OFFICIAL LANGUAGES: 2002-2003 PERSPECTIVE
STUDY OF THE ACTION PLAN FOR OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
AND THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES, TREASURY BOARD
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CANADIAN HERITAGE
Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages
37th Parliament, 2nd Session
The Honourable Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, Chair
The Honourable Wilbert Joseph Keon, Vice-Chair
October 2003
STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
CHAIR |
|
| CHAIR: Rose-Marie Losier-Cool | Tracadie (NB) |
|
VICE-CHAIR |
|
| Wilbert Joseph Keon | Ottawa (ON) |
|
MEMBERS |
|
| Gérald A. Beaudoin | Rigaud (QC) |
| Maria Chaput | Manitoba (MB) |
| Gerald J. Comeau | Nova Scotia (NS) |
| Jean-Robert Gauthier | Ottawa-Vanier (ON) |
| Jean Lapointe | Saurel (QC) |
| Viola Léger | Acadie (NB) |
| Shirley Maheu | Rougemont (QC) |
|
CLERK |
|
|
Adam Thompson |
|
|
PARLIAMENTARY RESEARCH BRANCH OF THE LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT |
|
|
Marie-Ève Hudon, Analyst |
|
ORDER
OF REFERENCE
Extract
of the Journals of the Senate, Thursday, December 5, 2002:
The
Honourable Senator Losier-Cool moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal,
P.C.:
That
the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to study and
report from time to time upon the operation of the Official Languages Act,
and of regulations and directives made thereunder, within those institutions
subject to the Act, as well as upon the reports of the Commissioner of Official
Languages, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
The
question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Paul
C. Bélisle
Clerk of the Senate
A. UNDERSTANDING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ACTION PLAN AND OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EXPENDITURES
1. Action Plan
2. Official languages expenditures: Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and other institutions
B. INCREASING COOPERATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND KEY PLAYERS IN ORDER TO FOSTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. Provinces and Territories
2. Health
3. Immigration
4. Arts and Culture
C. IMPROVING ACCOUNTING, MONITORING AND COMMUNITY PROGRAM EVALUATION PRACTICES
1. Implementation of Part VII
2. Designated Institutions
3. Accountability Framework
4. Resources and Annual Reports
5. Program Evaluation
D. REACHING OUT TO COMMUNITIES IN ORDER TO BETTER IDENTIFY THEIR NEEDS
1. Economic Development
2. Agreements
E. FOSTERING A PROACTIVE APPOACH WITHIN INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
1. Awareness Campaign
2. Senior Federal Officials
3. Staffing and Bilingualism Bonus
4. Language Training and Development
5. Anglophone Public Servants in Quebec
6. National Capital
7. Francophones in the Northwest Territories
APPENDIX A - LIST OF WITNESSES
The
work of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages officially began
with its creation in October 2002.
One
of the mandates entrusted to our Committee is to study, and report on, the
annual reports of the three main federal bodies responsible for official
languages: the Office of the
Commissioner of Official Languages, Treasury Board and the Department of
Canadian Heritage.
Our
Committee is today submitting its fourth report to the Senate. The report reflects our meetings with the Commissioner of
Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of
Canadian Heritage during the second session of the 37th Parliament.
It also deals with the results of our meeting with the President of the
Privy Council, who appeared before our Committee to present the objectives of
the new federal Action Plan for Official Languages.
The
Action Plan, announced by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien on March 12, 2003,
constitutes a first step toward revitalizing Canada’s official languages
program. One of the great
innovations in the Action Plan is the introduction of an accountability
framework designed to enhance coordination among the various institutions
responsible for implementation of the Official Languages Act.
Our
Committee is determined to advance linguistic duality and revitalize official
languages in Canada. One of our
main objectives in the years ahead will be to ensure that institutions that are
the subject of this study will unite their efforts and strengthen their
partnerships so that linguistic duality can, in the years to come, truly be a
value that is part and parcel of the thinking of decision makers, government
officials, official language minority communities and Canadians generally.
Respectfully
submitted,
Rose-Marie
Losier-Cool
Chair
INTRODUCTION
Since
it was created almost a year ago, the Standing Senate Committee on Official
Languages has examined the activities of the main federal agencies responsible
for official languages. Under sections 44, 48 and 66 of the Official Languages Act[1],
the Department of Canadian Heritage, Treasury Board and the Office of the
Commissioner of Official Languages are required to report annually on their
achievements in the field of official languages. In accordance with its mandate, the Committee has studied the
three institutions’ annual reports, as well as the 2003-04 Estimates of the
Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
The
Committee has also studied the Action Plan for Official Languages announced by
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien on March 12, 2003.
The Action Plan, the purpose of which is to strengthen coordination
among the various institutions responsible for implementing the Official
Languages Act, calls for new funding for official languages over the next
five years. One of the major
challenges in the coming years will be to ensure that the government honours
its commitments and provides coordinated leadership to facilitate attainment
of the objectives set out in the Action Plan.
This
report addresses the primary concerns identified by the Committee in the
course of its meetings with the Commissioner of Official Languages, the
President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the
President of the Privy Council. It is divided into five sections. First, it sets out the main objectives of the Action Plan and
identifies major official languages expenditures. Second, it shows that the government has to increase
cooperation with a number of key players in order to foster the full
development of official language communities.
Third, it discusses the issues of accountability, monitoring and
evaluation in the context of programs aimed at official language communities.
Fourth, it underscores the need to consult communities on a recurring
basis in order to more clearly define and better meet their needs.
Fifth, it urges institutions responsible for official languages to take
a proactive approach in order to foster the advancement of linguistic duality
in Canada.
