Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to offer you my congratulations. This is the first time I have seen you since the election. That may seem a while ago for you, but I congratulate you all the same.
It's always a pleasure to be here before the committee.
I would also like to thank the Chairman for introducing my team, particularly since it has been renewed.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to meet with you at the beginning of the new parliamentary session, and of course to congratulate all of you on the new mandate. Your committee, along with the Senate committee, is a vital link between my office and Parliament. Your reports and interventions contribute a great deal to the advancement of Canada's language rights.
It's a particularly inspiring time for me to be here because 2009 marks the 40th anniversary of the Official Languages Act. The right to use English or French in public institutions is one of the first language rights to have been guaranteed to Canadians, and as such I thought this was an ideal place to undertake a balanced assessment of the official language successes, challenges, and opportunities in Canada 40 years after the act was adopted.
Significant advancements have been made in terms of official languages. They include the work accomplished by the language groups themselves, particularly within official language communities, Quebec's French-speaking population and the French-as-a-second-language movement. Other advancements are the direct result of the actions taken by parliamentarians. Lastly, court rulings have brought about changes, particularly those made by the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, the Supreme Court just handed down a very important ruling in the CALDECH case—or Desrochers, to use its formal name on—for which I served as co-appellant. I am delighted with this ruling because it is a victory for official language communities. This case helped clarify the scope of federal institutions' obligations to deliver bilingual services.
More specifically, the Court found it important to clearly establish that a broad view must be adopted when looking at linguistic equality, and that the Government must consider the nature and purpose of the service in question to take into account the specific needs of the official language communities. In some cases, identical treatment is therefore not appropriate to achieve linguistic equality in service delivery.
I'd like to give a few examples of the gains made over the past 40 years: the increase in the bilingual capacity of the public service, although it is still not perfect; the remarkable vitality of official language communities, which this Committee has studied closely; and the slow but steady increase in the number of bilingual Canadians, both among anglophones and francophones. These advancements have benefited the country as a whole, contributing not only to its prosperity in a variety of ways, but also to the well-being of its citizens.
What are the most important challenges now? Full implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act remains a key priority; significant importance will be placed on implementation in the performance report cards of several federal institutions that will be published with my annual report in May. While some federal institutions have taken positive measures to support the development of official language communities and promote linguistic duality, others are still wondering about their obligations. I took note of the work done by Canadian Heritage, which issued guidelines for the application of Part VII throughout the public service.
Federal institutions must take Part VII into account when delivering their programs, particularly in applying components of the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality, announced by the government in June 2008. Obviously, I am eagerly waiting for the government to share with the public the details of the investments announced and the initiatives to follow. In my view, the silence in the recent budget on this topic was a missed opportunity. If the government truly believes that linguistic equality is a Canadian value, it must be reflected in its actions. If commitments are not clearly established or if there are delays in implementing them, setbacks are often the result. This is why the current delay concerns me. For departments and their community partners, the new fiscal year starts in 34 days. I would think that this should prompt the Government to act quickly.
I see that many of you have shown interest in how the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics and Paralympic Games will reflect Canada's linguistic duality. I share your interest. This global event presents a unique opportunity to show the world that linguistic duality is one of Canada's fundamental values, and to celebrate the cultural richness of its English- and French-speaking communities.
In a report I released on December 2 in Vancouver, I mentioned that the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games demonstrated some interest in bilingualism, but work remains to be done in various areas. Special consideration should be given to communications with the general public, the media, and athletes, three groups that have a key role in ensuring successful games.
My report contains 18 recommendations on such things as simultaneous interpretation, bilingual volunteer recruitment, signage, sponsor participation, the role of the games secretariat, and resources allocated to the organization's official languages unit. The report was well received by VANOC, and we are monitoring the progress.
It seems to me that translation is one aspect that poses significant problems. In fact, the budget appears totally inadequate, given the work to be done, and I'm afraid that VANOC is waiting too long to correct the situation.
