster the vitality of official language minority communities. Institutions must review their policies and programs in light of the new provisions of the act to ensure that these communities receive all the benefits that majority communities do. Federal institutions will need to build relationships with the communities and consider them as partners in this move towards enhanced vitality.

The government and the communities must adopt a consistent approach to vitality based on indicators and research to arrive at better-targeted actions and achieve concrete results for the benefit of Canadian society. We will have to document the measures taken and clarify the objectives by identifying vitality indicators that are relevant and appropriate to the specific circumstances of official language communities.

The government is accountable to Canadians for both the actions that it takes and the actions that it fails to take.

I therefore recommend that the Minister of Official Languages ensure that all federal institutions, within their respective mandates, establish a strategy to foster community vitality that is based on factual data, continuing research and concrete results.

Now I will turn to the promotion of linguistic duality.

Development of official language communities and promotion of linguistic duality requires closer relationships between the federal government and civil society's stakeholders. With the strengthening of the act, each federal institution will have to embody linguistic duality as a fundamental value and promote it in light of today's Canadian society.

We must situate our official languages framework in the context of a changing Canada. Globalization, the information age, the knowledge society, and technological innovation all remind us that there are new and ever-growing forces at play. The linguistic makeup of our country is also evolving through an increase in mixed marriages between francophones and anglophones, the influence of newcomers, the demographic profile of rural and urban regions, and the increased role of the provinces and territories in community development.

Cultural diversity and linguistic duality are central values of Canadian society, and federal institutions must consider them as equally important.

I therefore recommend that the minister of official languages initiate a dialogue with the various stakeholders in Canadian society to identify the measures to take in order to fully integrate the fundamental values of linguistic duality and cultural diversity into our governance models and derive the full benefits that flow from them.

To help the government implement these new requirements, a chapter of the annual report is devoted to the issue of horizontal governance, or the mechanisms that govern the relationships between the federal government and official language communities. It proposes directions for effectively handling horizontal official languages issues.

The government must use appropriate and ongoing mechanisms to coordinate activities with communities themselves, but also with all key players, especially other governments. Such coordination mechanisms, for example in immigration, have also produced excellent results.

You know the communities I'm talking about. The government must engage in dialogue with them to learn more about them and adjust to their diverse needs.

I therefore recommend that the Minister of Official Languages ensure the effectiveness of the horizontal governance mechanisms of Canada's linguistic policy.

The second part of the report deals with ensuring the federal government's compliance with its obligations. All the investigations, studies, and audits show that the government has succeeded at implementing administrative processes and plans to meet its obligations, yet even though the means are in place, the results are not yet particularly convincing.

This year, the analysis of overall observations presented in the second edition of the federal institutions' report cards shows us that the institutions' weakest performance occurred in two areas: service to the public and language of work. It is disappointing that the results are mixed and that the institutions' overall performance is mediocre.

The federal government must take action to ensure that active offer of service and use of English and French become part of institutional culture. It needs to assume its responsibilities in order to improve the current performance of the institutions and to eliminate persistent stagnation. After more than 35 years of waiting, a serious push is necessary.

Finally, as I noted in last year's annual report, I encourage the government to seriously examine the state of its linguistic framework. The government must adopt a regulatory framework that sets out the precise methods by which federal institutions must fulfill their obligations in the areas of community development and promotion of linguistic duality. We must review our approach to the Act so that we no longer see it as a collection of separate parts (on communications with the public, language of work, promoting duality, etc.) but rather as a coherent and logical whole, that reflects society's changing realities.

Considering the amendments made to the Act over the past year and our country's socio-demographic changes over the past decade, it is clear that the current regulations are no longer relevant to the realities of Canadian society. The levelling-off witnessed with respect to the delivery of services to the public in the official language of their choice is only one example of the need to modernize the regulations. It would therefore be appropriate to create new regulations, based on a coherent and effective implementation of the act.

I therefore recommend that the President of the Treasury Board modernize the Official Languages Regulations—Communications with and Services to the Publicc to allow Canadians to receive services of equal quality in the official language of their choice; and examine the relevance of adopting new regulations that aim to specify the implementation of the obligations set out in other parts of the Official Languages Act, particularly parts V and VII.

Finally, Air Canada's situation has been a concern throughout my mandate. I would be remiss if I did not tell you about the one last request I will be making of the federal government. I has to do with Air Canada's situation. You probably remember that the latest restructuring created a regulatory vacuum concerning the language obligations of its various subsidiaries.

I therefore am asking the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to introduce a bill as soon as possible to ensure that Canadian travellers, both anglophone and francophone, retain their right to be served in their official language of choice by all Air Canada subsidiaries, and that Air Canada employees also retain their language rights.

In conclusion, linguistic duality is more firmly rooted than ever before as a fundamental value of Canadian society. However, the decisions and actions of our political and administrative leaders do not always reflect this central social value. As a consequence, the equality of English and French is by no means a given in today's society. Now more than ever, citizens expect that federal institutions will fulfill their obligations under the Official Languages Act.