A. UNDERSTANDING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ACTION PLAN AND OFFICIAL LANGUAGES EXPENDITURES
The
Action Plan for Official Languages will inject more than $751 million
over five years in three key areas: education
($381.5 million), community development ($269.3 million) and the
federal Public Service ($64.6 million).
Specific measures are also included for the language industries ($20 million)
and for the introduction of a new accountability framework ($16 million).
Education
is the first key area of the Action Plan and the one in which most of the
funds are to be spent. The Department of Canadian Heritage has set two main
objectives for education in the years ahead.
First, it wants the proportion of eligible students enrolled in
French-language schools to rise to 80 per cent over the next ten years,
from the current 68 per cent. Second,
it wants to double the country’s proportion of bilingual graduates over the
next ten years, from 24 per cent to 50 per cent.
To achieve these ambitious objectives, the Department intends to
increase funding for the federal/provincial-territorial agreements that
represent the government of Canada’s main means of intervention in the
education sector. These
agreements are intended to cover the additional costs incurred in each
province and territory to provide minority-language instruction and
second-language education.
The
new spending on education will cover a number of sectors, including early
childhood, postsecondary education, school and community centres and distance
education. Support for early
childhood development in minority communities is essential in helping parents
pass on their language and put their children in the minority-language
education system at a very young age. A
study released in March 2003 showed that “[translation]
there is a growing consensus within Canada’s Francophone community that the
future of French-language schooling lies in preschool.”[2]
It is also essential to safeguard the viability of French-language
school systems over the long term, by seeking to limit loss of enrolment as
students move from elementary to secondary and from secondary to
postsecondary. The Minister of
Canadian Heritage told the Committee that “the possibility of taking
post-secondary education in French is a determining factor in whether or not
parents choose to enrol and keep their children in the minority education
system.”[3]
Moreover, as the Action Plan says, “using school buildings and
providing additional areas for community use provides the vital space in which
the community can build its identity and shape its contribution to society as
a whole”.[4]
Finally, distance education is one of the ways proposed to answer the
needs of remote communities, particularly anglophone communities outside the
Montreal region.
The
Committee acknowledges that these various means, if they are adapted to the
unique needs of each community, could help to improve minority-language
education and second-language education.
However, the Committee is concerned about the findings of a study
published by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages in 2001,
which said that “only about half the target school population (that is,
children born of parents who have French as their mother tongue according to
section 23(2)(a)) [of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms] is
enrolled in French-language schools.”[5]
One of the major problems for official language minority communities in
the area of education is thus how to make sure that parents with the right to
send their children to minority-language schools do in fact exercise that
right. Support for
minority-language schools is key to community development and is essential in
ensuring that communities continue to live in their own language.
Community development will benefit if parents are able to find the
means to keep young people in their community and encourage them to go to
school in their own language. The Minister of Canadian Heritage told the Committee that she
wants to make parents in minority communities aware and accountable by looking
“into the possibility of establishing a parents monitoring committee”[6]
that would look at the negotiation of future federal/provincial-territorial
agreements on education. A
monitoring committee would ensure greater transparency in the negotiation
process.
The
development of language minority communities is the second key area of the
Action Plan. As noted in the
Action Plan, “the
minority communities need broader access to quality public services in their
own language and equitable access to appropriate government programs that can
assist them in their development.”[7]
The new spending on community development will cover a number of
sectors, including health, justice, immigration, economic development,
strengthened partnerships with the provinces and territories, and assistance
for community life.
In
the area of health, the government wants to improve access to health services
in minority communities based on three priorities: training, recruitment and
retention of health care workers; networking; and primary health care.
In the area of justice, the government plans to improve access to
justice in both official languages through funding for projects carried out
with government or non-governmental partners; stable funding for associations
of French-speaking lawyers; the creation of a mechanism for consultation with
communities; and the development of training tools for Department of Justice
legal counsels. The Commissioner
of Official Languages spoke to the Committee about the importance of taking
the necessary measures to help all provincial and territorial governments set
up “the appropriate institutional structures to allow Canadians to access
the justice system in both official languages.”[8]
Our Committee’s third
report, which was tabled in the Senate on May 28, 2003, contains seven
recommendations on access to justice in the two
official languages.[9]
In the areas of immigration and economic development, the federal
government plans to fund pilot projects aimed at promoting immigration in
minority Francophone communities and providing the technological
infrastructure needed to deliver services in official language minority
communities. The Department of
Canadian Heritage also plans to increase its financial contribution to two
types of mechanism designed to support community development:
federal/provincial-territorial agreements on the promotion of official
languages, and Canada-community agreements.
The
federal Public Service is the third key area of the Action Plan.
Treasury Board’s role with regard to official languages has three
aspects: (1) communications with and service to the public; (2) language
of work; and (3) the participation of English-speaking and
French-speaking Canadians. To be
exemplary, the Public Service must be capable of serving Canadians in the
official language of their choice, wherever their location in the country; of
allowing its employees to work in the language of their choice in regions
designated bilingual; and of promoting the development of official language
minority communities. Initiatives
are therefore being taken to help federal institutions integrate linguistic
duality into their day-to-day practices.
Their objective will be to change ways of thinking in the Public
Service, encourage innovation, strengthen the Treasury Board Secretariat’s
expertise and capacity in monitoring institutions subject to the Official
Languages Act, and improve the language proficiency of public servants.
The government has also introduced a new accountability and
coordination framework aimed at strengthening the government’s political,
administrative and financial involvement in official languages.
