|
Speech by
Lucienne Robillard,
President of the Treasury Board, and
Member of Parliament for Westmount-Ville-Marie
November 6, 2002
Dieppe
[ 2002 Speeches
]
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is a pleasure to be with you today and to have the opportunity to launch what promises to be a very
interesting and enlightening symposium on the Language of Work.
On behalf of the Treasury Board Secretariat, I would like to thank the Official Languages Committee of
the New Brunswick Federal Council for hosting this event and for their hard work in bringing us together today.
For all those who embrace the vision of our country as a nation founded on respect for linguistic,
cultural and regional diversity, the Official Languages Committee has been, and continues to be, a beacon. It has
played a lead role in implementing the Official Languages Act in the federal public service and in contributing
to the progress of linguistic equality in this country.
The Official Languages Committee was involved in organizing the Atlantic Symposium on Official
Languages, held October 2001 in Charlottetown. The participants identified a number of challenges to that vision of
linguistic duality. They included the predominance of English in communications between offices in Halifax and those in
the National Capital Region; francophones feeling they must speak English at work rather than their own language; and
documents being available in English only.
Obviously, 33 years after the introduction of the Official Languages Act, we still face barriers
to creating a public service that reflects Canada's bilingual nature. This is particularly true here in New Brunswick
where a third of the population has French as their mother tongue, and some 38 percent of federal public servants are
francophone.
Over the next two days, you will have an important role to play in promoting official languages in this
country.
Today, I hope to contribute to those efforts by presenting what I believe are the important challenges
we must deal with to be more effective in promoting official languages in the federal government.
Earlier this year, the federal government carried out a study of our employees' attitudes and
perceptions towards the use of official languages in the workplace. Indeed, many of you took the time to participate in
the survey and I thank you.
The study revealed an interesting paradox. It concluded that there was overwhelming support for the
underlying principles and values of the Official Languages Program, coupled with a misunderstanding by many employees
of their rights and obligations. It also confirmed that French is underused as a language of work in bilingual
regions.
This disconnect between the broad support for the principles of the Official Languages Program and the
misperception about its application clearly shows us that a fundamental change is needed in the way we practice and
promote official languages in federal public service.
If we are to achieve our vision of a public service that is representative of the people it serves, we
need to change our approach to official languages. And to do so we need strong leadership to support us in the
direction we need to go. And this new direction could only originate if we rethink and review our existing policies and
tools.
1. A NEW VALUES-BASED APPROACH
We have lived with the Official Languages Act for more than 30 years. We have made progress
indeed, but why have we not advanced further? Why, after three decades, are we experiencing stagnation in some
areas?
We have put too much emphasis on a rules-based approach rather than an approach based on values. It is
easy to lose sight of a right, and even easier to forget an obligation, however it is not easy to forget an ingrained
value. When you really believe in something, you remain impassioned by it, you live it everyday.
An approach that emphasized compliance with the Act and its Regulations may have been
needed in the past, but this is not an approach tailored to the 21st century. In the modern global economy,
Canadians need a modern public service-one that can serve in both official languages, is representative of our
increasingly diverse national character, and is an equitable employer of men and women alike. The government's approach
to bilingualism must evolve in a continuing effort to earn and preserve the public trust.
We should also remember that bilingualism is rooted in Canadians' deeply held beliefs in inclusiveness,
tolerance and respect for others. It is part of who we are; and the respect we show towards our colleagues, employees
and fellow citizens must be an image of that. It is part of our democratic belief that government is responsible to the
people; and that its purpose is to help raise people up, not hold them down.
How much do we in the public service really believe in linguistic duality as a fundamental value? How
can a public service dedicated to excellence sometimes be so forgetful of the excellence it represents?
Having two official languages is a big advantage for the public service and the country its serves. It
is certainly more efficient for people to work in their own language, and tapping multiple points of view clearly
enriches policy and program development.
What a loss it is then-to our public service and to Canada-when so many are held back from being their
best because they are reluctant to speak, write and work in the language they are most comfortable with.
Surely, it is the right thing to do to encourage employees to use their own language during meetings,
or ensure they have the documents and electronic tools they need to be their best.
I would like to see the creation of a public service in which speaking two official languages is not
about applying rules but about people making a choice that lifts everyone and opens doors.
As I mentioned earlier, one of the things that came out strongly in our survey of attitudes and
perceptions towards the Official Languages Program was the strength of our employees' service ethic. We need to build
on that strength. Rather than a rules-based approach, we need an approach based on respect. To serve the public has to
be a matter of respect for the public-in both official languages.
2. THE NEED FOR STRONG AND SUSTAINABLE LEADERSHIP
It was Pierre Elliot Trudeau, as prime minister, and Jean Chrétien, as justice minister, who gave this
country the Charter of Rights and Freedoms-enshrining forever in our Constitution the equality of the two official
languages.
That was 20 years ago. Much has happened since then. The last decade was taken up by other priorities.
The drive to eliminate the deficit, and get our finances in order, meant cuts across the board. Frankly-and you know
this as well as I do-our progress in the area of official languages suffered as a result.
It's time for a fresh start.
But do we have the leadership in our public administration to do it?
