Official Languages Committee on June 6th, 2006

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

: Ms. Adam, I'm sorry that I missed your opening remarks.

You said earlier on that it is the minorities who are concerned with language. That's easy to understand; it's because of their assimilation concern, etc. That's normal.

What has struck me, since I've become involved in this issue, is the quality of the language. It's all very well to talk about promoting a second language, but you do not focus on quality... I'm not just talking about translation. We talked about this earlier; it was horrible.

How can we reach people who speak the language?

When I hear some people speak French which is not French, it hurts. I would rather they speak to me in English if their language is not French.

You have suggested that people speak French and English. We had a Prime Minister who spoke two second languages. I don't think that that is something to strive for. I understand that it is difficult for a country that calls itself bilingual to achieve that quality of language everywhere. However, I think that when someone has the floor to speak in an official capacity in French, then it should truly be French.

I myself was very embarrassed, in an international setting, when I heard a minister read a text that was absolutely incomprehensible.

How can we make people understand that speaking a language is not just providing information. It's more than that. Whether a person is francophone or anglophone, I can conceive that someone speaks their language, while acknowledging that the context is bilingual. Obviously, this is very difficult because it involves people but there must be a way to solve this problem because not only can it be incomprehensible, but it makes a very bad impression on foreigners who are listening to us.

My other question is about linguistic duality and the juxtaposition of the linguistic duality and cultural diversity which, in my opinion, are completely different concepts and, I would go as far as saying, have nothing to do with each other. I'd like to know what you think.

In terms of official languages, I understand that we're talking about French and English. It's one thing to promote French and English when you're talking about linguistic duality. There may be other goals as well but I don't think they are necessarily consistent with the promotion of official languages as it is being increasingly practices.

What do you think?

[Dyane Adam]

Your first question was on the quality of language. When an official has to provide services to Canadians in both official languages, or in one or the other official language, I expect that service or those services to be delivered in quality French or quality English. The same goes for writing.

With regard to respecting language of work, in the federal government that responsibility is the supervisor's. The supervisor must achieve an identified level in the federal administrative system, a level C. Will that person be perfectly bilingual? No. Very few people are. Personally, I know only a few people who are.

Does linguistic duality in Canada mean that everyone speaks both official languages perfectly? No. I believe that the two languages — English and French — are spoken differently in Canada. Immigrants to Canada adopt either English or French, and master it to varying degrees. In my opinion, they should not feel self-conscious, or be ashamed about speaking one or the other of the two languages, since it is in speaking that we improve our language skills.

I am certainly not an Académie française fanatic.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

That is not what I was talking about. Nor was I talking about an immigrant or even an English-speaking immigrant, who learns French. That is all very well, it is a sign of promotion. People have to speak. All I'm saying is that when we are represented by someone who does not speak the language, there are circumstances where...

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Forgive me, Mrs. Barbot, but your time is out.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

What a shame, it was just getting to be interesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

I'm very happy with your answer to the first question, Mrs. Adam.

Mr. Godin.

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

In fact, this line is so interesting that I will continue it.

Mrs. Adam, I fully agree that we have to be careful. I do not think that the member's intent was to send the message that we need to speak a language perfectly. That would make a lot of people uncomfortable.

When I was 16, I was in the North of Ontario in a small town called White River and I was trying to learn English. I can assure you that I spoke very broken English at the time, and I don't always speak it well now. Today, however, I am a member of Parliament and I represent a significant English-speaking community in my region. I think that people know my English is not always easy to listen to, and sometimes my French can be as well. However, they accept those faults and appreciate the fact that I speak the language. When someone makes the effort to speak a second language, I truly appreciate that.

Otherwise, we could simply get rid of all the Acadians because our French is occasionally quite pitiful. Perhaps, though, we are the ones who speak good French, since we still use works like “icitte”, which comes from old French. Sentences like “Viens icitte, pis prends l'broom, pis ramasse la dust dans l'corner”, in which at least half the words are English are still current in our part of the country. That is our culture; that is who we are. This is how we have been speaking for 400 years.

I am using up time, but it is my time to ask questions and to make comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

It is indeed your time.