Its three main aims are to raise awareness of the importance of respect
for linguistic duality in all federal institutions, strengthen consultation
mechanisms with the communities, and establish overall coordination of the
government process on official languages.
The responsibilities of the various departments as defined in the Official
Languages Act are preserved. The
President of the Privy Council is responsible for ensuring implementation and
evaluation of the Action Plan. The
Department of Justice will be given an expanded role, because it will from now
on have to review federal institutions’ initiatives, programs and policy
orientations likely to have an impact on official languages.
2. Official languages expenditures: Office of the Commissioner of Official
Languages and other institutions
The
Committee studied the 2003-04 Estimates of the Office of the
Commissioner of Official Languages and learned that new resources have been
allocated to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages for 2003-04
($3.4 million) and 2004-05 ($4 million).
These new resources will enable the Office to step up its involvement
in a whole range of issues, whether to increase its research capabilities,
consolidate its auditing of federal institutions or improve liaison with
communities, public servants and parliamentarians.
The Office also plans to raise its profile in certain regions of the
country, such as British Columbia, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, which will
allow it to be more in tune with the specific needs of those communities.
The
data on official languages expenditures within the main institutions
responsible for official languages are somewhat disparate and lacking in
uniformity. Using data provided
by the main departments and agencies covered by the Action Plan for Official
Languages, the Committee produced Table 1, which is a profile of the key
sectors/programs within which official languages expenditures are incurred.
The data are for last fiscal year (2002-03).
Table 1 also gives a breakdown by sector/program of the expenditures
projected in the Action Plan for the next five years.
Some data are currently unavailable because a few departments and
agencies (i.e., Canadian Heritage, Human Resources Development Canada,
Industry Canada, Justice Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada) first
have to finalize arrangements with Treasury Board to allocate the funds they
were given under the Action Plan. The
Department of Canadian Heritage’s financial commitments are currently being
negotiated with the provinces and territories.
Negotiations are also under way with the provinces and territories on
Department of Justice contraventions.
TABLE
1 – OFFICIAL LANGUAGES EXPENDITURES (…in thousands of dollars…)[10]
B.
INCREASING COOPERATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND KEY PLAYERS IN ORDER TO
FOSTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To
foster the development of official language communities, it is essential that
all players with a key role in official languages firmly believe in the validity
of linguistic duality and make a commitment to foster the full development of
official language communities. Federal
institutions, provincial and territorial governments, community stakeholders,
education administrators, health care administrators, the private sector, public
servants, members of the community and others are among the players that have to
be involved in making decisions related to official languages.
Coordinated action by these key players will open the door to true
equality for Canada’s two official languages.
Many
of the initiatives identified in the Action Plan for Official Languages are in
areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as education, administration of justice,
health, economic development and culture. To
ensure that the money spent in these areas serves to improve minority-language
services, it is essential that the federal government improve its cooperation
with the provincial and territorial governments.
The success of the Action Plan depends to a large extent on the
willingness of the provinces and territories to implement it.
As the Commissioner of Official Languages suggested, it is important that
the government undertake to develop “a framework for cooperation with the
provinces and territories, which are called upon to contribute significantly to
achieving the plan’s objectives.”[11]
A framework of this kind would, over the long term promote a genuine
change in perception within the various levels of government by encouraging them
to integrate linguistic duality into their everyday practices.
RECOMMENDATION
1
The
Committee recommends that the government develop a framework for cooperation
with the provinces and territories to ensure their full participation in
achieving the objectives of the Action Plan for Official Languages.
The
Committee holds the view that more cooperation in the health sector is needed if
we are to address the problem of access to health services in official language
minority communities. Support for the training of health care professionals who can
deliver services in both official languages has until now been one of the
primary means by which the federal government has dealt with the shortage of
health care services, particularly in francophone communities.
Since 1999, the Centre national de formation en santé, located in
Ottawa, has helped to facilitate access to studies in the health sciences and
medicine for some 112 students from francophone minority communities.
The aim of the Consortium francophone de formation et de recherche en
santé, an initiative funded by Health Canada that is the second phase of
the project endorsed by the Centre national de formation en santé, is to
increase the number of francophone professionals in minority communities through
expanded access to available programs and the deployment of training across the
country. But training new
professionals may not be sufficient in the short term to rectify the scarcity of
health services in French. It has
been estimated that “[translation]
the number of francophones enrolled in health-care training programs would need
to be tripled, even quadrupled, just to meet current needs among Canada’s
francophone minority populations.”[12]
There
are already professionals able to speak both official languages working in many
regions of the country. However,
members of official language communities who account for a small proportion of
the population in a given area are often reluctant to request services in their
own language. Meanwhile, health
care professionals are not always conditioned to actively offer services to the
public in French. The Committee
believes it is essential that the necessary means be taken to ensure true active
offer of health services in the minority language where the need exists.
With that goal in mind, it strongly urges the federal government to
initiate discussions with the provincial and territorial departments of health
and with administrators of health care facilities across the country in order to
identify ways of encouraging bilingual professionals to use French or identify
themselves to their patients as francophones.
To complement these incentives, the government should consider options
for providing language training to health care professionals in the regions.
In a speech he gave in May 2003, the President of the Privy Council
stated, “For
anglophone health professionals in Quebec, the funding [provided for in the
Action Plan for Official Languages] will include […] professional
and language training, especially in the regions.”[13]
This commitment to language training must target not only Anglophone
communities, but also all official language minority communities in regions
where the needs are most pressing.
RECOMMENDATION
2
The
Committee recommends that the government work jointly with the provincial and
territorial departments of health and with administrators of health care
facilities across the country in order to identify ways of encouraging active
offer of services in the minority language and provide language training in
regions where the needs are most pressing.
