Official Languages Committee on June 6th, 2006

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

I would like to know your opinion on that subject.

[Dyane Adam]

I have been on this file since I became the Commissioner for Official Languages. I believe that the problem existed even before that. We have received many complaints with respect to that. However, whenever we recommended that a department put an end to automated translation, or provide necessary human resource such as revisers in order to make sure that both the French and English are of equal quality, we encountered a lot of resistance.

On that topic, the position of my office has always been firm. Any situation in which the treatment of both French and English are not equal is simply unacceptable. If you were told the contrary, then that statement was wrong.

We were recently told that the current government was committed to making sure that only revised job offers be posted. That's exactly what we requested for several years to the previous government, in order to ensure full compliance with the law.

In fact, this comes as a sort of departure gift at the end of my mandate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Godin, your time is up.

We will now move on to Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Godin, we have figured out why automated translation is inadequate: it is run by the same person who translates fortune cookie messages!

With respect to automated translation, I believe that the problems mainly stems from the fact that there is a four hour publication deadline. If we were to decide to extend the deadline to 12 hours, in order to spread out the rush period, I believe that we would greatly resolve the problem. It would be possible to carry out without a lot of additional human resources.

Ms. Adam, I have just learned that your are leaving us. I still find it sad to see a person your age leave so early. In many cases, the person leaving takes away a wealth of knowledge and experience.

You have always sat at the end of the table, and never on this side of the table. If you were an MP, what would you have liked to do?

[Dyane Adam]

My goodness, what an open question? I could take several hours to answer.

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

We have time.

[Dyane Adam]

You are parliamentarians. If I were a member of Parliament like you, I would want every member of this committee, regardless of political affiliation, to promote the true equality of English and French. You were appointed to this committee because, one way or another, you recognize that language duality is a distinct characteristic of Canada which unites us. It is not enough to recognize this in the Canadian Constitution or in a quasi-constitutional act such as the Official Languages Act.

Implementing a law and ensuring that it is fully respected represents the greatest part of the work and is one of the greatest challenges. The commissioner is an officer of Parliament. Ultimately, the commissioner provides you with evidence. My team works to establish in which circumstances the government fully or partially respects the law, or not at all. The commissioner then shares her observations with you.

However, as parliamentarians, members of Parliament and members of this committee, you are collectively responsible to ensure that federal institutions and the federal public service are accountable. In English we would say that you must “take them to task”.

If I was a member of Parliament, I would always keep in mind the fact that we must hold decision makers, namely those who can bring about change, accountable. the commissioner is not responsible for implementation; she simply diagnoses a situation and proposes, as Mr. Godin said, potential measures.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Lauzon is keeping an eye on the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

You have three minutes left.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I never have enough time to ask questions.

You are leaving your position, but I hope that you will remain active in this field. If possible, I would like you to remain involved with this committee. I'm sure that everyone agrees with me. Until now, this committee has always worked well. That might not be the case for other committees, but on this one, we want to go forward in a definite direction.

In two minutes, can you recommend three priority subject areas?

[Dyane Adam]

I have already made certain recommendations. Thanks to Bill S-3, which was generally supported by all parties, the act was strengthened. The Official Languages Act is a monument. We thought that it was impossible to touch it, but we did so. The federal government must recognize this change and do so immediately. That was the object of the recommendations with were made to government.

You have to make sure that every federal institution and department presents a strategy as regards the promotion of language duality in Canadian society and the vitality of communities. It would also be important to know what their plans are and to force them to implement them, because they have a lot of other work to do. I can tell you that in three years, many of these organizations would not have done anything at all unless they were brought back into line. They feel you have the power to do so, as does your government. This bill has to bring about change in the daily operations of those organizations.

As far as Air Canada is concerned, we have to make sure that we move towards official language equality, and not away from it.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Adam.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Was I within my time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

You have used up your time.

Mr. Simard.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome Ms. Adam and her team.

I would also like to thank you. I am a member of Parliament and I have been a member of this committee for four years, during which I have come to know you and to greatly appreciate you. When you come from a province where you represent only 4 per cent of the population, you appreciate having someone in the commissioner's office who understands minorities. Thank you very much for all the work you have accomplished.

I would like to ask you two questions. They are very general questions and they might be difficult to answer.

First, I think that you were the person most suited for this position over the past seven years. You have established structures and a system. What do you think the next commissioner's role should be?

Circumstances change. For example, at the Caisse populaire Saint-Boniface, a person who was very well versed in finances has just ended her mandate. We are now looking for someone who will be responsible for promotion and marketing. Without wishing to put words in your mouth, I see someone who would travel throughout the country and tell Canadians that they have a right to certain services. That individual would actively undertake promotion on the ground.

In Manitoba we recently celebrate the 25th anniversary of the organization called Canadian Parents for French. What these people have achieved in Manitoba over the past 25 years is absolutely incredible. Yesterday I attended the graduation ceremony at the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface and I was astonished to see, in the college where the language has been dispensed in French only, the number of graduates with English names. I am sure that they constituted at least a third of the student population. I thought, as I often do, that perhaps we had missed the mark in terms of integrating these people and, thereby, increasing the francophone cultural presence.

[Dyane Adam]

I think you have put your finger on one element that, in my opinion, has been neglected. I'm talking about the promotion of linguistic duality within Canadian society. In fact, you'll see that one of my recommendations is to better focus on that goal, which is a part of our act. Of course, this is a recommendation to the government.

Since I've been commissioner, I've been struck by the extent to which linguistic duality seems to be a matter of greater concern for minorities. It concerns francophones outside Quebec, anglophones in Quebec, and francophones in general in Canada. We all agree that French is in the minority in this country. I personally have always worked for bilingual institutions, whether they be universities or hospitals.