In addition to this study, we've undertaken an awareness campaign among the federal institutions whose contribution is vital to the success of the games. This involves the 20 or so institutions working on, for example, security, transportation, and direct service to the public. It's important that these institutions understand that people from Canada and abroad coming to the games will expect to interact with Canadian officials in both English and French. The Canadian Olympic experience will begin as soon as visitors arrive in Canada, not simply when they arrive on the Olympic site.
We are not only targeting the Vancouver airport facilities, but also the facilities in Toronto. Lester B. Pearson International Airport will act as the gateway to nearly half of the travellers from abroad who will be going to Vancouver. We have been in regular contact with the airport's administrators for the past several months and I recognize the immensity of the challenge in providing bilingual services during an exceptionally busy period.
Air Canada will have to take up a similar challenge. The airline's performance will be evaluated as part of its performance report card in my annual report, as will the performance of some major Canadian airports.
I am taking this opportunity to remind you that the government promised to introduce a bill during the 38th session of Parliament to maintain the language rights of the travelling public and Air Canada employees. Three bills to this effect have been introduced since Air Canada was restructured in 2004, including two from the current government, but all of them died on the order paper. The situation is critical because Air Canada's corporate structure is constantly changing, and the passage of time may make it impossible for the government to fulfil its commitment. I am therefore asking the government to introduce a new bill to fill this legislative gap as soon as possible.
Over the next few months, I will also be paying attention to changes in the federal government. We are currently witnessing the gradual departure of one generation of public servants and the arrival of another. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that public service renewal is an excellent opportunity to enhance the bilingual capacity of public servants and improve service to the public. However, if recruitment and training of new employees is carried out without taking bilingualism needs fully into account, the situation could become a source of concern.
A major change has just been made to official languages governance. Some of the duties of the Canada Public Service Agency will now be assumed by the Treasury Board. We still do not know what place official language issues will have in the future in this organization. I hope we will see changes that aim to improve the federal government's performance with regard to its language obligations as well as stronger leadership from the Treasury Board in this area.
I would now like to talk briefly about the Canadian Forces and linguistic equality, first because our discussions on this topic have always been extensive and constructive, but also to let you know that the comprehensive review of training offered by the forces is well under way. My employees have gone to several training locations over recent months. You should receive a report from me some time in the next year.
I was informed last month that the families of a number of French-speaking soldiers at the Edmonton base complained about the lack of French-language services offered by the family support centre. My regional representative has been looking into this problem for some time, and I've asked my staff to work on this with the military bases in Alberta and the franco-Albertan community. Our soldiers who are abroad for long periods should not have to wonder whether their families have access to the support services they are entitled to in their language. I believe this could have serious operational implications, and I plan to follow this issue closely.
In conclusion, I will not hide the fact that I fear that during these difficult economic times, governments will reduce investments in programs supporting the development of official language communities and language instruction. This is what happened in the mid-1990s, and the setbacks caused by that decision have barely been overcome to this day.
In a context of global trade, linguistic duality is an important asset we need to preserve. The federal government has very important responsibilities when it comes to official languages. There have always been setbacks during periods of unsteady leadership in Ottawa. Progress, on the other hand, has resulted from strong leadership. During this time of economic uncertainty it is especially important to maintain a strong hand at the helm and not jeopardize the gains made over the past 40 years.
We are obviously ensuring that the public funds used by my office are prudently managed. For example, our new internal audit committee, which I spoke to you about during our last meeting, has already contributed significantly to the sound management of our organization. At our request, the Office of the Auditor General continues to audit our financial statements each year and has given us an unreserved opinion for the fifth year in a row. All of the managers and executives working for my office are extremely proud of this mark of excellence and we intend to continue along this path.
Our work with the various federal institutions subject to the Official Languages Act is being done with the same concern for efficiency and results. During the last few months we have established new ways of dealing with complaints from the public and of being proactive in order to prevent and address situations that could lead to complaints.
Thank you for your attention.
We'll be happy to answer questions and to hear your comments.