Special
efforts also have to be made in minority anglophone communities, which also face
specific problems in terms of access to health care.
In light of the Action Plan for Official Languages, the Committee notes
with concern that in Quebec, “There
are major inter-regional variations in real access to these services, a problem
which becomes more serious the farther away one is from the Greater Montreal
area.”[14]
In these circumstances, it is vital that the government work closely with
Quebec’s Réseau communautaire de services de santé et de services sociaux
and the province’s educational institutions to ensure that all anglophone
communities have access to health professionals able to provide services in
English.
RECOMMENDATION 3
The Committee
recommends that the government step up its cooperation with Quebec’s Réseau
communautaire de services de santé et de services sociaux and with
Quebec’s educational institutions, in order to ensure that all anglophone
communities in that province have access to health professionals able to provide
services in the language of the minority.
The
Committee believes that the government should step up its cooperation in the
area of immigration. A study
carried out for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages in 2002
found that one of the obstacles encountered by immigrants who were trained
abroad and wanted to settle in official language communities is that their
foreign credentials are not formally recognized.
For immigrants who intend to practise a regulated profession, such as
engineering or nursing, “the recognition of such credentials for the purpose
of immigration is entirely separate from their recognition by professional
associations.”[15]
Another recent study by the Office of the Commissioner of Official
Languages showed that the federal government has had trouble putting in place
effective measures to help communities recruit and integrate francophone
immigrants.[16]
One of the reasons why it is hard for francophone immigrants to integrate
into the community may be that they are unable to find a job related to their
skills. Close coordination between
the federal government, the provinces and professional associations is therefore
essential in fostering recognition of the professional credentials of people
from other French-speaking countries.
The
problems associated with the shortage of skilled workers, the recognition of
foreign credentials and the regionalization of immigration are concerns for the
current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
According to him, “it’s going to be up to communities to play a much
larger role than they do today in helping attract and retain the immigrants they
need to flourish in the future.”[17]
To act on the findings of the Commissioner of Official Languages’
studies on immigration, the Committee urges the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration to work with the provincial immigration officials and professional
associations to ensure that the official language communities benefit from the
inflow of skilled immigrants. The
recruitment of professionals from other French-speaking countries should in
particular be viewed as another solution to the accessibility problem
encountered by those communities in the health sector.
Fostering recognition of the foreign credentials of francophone
immigrants who work in health care will enable communities to attract health
care professionals who are able to communicate in French and at the same time
broaden the range of health services available in their region.
RECOMMENDATION
4
The
Committee recommends that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration work with
provincial immigration officials and professional associations to foster the
recognition of foreign credentials, in particular those of francophone health
care professionals who wish to settle in official language minority communities.
The Committee’s view is that the arts and culture sector also requires
greater cooperation between the various players concerned.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage told the Committee that she could not
speak about her department’s activities related to the promotion of official
languages without mentioning support for the artistic and cultural development
of communities in such areas as culture, broadcasting, the arts, publishing,
music and film. The role of the
Department of Canadian Heritage is to “make sections 41 and 42 of the Official
Languages Act a reality in arts and culture by fostering the dissemination
and promotion of artistic products and events of the Canadian francophonie.[18]
The Committee observed that the member organizations of the Fédération
culturelle canadienne-française (FCCF) were very disappointed when the
Action Plan for Official Languages was tabled.
They criticized the federal government’s lack of commitment to arts and
culture. The FCCF stated, “[translation]
supporting Canada’s two official languages without supporting at the same time
the cultures that bring them to life is nothing more than an attempt to keep up
appearances.”[19]
To recognize the real contribution of arts and culture to the development
of official language minority communities, it will be necessary to strengthen
the mechanisms for cooperation between the federal institutions responsible for
this area and representatives of the minority communities.
The Committee believes that linguistic duality has to be a real priority
in institutions like the Canada Council for the Arts, the National Arts Centre,
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada,
the Library and Archives of Canada, national museums and the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).
Without active support from those institutions for arts and culture in
minority communities, it is unlikely that real development of official language
minority communities will be achieved.
RECOMMENDATION
5
The
Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage intensify its
collaboration with the federal institutions responsible for arts and culture,
with a view to making linguistic duality a genuine priority within these
institutions.
Development
of the country’s official language minority communities is difficult to
envisage in isolation from support for the cultural industries, which contribute
to the communities’ economic health while offering them an opportunity to
increase their visibility on the national scene.
In a brief submitted to the President of the Privy Council in May 2002
when he was developing his Action Plan for Official languages, the Fédération
des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada underscored the
importance of cultural industries to community development:
[translation]
In the so-called “industry” sectors, such as publishing, popular music, film
and television, product marketing is an essential key to developing projects and
activities. It is also becoming an
increasingly important yardstick for measuring how well a business is doing.
[…] Much remains to be
done before representatives of French-speaking Canada are guaranteed the
opportunity to circulate their works and their products and to reach the
audiences or markets at which they are aiming.[20]
A commitment from the government to support language industries is also
essential because Canada is facing a serious shortage of workers in that sector
in the years ahead. The Action Plan
for Official Languages in fact includes expenditures to support the development
of language industries in Canada. The
Action Plan recognizes that in recent years, language industries have “brought
about the production and distribution of official documents in both languages
[…] have made it easier to access government programs and have fostered
communication between English- and French-speaking Canadians.”[21]
However, the Committee feels it is unlikely that these new expenditures
will be enough to meet the growing demand for translation, interpretation and
other language technologies (e.g., captioning).