If the majority does not subscribe to a value, or if they are indifferent to it, then you cannot talk about a Canadian society-wide project. You need to do more promotion and, most importantly, encourage both linguistic communities to work actively together. You need to empower both in terms of reaching that common Canadian goal.

That being said, all the necessary elements are in place to allow the next commissioner to make choices that best suit his or her personality. For my part, I'm putting the ball in your court. It is the responsibility of the political actors, in this case the elected representatives, to promote linguistic duality. No commissioner can do it as much as you can. Commissioners have neither be necessary resources nor the time. A commissioner cannot be everywhere in the country at the same time. That is why I say that it is up to our elected representatives to always speak in English or French, depending on the circumstances, in their ridings. Of course, that also applies to the government, to ministers, and so on. If, on top of that, senior officials did the same, then there would be no need to promote linguistic duality in Canada. We have the players we need.

To sum up, if I were the next commissioner, I would not be travelling from one end of the country to the other. I would do my best to convince our elected representatives, our senior officials and the government to speak in both official languages and to actively support linguistic duality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you for your answer, Ms. Adam.

Mr. Lemieux, if I've understood correctly, you will be sharing your time, that is five minutes, with Mr. Blaney.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes, thank you.

Commissioner, thank you for your presentation. You have worked very hard right from the beginning of your mandate.

At the end of your report, you recommended that the President of the Treasury Board modernize the official language regulations. Could you share your concerns with us and tell us which regulations you think have not been effective and what alternatives you would propose?

[Dyane Adam]

I could answer that question but I'll give the floor to a member of my office who is an expert in that area.

Johane, would you like to answer Mr. Lemieux?

[Johane Tremblay, General Counsel and Director, Legal Services, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Earlier on, the commissioner mentioned that the public's right to services in both official languages depends on demand. That is provided for in the act.

The regulations provide for those cases where demand is significant. There are demographic rules which depend on the size of the minority population and on the ratio of that population to the majority population.

In the annual report we showed the shortcomings of the use of these demographic rules in terms of the impact it can have on the community, be that francophone or anglophone, and the delivery of services in both languages. There are inconsistencies within some communities. For example, in Yarmouth, because of the numbers and percentage involved, the francophone community has the right to services in their language. However, the anglophone community in Sept-Îles, which is bigger but only corresponds to the threshold of 5 per cent of the population, does not have a right to services in English.

That is an example of inconsistent application of current rules. This is something that should be reviewed based on principle. If a community demonstrates a certain level of vitality, then they should have a right to services in the language of their choice. That is a concept that we are exploring. There should be criteria based on the presence of those communities and their level of vitality rather than on their numbers or the proportion of the population that they represent.

In terms of Air Canada, there are rules that determine whether certain trips are bilingual or not. That has led to confusion amongst travellers who do not know whether they have a right to be served in their own language by ground staff but not in the air, and vice versa. That is another example of inconsistencies that we have looked at.

We continue to review these issues in order to find solutions that will result in Canadians having a right to services of equal quality. Regulations do not determine how services will be offered. We feel that there should be a minimum number of rules that will guide federal institutions in order to be able to provide services of equal quality.

Earlier, the commissioner gave as an example the location and number of offices. Sometimes, in larger cities, there's only one office that is designated bilingual. In Vancouver, for example, if people have to travel from one end of the city to the other in order to obtain services in their own language, they're unlikely to do so.

Those are all aspects of service delivery that merit further review.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

You may ask one brief question.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Adam, you said that linguistic duality is a part of our Canadian identity but that it is threatened by indifference and that there is a risk of ghettorization.

How do see the government reaching young people? How do you see the future of this duality, which is a characteristic of our society? Can we intervene? When I was young, I went to Vancouver on a language exchange. What do you think of that type of program? Do you think that we can still foster that enthusiasm or are we fighting an off-field battle?

[Dyane Adam]

I think that your question is very timely. The fact that you're asking is proof of the benefits of your language exchange experience.

Young people are more bilingual today than they used to. In fact, there are twice as many bilingual individuals as there were 35 years ago. In fact, they have become more multilingual as well. But that isn't the case for all young people. I used to work in universities and therefore I was very much involved with young people. Young people do not define their identity in the same way previous generations did. We have seen in the more bilingual regions that young people often identify themselves not as francophones or anglophones, but rather as bilingual. That did not previously exist.

I think that the best way to reach young people — we mentioned this earlier when we were talking about priorities for a new commissioner or for yourselves — is probably to use new communication technology. Young people participate in blogs and the like. I think that is how we need to reach them. I don't think that it will happen by making speeches, and so on. We have a young public and we could find a better way of encouraging them to become involved. They already constitute fertile ground in terms of their openness to diversity because many of them, particularly those who come from urban centres, have grown up in multilingual and diverse circumstances.

Of course, education is a provincial not a federal, jurisdiction. However, the federal government's main challenge is to find a way, as we've done with the action plan, to assist provinces in their efforts to improve access to training in the second official language. We could offer resources, and consider recommendations, as some have recently done, to the effect that post-secondary institutions commit to preserving knowledge of English and French acquired in secondary institutions. In some areas of the country, because post-secondary institutions do not offer programs or services in French, young people lose their knowledge of that language.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you very much, Commissioner Adam and Mr. Lemieux and Mr. Blaney.

Now we will go to our second last member of the second round. Oh, I'm sorry. I was going to go to Mr. Godin, but I guess I will go to Madam Barbot.