It is impossible to imagine a Prime minister of Canada not being bilingual. How can we imagine a deputy
minister or a manager who is not bilingual supervising employees who speak one or the other language ? The time has
come for all of us to lead by actions and not by words.
Let's live the example we want others to follow.
It is also time for public service leaders to take a look at how they are leading by example.
Managers in their supervisory role must be able to encourage and support their employees in using their
language of choice in the workplace. I am sure you would agree that it would be difficult if the manager were not
bilingual - at least in bilingual regions.
That's why the Treasury Board has established March 2003 as the cut-off date by which executives must
meet the language profiles of their positions. If managers don't meet their language profiles by this date, there will
be consequences.
I believe this is an incentive for managers to make official languages a career priority and for
government to make sure that the services are available to them to do so.
This should also be a strong incentive for our future leaders and managers. Official Languages must be
an important part of your career plan. If you hope to be a manager in the future, you should start your language
training today.
3. RETHINKING OUR POLICIES AND TOOLS
A clear, visible commitment by the leadership for a new way of doing things cannot be realized without
the necessary policies and tools. To modernize our approach we need to modernize our practices and be accountable for
them. Currently, within the Treasury Board Secretariat, we are conducting a review of policies including official
languages. This presents us with an ideal opportunity to ask some important questions. Perhaps even to question some
practices that are seen as fundamental.
For example, let us look at the issue of "bilingual imperative" and "bilingual non-imperative"
staffing. Why should we continue to staff on a bilingual non-imperative basis? After all, we already have a critical
mass of people in the public service who are bilingual.
Did you know that last year 97 percent of the people hired for bilingual positions were in compliance
with the language profiles for their jobs? Furthermore, one quarter of young Canadians entering the workforce today are
bilingual. These figures make me question the need to keep bilingual non-imperative positions.
Of course we must recognize that one of the dilemmas with non-imperative vs imperative staffing is that
there are two contradictory principles here. On the one hand, we want bilingual positions to be filled by bilingual
people right from the start. It seems logical. On the other hand, we want to be fair and ensure that no one is excluded
from applying for a public service job.
Clearly, past practices are not working. It is indeed time we took a new approach. I am not proposing
anything drastic. What I am proposing is an approach, that is workable and that will ultimately be in the best interest
of Canadians and the Public Service.
We have already imperative staffing for assistant deputy ministers. I propose that we proceed
progressively, a level at a time, from the top down. At the same time, we would have to fully integrate language
training into career planning for individuals and into our corporate learning agenda. These few changes will eventually
lead us to achieving our goal of filling bilingual positions with bilingual people.
Taken a step further, why not ask for all managers to possess a level of "receptive bilingualism", at
least all managers with interface with the National capital region or bilingual regions? That is to say that they are
able to understand and receive information in either official language. I think it's an avenue worth exploring.
The time has also come to question the effectiveness of the bilingualism bonus. This bonus was
introduced in 1977 as a way to recognize the additional skills and effort required of employees who use both official
languages on the job. For some, the bonus is a symbol of the importance placed upon bilingualism; for others it has
clearly outlived its usefulness.
However, the bilingual bonus is a negotiated item and we cannot address this issue alone. It is a
matter for review with our union partner, and I have indeed asked that we look at the issue together to evaluate its
effectiveness. Can the money we spend on the bilingual bonus be used more effectively to promote official languages in
the public service? I look forward to the outcome of our discussions with the unions.
At the heart of making our public service bilingual is our language training programs.
As part of its responsibilities, the government has been investing over the years in making employees
of the Public service bilingual. The expected return on this investment is better service to the public and a workplace
conducive to the use of both official languages.
But we can all clearly get better value for this investment. Many feel that the burden of language
training is borne disproportionately by individuals, with little support from the organization. Some employees believe
that those who want it can get it, while others feel that resources are too limited and that access is consequently
denied.
The government must question its approach to language training. It is more than a question of money. It
is how we go about teaching language that is a problem. Should we start language training earlier in the careers of our
employees? Should we expect that employees will be responsible for maintaining their language skills by practicing them
day-in day-out, by speaking, reading, writing and listening in the workplace.
These are questions that needs to be addressed.
I can tell you that we are looking at all these issues, and while we can change the policies, we need
your help to change the workplace.
4. CONCLUSION
Promoting linguistic duality is everyone's responsibility. In the Speech from the Throne, the
government reaffirmed its commitment to support official language minority communities. It also promised to "enhance
the use of our two official languages in the federal public service, both in the workplace and when communicating
with Canadians". It is now time for the Government to take action.
It is our collective responsibility to ensure we have a public service that respects the linguistic
rights and obligations of its employees. Finally, it is the responsibility of each of us as individuals to exercise the
right to use the official language of our choice at work in bilingual regions.
As employees of the federal public service, you have an opportunity to inspire our private sector, our
non-governmental organizations, our academic institutions, our community associations and millions of families and
individuals across the country. The leadership you exercise here, but more importantly, in your day-to-day work within
federal institutions, in your dealings with colleagues and in your interactions with the public, filters outwards into
society as a whole.
We must do this not only for the public service but also for French-speaking Canadians, for
English-speaking Canadians, and for everyone who believes that Canada's diverse people can accomplish great things
together.
At this symposium, you will be their eloquent voices.
Thank you.
|