The Committee reminds the government that cultural and language
industries can have considerable impact in terms of the economic development of
official language minority communities. As
the Minister of Canadian Heritage pointed out, investing in language and culture
has real economic benefits: “We invest in language and culture and it creates
jobs.”[22]
The federal government therefore has to look for ways of stepping up its
cooperation with the private sector in order to more actively support the
development of cultural and language industries, as those industries contribute
to the vitality of official language communities and are truly an economic asset
for Canada.
RECOMMENDATION
6
The
Committee recommends that the government take joint action with the private
sector in order to more actively support the growth of language industries in
Canada and the growth of cultural industries within official language minority
communities.
C. IMPROVING ACCOUNTING, MONITORING AND COMMUNITY PROGRAM EVALUATION PRACTICES
Mechanisms
to promote coordination among the federal institutions subject to the Official
Languages Act have existed for a number of years.
Some institutions must, for example, submit annual reports to the
Treasury Board Secretariat on their management of official languages programs. Since 1994, the federal government has also had a framework
designed to make federal agencies and departments accountable for the
development and vitality of official language minority communities.
Under the terms of this accountability framework, 29 designated
departments and agencies[23]
must submit an annual action plan to the Department of Canadian Heritage on
implementation of section 41 of the Act, and a report on the results.
As well, a memorandum of understanding was signed in 1997 between the
Department of Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board Secretariat regarding
implementation of Part VII of the Act.
In
her most recent annual report, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that the
federal government is demonstrating tangible and concerted commitment to
linguistic duality. The minister told the Committee that she works closely
“with 29 federal agencies and departments to encourage development of official
language strategic planning, reporting and evaluation of their activities.”[24]
However, federal institutions’ degree of commitment to their official
languages responsibilities varies greatly from one institution to the next.
In the past, a lack of resources was often cited to justify inadequate
follow-up on the part of institutions that did not meet their official languages
obligations.[25]
The philosophy that underlies the new Action Plan for Official Languages
presupposes stronger interdepartmental coordination among all federal
institutions. The Department of
Canadian Heritage remains responsible for implementation of Part VII of the
Act and must assume its obligations vis-à-vis the institutions designated in
the 1994 accountability framework. The
Committee considers that the Department should be provided with the human and
financial resources sufficient and necessary to ensure close follow-up with the
departments and agencies that submit action plans to it on implementation of
Part VII of the Act.
RECOMMENDATION
7
The
Committee recommends that the government allocate to the Department of Canadian
Heritage sufficient human and financial resources for it to carry out properly
its role of following up on the federal institutions designated by the 1994
accountability framework, designed to ensure implementation of Part VII of
the Official Languages Act.
The
Department of Canadian Heritage has the authority to recommend additions to the
list of institutions designated under the accountability framework adopted in
1994, taking into account the needs and priorities identified by official
language communities. For example,
following a recommendation made in the first report of the Standing House of
Commons Committee on Official Languages,[26] the Department of Canadian Heritage agreed to put the
CRTC on the list of federal institutions designated under Part VII of the Act. The Department recognized that CRTC decisions can have a
significant impact on the development of official language minority communities
and took the necessary measures to make the CRTC accountable for its official
languages obligations. When the
Commissioner of Official Languages appeared before our Committee on May 5,
2003, she supported the idea of adding the Department of Indian and Northern
Affairs to the list of designated institutions:
“This would involve having the department responsible for aboriginal
affairs embrace linguistic duality and establish a link [between it and] Indian
and aboriginal affairs.”[27]
The Committee thinks that a number of other key departments and agencies
should be added to the list of federal institutions designated under the 1994
accountability framework. It
recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage undertake a revision of the
list in consultation with representatives of the official language minority
communities, with a view to including the departments and agencies with specific
obligations for the development and vitality of minority communities.
By making these institutions more accountable for official languages, the
government would be better placed to push for real progress in linguistic
duality throughout the country.
RECOMMENDATION
8
The
Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage revise, in
consultation with representatives of the official language minority communities,
the list of institutions designated under the 1994 accountability framework,
with a view to including the departments and agencies with specific obligations
for the development and vitality of official language minority communities.
The
Action Plan for Official Languages calls for the introduction of a new
accountability framework. To facilitate implementation of this new accountability
framework, a departmental committee made up of representatives of the Privy
Council, Treasury Board, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department
of Justice will be charged with coordinating the implementation of the Action
Plan at the federal level. Representatives
of different federal departments and agencies could join this committee as its
work reaches issues directly involving their own official languages
responsibilities. The federal
government’s commitment to establish an accountability framework is essential
to federal, provincial and territorial official languages activities.
It is certainly important to make sure that the funding invested in
official languages meets communities’ real development needs. The institutions
joining the newly formed committee have to demonstrate a determination to see
that the commitments under this new administrative framework are indeed
implemented. Without greater
accountability on the part of institutions for their official languages
obligations, it is unlikely that the framework will lead to lasting change.
When
the President of the Privy Council appeared before the Committee, he said that
the accountability framework would make it possible to redefine the
government’s obligation to reflect the realities of the official language
communities in the various programs and policies it develops.