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

I remember when I went to work in Dubreuilville, in Northern Ontario — there were people from Quebec there, trying to make me speak French like a Quebecker. I refused because I'm Acadian and proud of it. We use English words and French words. We don't use words correctly. When I meet Quebeckers, they say they like my accent. Thank you. Please go on liking my accent!

We have to be careful about the message we sent. For example, Radio-Canada wants language skills to be perfect. If we insist on that, we will eliminate a large number of francophones. It seems to me that Radio-Canada has a duty to be present in all regions of Canada, including regions where people have lost their French to some degree. We want them to have a presence at Radio-Canada, and to have the ability to have their voices heard across Canada. Many people want Radio-Canada employees to speak impeccable French in front of the lens. Forgive me, but that is not Radio-Canada's role. Its role is to present news, broadcast from the regions and other content.

Let's come back to Air Canada. I find it difficult to understand how a plane can leave Halifax offering bilingual services, provide only unilingual services in the air, revert to being bilingual when it lands in Toronto, remain bilingual during the trip, but revert to be unilingual when landing in Regina. I find it very difficult to understand what you are trying to explain. Is the service bilingual in Halifax? Yes. Is it bilingual in Toronto? Yes. But in the air, the service remains unilingual.

What happens to flight attendants on board? Where they thrown off the plane with parachutes?

[Dyane Adam]

The table in the last annual report to which you refer clearly shows the inconsistencies we find in how the current regulations are applied. That is why we need amendments. For a passenger, a Canadian citizen who is told he has language rights when travelling with Air Canada, those rights should not exist on some flights, or in special situations. This is something that I believe must be corrected.

Earlier, we talked about the need for regulations. There have been other questions on this issue. Ms. Tremblay answered them. We could spent a long time on this. All I can say is that the commissioner's office is making efforts to help the government in the process of reviewing the regulations. Further on, when the time is right, we will have much more concrete suggestions on how to change the regulations relating to service to the public. Then it will be up to the government and to Parliament to make decisions. Unlike many other kinds of federal government regulations, official languages regulations must be passed in Canada's Parliament. Thus, if there are amendments or if there must be amendments, all of you must become involved in the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Ms. Adam.

We have a great deal of time left. If the committee agrees, we could go to a third round if you have further questions.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Do committee members all agree?

We will begin with the former chair of the Official Languages Committee, Pablo Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Adam, it is a pleasure to see you again. I also want to thank you and congratulate you for the excellent work done by you and your team, with which we have had the pleasure of working and — at least, I have — during the previous Parliament, particularly with regard to consideration of Bill S-3. I was a pleasure to work with you. You will clearly be missed by both MPs and communities.

Over the years, in the course of your work, have you dealt with any perpetual enfants terribles, meaning departments or agencies that have shown no improvements from one year to the next? In short, which departments or agencies should we be focussing on in order to try to make a difference?

[Dyane Adam]

Yes, some departments are known for their attitude. Departments may have difficulties, shortcomings, etc. But this is understandable. Departments are huge machines providing numerous services. With regard to attitude, I would mention Air Canada, which has shown a great deal of resistance. Some people will say that it is because Air Canada is a private company. But that is not the reason. It has consistently behaved in this fashion, even when it was a crown corporation, since the OCOL was created.

Airport authorities have also failed to recognize their official languages obligations. When institutions do not want to comply with the legislation, the OCOL must consider taking a more forceful approach, such as a legal remedy. We did this with VIA Rail. Air Canada is the institution that is being subject to the highest number of legal remedies, not only by the OCOL but also by complainants.

The Department of National Defence has also been difficult. Toward the end of my mandate, this department was the subject of two or three investigations. We consulted the annual reports tabled by previous commissioner and we were able to go right back to the time of the first commissioner, Mr. Keith Spicer. We noticed that we have been making almost the exact same recommendations for the past 35 years and that the same problems remain. Therefore, this department deserves very close consideration. It is a matter of representation abroad and domestically; military personnel are everywhere.

Obviously, there is also Public Works and Government Services. This department also deserves very close consideration. We had talked about a favourable outcome with regard to the Job Bank, because this file remained unresolved. So there seems to be a desire to change the situation.