The government is responsible for enforcing the country's laws, and parliamentarians must therefore demonstrate full respect for the Official Languages Act, so that we can cross the threshold into true equality.

So far, the government has been somewhat timid in its public response to my report. Since public leadership is needed for the federal government to recognize and implement the desired changes, I expect that the government will clearly state the approach it intends to take to get meaningful results.

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Merci, Madame Adam. Thank you very much.

In your conclusion, you say that linguistic duality is more firmly rooted than ever before as a fundamental value of Canadian society. And undoubtedly it's your efforts over the last number of years that have contributed greatly to that, so we thank you for it.

[Dyane Adam]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

We will begin our first round with Mr. Murphy, of the Liberal Party.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Adam, on behalf of myself as well as the Liberal Party and the people of New Brunswick, I would like to thank you for the considerable work that you have accomplished in the area of bilingualism. In Moncton, bilingualism is our way of life, so to speak. What you have achieved over these years is greatly appreciated.

I'll share your opinion, that is that the government has not been proactive as far as bilingualism is concerned. Nothing in its budget concerns bilingualism, minority francophone communities outside of Quebec nor other subjects that affect the people of my riding.

In the fifth paragraph of your presentation, you state the following:

With the strengthening of the Official Languages Act last November, each institution must henceforth take positive measures to enhance the vitality of official languages communities [...]

As a former municipal politician, I look for concrete examples. Can you describe any positive steps that have been taken by institutions to strengthen the act? You will be leaving, but we will be staying on. We must therefore ensure that each institution takes this kind of initiative.

[Dyane Adam]

I will give you concrete examples, but I think that positive steps also mean a different approach for each institution. For example, taking positive steps means adopting a proactive and systematic approach in designing, measuring and assessing the programs. The institution, when it sets out its policies and programs, must adopt the perspective of the minority and assess whether or not the impact of this measure or this initiative will give comparable results for both the minority and the majority.

Each institution must also establish permanent links and collaboration with the official language communities—what we call horizontal governance. In order to take their interests and their specificity into account, the institution must establish a permanent relationship with them. It is another way of governing.

What does that mean in practical terms for some institutions? I will give you a few examples.

Canada Post decided to open a postal outlet at the Cité francophone, a community centre in Edmonton. By choosing to open a bilingual outlet in this area, the institution has more or less contributed to promoting the growth and development of communities, because they are very visible being located in this area that gathers together services intended to the Francophone minority. In short, it creates a living space for this community and contributes to it.

Our federal institutions must review their decisions regarding the choice of location for services and the way in which the services are offered. They must take into account the location.

Here is another example of a concrete step that was taken by Industry Canada. Industry Canada modify the criteria for the community access program in order to better take into account the specific needs of minority communities as regards affordable access to the Internet. If the program criteria were applied to all Canadians, the communities, because they are fewer in number, would not necessarily have access. They would therefore be denied the benefits of the program. These are the kinds of steps we except the different institutions to take. What's more, it is up to the institutions themselves to define them.

I could give you other examples, like the single window approach for bilingual services in Manitoba, which is a federal, provincial and municipal initiative. This is another example that illustrates how the federal government can act positively to sustain vitality. In this case, the three levels of government worked together to create a one-stop window for bilingual services in that region, where the working language is French. Manitoba is not a region that is designated bilingual by the federal government for language of work purposes. It is a way of proactively supporting the community that allows for more flexibility.

Does that answer your question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Unfortunately, your time is up, Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Yes, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Ms. Brunelle has the floor.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Good morning, Ms. Adam. Congratulations on your work. It is always a pleasure to meet with you.

In your 2005-2006 report, you recommended adopting new regulations that would spell out the obligations under Part V, Language of Work, and Part VII, advancement of English and French, of the Official Language Act.

If you want to intervene through regulations on the issue of language of work, would you not be going against Quebec's Bill 101? We are expecting court cases with S-3. Is there a connection between this new recommendation and possible court decisions? In other words, will these new regulations make up for people turning to the courts? What are these new regulations?

[Dyane Adam]

The Official Languages Act allows the government to adopt regulations to guide the federal administration in the application or implementation of various provisions of the act, or to make them more specific. Until now, after 35 years of official bilingualism, the government has only adopted one single regulation which concerns one aspect of the act alone, namely the part which deals with services to the public.

I mainly made my recommendation to modernize the existing regulations, which are really outdated, all the more so because in the last 10 to 15 years, we have noticed that the quality of services has stagnated. Further, the government has changed the way it serves its citizens. Just think of Government-on-line.

Your question was about the language of work or Part VII. Again, under the act, federal institutions must respect the right of employees to work in the language of their choice. Consequently, in Quebec, anglophones have the right to work in their language in federal institutions, and francophones can do the same too, of course.

I expect there will be regulations on the language of work, because I think that the right of employees to work in the language of their choice is not really being recognized. French is still generally underrepresented within the federal government. In Quebec, the right of anglophone employees to work in their language is not respected either within federal institutions, and the same goes for Quebec francophone employees, more specifically when they communicate with Ottawa or with the headquarters of a federal organization.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Do you think that regulations will strengthen this process? Do you think that quotas or something else might be imposed? What exactly do you mean when you say “guide and make more specific”? How do you think that can be achieved?