The accountability framework does not however make Part VII of the Official
Languages Act binding because, according to the President of the Privy
Council, the responsibility is not solely federal but lies with the provinces as
well. The Committee regards section 41
of the Act as being of fundamental importance for the official language
communities. The government must
make a commitment to support them while respecting provincial areas of
jurisdiction. In her annual report
for 2001-02, the Commissioner of Official Languages recommends “that the
government clarify the legal scope of the commitment set out in section 41 of
the Official Languages Act and take the necessary action to effectively
carry out its responsibilities under this provision.”[28]
The Minister of Canadian Heritage acknowledged when she appeared before
the Committee that the federal government’s commitment to the official
language minority communities could only be fully met if the communities were
guaranteed legal recourse. In her
view, “case law must decide on matters of accountability with respect to the Official
Languages Act.”[29]
When
the Action Plan for Official Languages was announced, the Commissioner made a
commitment to watch over its implementation closely.
Comprehensive evaluations of the measures in the Action Plan are planned
for the midpoint (i.e. 2005-06) and the end of the implementation period
(i.e. 2007-08). The
Committee considers, in light of the Commissioner’s remarks, that the
departmental committee in charge of coordinating the Action Plan should develop
an accountability mechanism involving precise criteria and indicators that will
enable it to accurately measure federal institutions’ performance with regard
to official languages. It is
essential that the institutions responsible for implementing the Act and the
Action Plan continue their efforts to make federal institutions account for
official languages. Modernization
of the accountability process has been one of the Auditor General’s priorities
for several years. According to
her, “effective accountability is not just reporting performance; it also
requires review, including appropriate corrective actions and consequences for
individuals.”[30]
The government must equip itself with appropriate tools for ensuring that
federal institutions have indeed bought into the objectives identified in the
plan.
RECOMMENDATION
9
The
Committee recommends that the departmental committee responsible for
coordination of the Action Plan develop an accountability mechanism involving
precise criteria and indicators that will enable it to measure accurately
federal institutions’ performance with regard to official languages.
4.
Resources and Annual Reports
In
her annual report for 2001-02, the Commissioner of Official Languages
recommended “that the federal government allocate adequate resources to ensure
that the Treasury Board Secretariat can fully exercise its role in supervising
and evaluating federal institutions.”[31]
The new funding provided for in the Action Plan for Official Languages
will enable the Treasury Board Secretariat to act as a centre of excellence for
bilingualism. It will offer
support, advice and information to federal institutions in the formulation of
their policies and in the preparation of the reports on official languages that
they are required to submit to it annually.
It intends “to develop new performance indicators as well as assessment
and self-assessment tools that the federal institutions can use to measure their
capacity to provide bilingual services.”[32]
Furthermore,
the Auditor General of Canada says that accountability should serve in
particular to “encourage improved performance of programs and policies,
through reporting on, and learning from, what works and what does not.”[33] In a
context of promoting fuller accountability government-wide, it is vital that
federal institutions incorporate the Auditor General’s suggestions into the
way they report to Parliament. The
Committee encourages the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages,
Treasury Board and the Department of Canadian Heritage in particular to describe
in their next annual reports to Parliament both the successful and the
unsuccessful aspects of their official language activities.
In its next insert on Interdepartmental Coordination, for example, the
Department of Canadian Heritage should do more than merely describing the
undertakings of each of the institutions required to prepare an action plan in
accordance with section 41 of the Act. Instead,
the Department should identify the practices, both sound and questionable, put
in place by these institutions. The
Department should also offer advice to these institutions on how to better
strengthen communities and foster their development. Parliamentarians and the general public would then be in a
better position to take an objective look at the progress achieved within the
institutions. The institutions
themselves would find it easier to improve their official languages program
management by learning which practices work and which do not.
RECOMMENDATION
10
The
Committee encourages the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages,
Treasury Board and the Department of Canadian Heritage to include in their next
annual reports both the successful and the unsuccessful aspects of their
official languages activities, to help parliamentarians and the general public
take a more objective look at the progress achieved within their institutions.
Many
agreements administered by the Department of Canadian Heritage will have to be
renegotiated in the next year. Among
them are the federal/provincial-territorial agreements on education, the
federal/provincial-territorial agreements on promotion of official languages and
the Canada-community agreements. The
Committee reiterates that if the goals that have been identified in the areas of
education and community development are to be attained, it is essential that
specific, measurable performance indicators be included in the new agreements
the Department signs with the provinces and territories.
Defining such indicators will promote fuller accountability, more
effective program evaluation, and more adequate results analysis.
At the same time it will give parliamentarians straightforward
information on performance and on the effectiveness of the programs offered by
the Department of Canadian Heritage. The
Department also has to look for ways of taking full advantage of existing tools
to ensure that the objectives are actually met.
For example, it has to acquire the means to ensure closer monitoring of
the commitments made in the action plans submitted to it under
federal/provincial-territorial agreements.
The
Department of Canadian Heritage also has to take measures to ensure that the
results of its evaluations are used to improve its official languages programs.
As stated in the Department’s annual report, evaluations of the
Official Languages in Education Program (OLEP) and Support for Official-Language
Communities Program (SOLCP) are currently under way.
The results of those evaluations should be available in the summer of
2003. They have not yet been made
public. The Committee criticizes
the Department of Canadian Heritage for its ineffectiveness in releasing the
results of the evaluation of these two programs, given that the related
federal-provincial agreements expired more than six months ago.
To ensure that the funds invested truly meet the needs of official
language minority communities and make it possible to meet the objectives
established in each province and territory, the Department should have released
the evaluation results to the provincial education ministers, school boards and
community representatives before starting the process of negotiating new
agreements. According
to the Treasury Board policy on evaluation, the Department is required to
“ensure that the government has timely, strategically focussed,
objective and evidence-based information on the performance of its policies,
programs and initiatives to produce better results for Canadians.[34]
The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage
demonstrate due diligence and improve its administrative practices surrounding
the evaluation of its official languages programs.