The leadership should also be examined. I may sound like a broken record, but if the official languages are not supported by a very strong leadership within government in terms of policy and administration, progress will not occur. The bureaucratic process is cumbersome and it needs a kind of whip, just like the government.

The Department of Canadian Heritage is now responsible for both the delivery of official languages programs and acting as coordinator, whip, for all federal institutions including itself. How it will be able to do both jobs at once if not clear, and I have some concerns in this regard.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

What is happening with the official languages in terms of the provision of government services using new technologies such as the Internet?

[Dyane Adam]

Overall, things are going very well. I am not saying that there have not been any shortcomings. How do you say ”Guichet emplois” in English?

[Johane Tremblay]

“Job Bank”.

[Dyane Adam]

The Job Bank was a problem. The government seems to want to resolve it, but this file should be monitored. On the other hand, the Web sites are fairly compliant with the legislation. Sometimes, there are problems with the quality of the translation. This has already been discussed, but, overall, it is all right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Ms. Adam and Mr. Rodriguez. Now it is Ms. Barbot's turn.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

I want to come back to the question I had raised earlier, because I think that we got our wires crossed. I was not talking about the average citizen. I taught French for years, and I know the level of effort required. I speak at least five languages more or less fluently. But it is neither here nor there.

Canada is supposedly a bilingual country. However, I believe that the quality of French spoken by individuals who are officially representing Canada abroad should be the best. For that reason I suggest that we ensure that individuals speaking on behalf of Canada really do speak French, because many people speak French. Otherwise, let these individuals be replaced by others who will not embarrass us internationally because of the poor quality of their French. That way, people will no longer ask us if that is how we speak in Quebec.

On another hand, I want you to explain to me the difference between linguistic duality and cultural diversity.

[Dyane Adam]

First, I want to mention that we looked long and hard at representatives of the federal government abroad in terms of linguistic duality. We conducted two studies that may interest you.

One of them looks at policies of the Department of Foreign Affairs. How does this department integrate linguistic duality into its policies? We are conducting a follow-up to this study, which was published in 2004 or 2005.

We also conducted a study of the Websites of embassies and foreign missions here, in Canada, and international organizations using French and English as official languages. It was very instructive. This study might also interest you.

Linguistic duality is basically the equality or the recognition of the equal status of our two official languages. We are talking about linguistic rights that are entrenched in the Canadian Constitution or the Official Languages Act. We are also talking about values. Each bill is based on a vision, and the Constitution only translates a country's vision into legal terms.

In my opinion, the values who underline linguistic duality are the equality among citizens, respect for differences and justice.

What links these two concepts?

In Canada, cultural diversity is expressed in two languages, French and English. First, I am wearing my commissioner's hat, which truly illustrates the marriage between the two main linguistic communities. The OCOL also represents the social fabric of Canada. Each linguistic community is represented, and the fabric of each comprises numerous threads representing the different cultures.

Canada, and then Quebec, was one of the defenders of cultural diversity before UNESCO. Cultural diversity is mentioned in this declaration, but not linguistic diversity.

In my mind, what links cultural diversity and linguistic duality is that both concepts are based on the same values, meaning equality among citizens, no matter what their culture is , respect for differences, because being open to different cultures also means respecting and welcoming that difference and, of course, social justice.

Linguistic duality exists in Canada because those who built this country adopted two official languages, two cultures, two religions, two legal systems, etc. Those factors have shaped the temperament of Canadians, because they have always lived with this kind of unease and discomfort caused by the need to constantly accept differences, unlike the situation in a unitary state. This is also the reason why Canada and Canadians are recognized throughout the world as a people who, although not perfect in its treatment of immigrants, is more welcoming that most other countries in the world.

In my opinion, this is because we have matured and adopted a model based on diversity. Linguistic duality is one difference. In this sense the two make a whole, and feed-off of each other.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

I think that most people would associate cultural diversity more with Canadian multiculturalism than with the notion...

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

I do apologize for cutting you off, Ms. Barbot, but, as you know, five minutes go by in no time at all.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

It would be worth holding a forum on this subject.