[Dyane Adam]

If I take the example of service to the public, the regulations will say that institutions must, where numbers warrant, provide their services in both languages. More specifically, when they communicate with the Canadian public, they will have to do so in the newspapers of the majority as well as those of the minority.

The act does not address these specific situations. It's just too specific. A regulation is created to make something more specific and definite. A regulation will say that in such and such a situation, this type of action must be taken. Regulations provide more focus to what the various institutions must do, because there are thousands of public servants who work for the federal administration.

Respecting the language of work of employees remains a general objective. The regulations will define and guide the daily work of employers so that their employees' rights are respected.

I could be even more specific. Regulations are like a recipe book or a guide book which employers and employees can refer to, to better understand their rights, to better exercise them and make sure they are respected.

As far as Bill S-3 is concerned, which is what your other question dealt with, I did not really understand what you were talking about when you referred to court action results.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

It seems that you were recommending the adoption of regulations. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you said, but if regulations were adopted before any court action was taken following the adoption of Bill S-3, that might address certain problems.

[Dyane Adam]

With the adoption of Bill S-3, Part VII of the act has been strengthened and made subject to judicial control. I made recommendations to the current government and I insisted that it take rapid action in that regard, because I feel it is extremely important that these institutions take measures immediately to ensure that the new Part VII is fully upheld. If they do not act and do not change their way of doing things, we may indeed be faced with the risk of legal action, which is not at all what we intended.

The government must respect the law. It is possible that, once in awhile, legal action will have to be taken to hold the government accountable or to clarify its obligations, but legal action should never be taken to get the government to understand what it has to do. The law is clear. The government must take positive measures.

My lawyer has just told me that judgments car clarify obligations, but of course they always entail financial and human costs, as well as delays. Further, they highlight the fact that the government does not respect the rights of its citizens, nor does it uphold its own laws. So there really is a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

I am sorry, but your time is up.

We now move on to Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Adam, on behalf of all citizens, I wish to thank you for all of the years that you have served as an officer of the House of Commons, and a representative of this country's two official languages. This is important since one of our country's law states that everyone enjoys the right to be served in both official languages, especially at the federal level.

Similar legislation that applies in New Brunswick means that New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in Canada. Despite this, we still have problems, for example with the RCMP. I do not know if they will finally come to an understanding at some point, but both the RCMP and the federal government seem to be passing the buck before the courts. After so many years, it is regrettable that we are still at that point. After 400 years, respect for both languages and bilingual services provided to Canadians is still a subject of discussion. As a member of Parliament, I wish to thank you.

I know that you are at the end of your mandate. Your responsibility is not to give orders, but rather to make suggestions and to report to Parliament on results of your inquiries, with the power to go before the courts. You have assumed your role well, and once again, on behalf of both French speaking and English speaking Canadians, I wish to thank you.

Last week, we talked about translation services. I would like to hear some of your thoughts on that subject. Service Canada said that the Commissioner for Official Languages was against stopping the posting of job offers for which the translation was not done by human translators. Your opinion on this subject is important.

Service Canada intends to set up a system under which if a translation is not done or revised by a human translator, the job offer will not be made public. It is the person in charge of e translation services who made those comments, and she is an expert on the subject.

Would you agree with me that automated translation has its usefulness, but unlike a human being, a machine does not have feelings. For something to be said, it must have meaning. In automated translation, a machine does word for word translation. Madam Commissioner, to allow the situation to go on in the hopes that it will one day disappear amounts to an insult to the language and identity of both anglophones and francophones.

Service Canada told us that the same was happening with English translation. We were told that the automated English translation of a posted French job offer was terrible. I checked to see if this was the case, and indeed it was.

Given the clarity of the Official Languages Act in this regard, how can we tolerate that the government should set up a system that will one day allow humans to be replaced by machines?

The Director of the translation bureau says that this is quite impossible. I would like to hear an expert state the opposite. If it were possible, I am sure that such a system would have already been put in place. In all sincerity, I must say that I am proud that the government has taken a decision to not post any job offer unless it has been revised by a human translator. I hope that the government will maintain its decision. That is what was said at last week's committee meeting. I will monitor the issue closely to make sure that there is full compliance.

Madam Adam, the reason I ask you this question is because you mentioned that you were against that decision, namely the posting of the 13 per cent of job offers translated by machines. That goes against everything you have said since I have known you.

[Dyane Adam]

I am not saying that I am against the decision. I am not sure of what was actually said.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I will try to be clearer.

[Dyane Adam]

I will tell you what is my position.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

They told us that they wanted to put an end to the practice, and that you were against that.

[Dyane Adam]

Are you talking about automated translation?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

No. We were told that 13 per cent of the translated job offers are not checked by people. For those translations, you recommended proceeding the same way.

[Dyane Adam]

Exactly.

Perhaps it wasn't what was said...