RECOMMENDATION
11
The
Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage improve the
administrative practices surrounding the evaluation of its official languages
programs so that it can report the results to Parliament and the players
concerned within a reasonable time frame. Whether
in the area of education or community support,
evaluation results must guide the negotiation of federal/provincial
territorial agreements from the start of the renewal process.
It
should be noted that a formative evaluation of the Interdepartmental Partnership
with the Official-Language Communities (IPOLC) is currently being conducted
within the Department of Canadian Heritage.
The aim of this five-year initiative is to encourage other departments to
support the development of minority communities by creating “sustainable links
between these communities and the participating departments and agencies.”[35]
This program is one of the Department’s main mechanisms for
implementation of Part VII of the Act.
Since the Partnership’s introduction in June 2000, it has made possible
the signing of 15 memoranda of understanding with partner institutions in
support of community development. The
results of the formative evaluation of the program will be released in the fall
of 2003. If parliamentarians are to take an objective look at
management of the IPOLC, the evaluation should indicate, through clear and
concise findings, the extent to which the program meets the objectives set for
interdepartmental coordination. The
program will end in 2004-2005. Before
any new financial commitment is made regarding the IPOLC, it is essential that
the Department of Canadian Heritage conduct a comprehensive evaluation to
measure the program results and the effectiveness of program management.
RECOMMENDATION
12
The
Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage undertake a
comprehensive evaluation of the Interdepartmental Partnership with the
Official-Language Communities before the program ends in order to ensure that it
is managed effectively and that it meets the objectives set for
interdepartmental coordination.
D.
REACHING OUT TO COMMUNITIES IN ORDER TO BETTER IDENTIFY THEIR NEEDS
Anglicization
is a problem for many francophone communities.
Because they account for too small a proportion of the local population,
some communities have trouble accessing education and other services in their
own language. Under the Treasury
Board’s Official Languages Regulations, not all communities are guaranteed
federal government services in both official languages.
In fact, the conditions set out in the Regulations are such that 96% of
the anglophone minority and 92% of the francophone are covered.
Many of the communities not entitled to services in both languages are
located in more remote areas. It is
very hard to ensure the survival of those communities because they often lack
the social and economic conditions that would allow them to live in their own
language. To ensure that the needs of official language communities,
particularly the most vulnerable communities, are met, the Committee expects
federal institutions to consult community representatives on a recurring basis
before new funds for programs aimed at those communities are even committed.
Strengthening community consultation mechanisms is one of the main
objectives of the new accountability framework proposed in the Action Plan for
Official Languages.
The
Committee is of the opinion that access to technology and participation in the
knowledge-based economy are essential for members of official language
communities, remote communities in particular. In its Action Plan for Official
Languages, the government plans to support initiatives designed to foster the
economic development of official language communities.
For example, the government will make it easier for communities to access
government programs and services delivered by Industry Canada, Human Resources
Development Canada and the various regional economic development agencies (i.e.,
Western Economic Diversification, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the
Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario (FedNor) and the
Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec).
Next, the Francommunautés virtuelles program, which “aims
to expand French-language content, applications and services on the Internet, as
well as to encourage French-speaking Canadians to make full use of information
and communications technologies”,[36]
will be enhanced.
In
that connection, during an evaluation of the Francommunautés virtuelles
program in October 2000,[37]
the regional distribution of funded projects was the subject of much debate.
To rectify the situation, the consulting firm hired by Industry Canada to
conduct the program evaluation recommended that “the
regional distribution of contributions be defined in terms of minimum and
maximum contribution amounts by region in order to ensure an optimal and
equitable distribution across Canada.”[38]
The government has to ensure that it fosters access to technology and
participation in the knowledge-based economy in all official language
communities. Before the new
economic development funds provided for in the Action Plan are spent, the
government must undertake to consult the communities, especially those are the
most vulnerable, in order to determine how the money might best meet their
needs.
RECOMMENDATION
13
The
Committee recommends that the government consult the official language
communities before spending the new economic development funds provided for in
the Action Plan in order to identify means of fostering access to technology and
participation in the knowledge-based economy in the communities that are the
most vulnerable.
As stated in the previous section, many agreements administered by the
Department of Canadian Heritage are about to expire and will have to be
renegotiated in the coming year; among them are the Canada-community agreements. When she appeared before the Committee, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage said that her Department was reviewing its funding methods in
order to bring them more in line with the reality of community organizations.
The current funding methods used in the Canada-community agreements are
often based on individual initiatives and short-term project funding.
That type of funding can be a bureaucratic burden for community
organizations, which do not always have the resources to administer the funds
they receive and manage all the related paperwork.
Multiyear funding is one of the solutions being considered by the
Department of Canadian Heritage. Multiyear
funding aims to simplify administrative processes by providing organizations
with financial resources for a specific number of years (ongoing funding) rather
than on a project-by-project basis (project-based funding). The Department of Canadian Heritage has to move in that
direction. Moreover, community
representatives have to have their say in how their funding is allocated.
Before it starts negotiating the new Canada-community agreements, the
Department, in cooperation with the communities, should review the current
funding methods and focus more on the importance of a long-term commitment to
community development.
RECOMMENDATION
14
The
Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage always consult
minority community representatives before it starts to negotiate the
Canada-community agreements in order to determine whether it should adopt
funding methods that aim for a longer-term commitment to community development.
E.
FOSTERING A PROACTIVE APPOACH WITHIN INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
The
Committee recognizes that if federal institutions are to make official languages
a real priority, there has to be a change in thinking.
Steps must be taken to foster a more proactive approach in all federal
institutions so that they are ultimately convinced of the benefits of supporting
linguistic duality in Canada. The
Committee strongly urges the institutions covered by this study, that is, the
Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Treasury Board, the
Department of Canadian Heritage and the Privy Council, to set an example and be
more proactive in their official languages activities in the next few years.
One
of the Treasury Board’s preferred strategies for fostering such a change in
thinking is to launch a Public Service-wide awareness campaign.
“One objective will be to transform public servants’ attitudes and
behaviours to create an atmosphere that is more conducive to the use of two
official languages. […]
We will encourage managers to demonstrate ongoing leadership and to work
with their employees in making bilingualism a more integral part of
workplaces.”[39] The
Commissioner of Official Languages also thinks that promotion is an important
tool for making linguistic duality a core value not only within the Public
Service but also among the population at large.
The promotion of official languages must be done on several fronts at
once, to make sure that the objectives identified in the Action Plan for
Official Languages are tackled effectively.
“There is no lack of ideas there.
So the government needs to act in a concerted way to take ongoing
concrete measures to promote official languages.”[40] It is
therefore essential that the Privy Council, the Treasury Board, the Office of
the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Department of Canadian Heritage and
the other partners undertake to develop a campaign to raise awareness among the
various players involved in official languages and the general public.
This campaign must be launched as soon as possible so that all decision
makers and key players can understand and participate in the promotion of
linguistic duality.
RECOMMENDATION
15
The
Committee urges the government to launch a national awareness campaign designed
to ensure that decision makers and key players understand and participate in the
promotion of linguistic duality.
The
Commissioner of Official Languages and the President of Treasury Board both say
that senior public servants must set an example of respect for language
requirements within the federal Public Service.
To ensure that official languages objectives are achieved, this
leadership must be shown throughout all federal institutions.
In her last annual report, the Commissioner of Official Languages
referred to the establishment of an initiative focusing on the Leadership Award,
which is presented to a manager in an institution subject to the Official
Languages Act who demonstrates outstanding leadership in promoting
linguistic duality and implementing the Act in his or her institution.
That is a good example of a proactive approach.
The
Policy Concerning the Language Requirements for Members of the Executive
Group, issued by Treasury Board in 1998, requires incumbents of EX positions
in the National Capital Region and regions designated bilingual to meet the
language requirements of their positions (i.e., a C-B-C profile)[41]
by no later than March 31, 2003. In
the fall of 2002, the President of Treasury Board reiterated her commitment to
reinforcing the Policy’s provisions and clarified the punitive action that
could be taken by the institutions concerned.
“The number of executives who did not meet the deadline dropped to 120
as of March 31.”[42]
Executives who had not been able to meet the deadline will be assigned to
new responsibilities. An action plan setting out such transition measures must be
submitted to Treasury Board by each of the institutions covered by the Policy.
It is important that the action plans reflect the seriousness with which
the institutions are taking the guidelines issued by Treasury Board.
The Board will have to show leadership if any institutions are slow in
submitting their action plans or do not identify transition measures appropriate
for their executives and consistent with the Policy’s requirements.
While
supporting the efforts deployed to implement the Policy, the Commissioner of
Official Languages nevertheless deplores the fact that it does not apply to
Deputy Ministers. According to the
Commissioner, “It is puzzling to say the least that the federal government
requires its managers to be bilingual but not its senior leaders.”[43] The
current Clerk of the Privy Council, who is responsible for executive
appointments in the Public Service, does include in the performance contracts he
signs with Deputy Ministers the strategic priority of respecting the two
official languages. Steps must be taken to ensure that all Deputy Ministers are
genuinely implementing the requirements of the Official Languages Act and
the related Treasury Board policies within their institutions.
The Clerk of the Privy Council should therefore develop performance
indicators that will enable him to evaluate precisely the degree to which the
Official Languages Program in all federal institutions is being implemented.
Senior managers would then be required to demonstrate that they are
committed to exercising greater leadership in encouraging the emergence of a
linguistically exemplary Public Service.
RECOMMENDATION
16
The
Committee recommends that the Clerk of the Privy Council take the necessary
steps to evaluate the performance of Deputy Ministers with regard to the
implementation of official languages requirements in their institutions.
3.
Staffing and Bilingualism Bonus
To
make its new approach a reality, Treasury Board intends over the course of the
coming year to undertake a review of its policies, to ensure that they convey a
clear and renewed vision of linguistic duality.
The President of Treasury Board argues that changing the attitudes also
requires strengthening the linguistic capabilities of government employees. “Phasing out nonimperative staffing from the top down”[44]
is one of the options envisaged by the Board.
This would make it possible to give preference to the recruitment of
candidates who are already bilingual when staffing bilingual positions.
As proposed by the Commissioner of Official Languages, this elimination
of nonimperative staffing could initially apply to internal recruiting for
executive positions, starting in April 2004, and for other bilingual positions
starting in April 2006. The requirements would not apply for the moment to
recruitment from the outside. Consultations
with the main stakeholders will be held over the next few months to assess
whether the Commissioner’s proposals can be acted upon.
One
of the policies that would have to be reconsidered in some depth by Treasury
Board, in the Committee’s opinion, is the one on the bilingualism bonus.
This policy has for a number of years been the subject of heated debate
within the Public Service. Since
1977, it has provided that anyone who meets the language requirements of his or
her bilingual position is eligible for an $800 bonus.
Originally, the purpose of the bonus was to reverse the predominance of
English within the Public Service. It
has never been indexed to the cost of living.
Shortcomings in the administration of the bonus have emerged over the
years, since certain public servants have managed to receive it without meeting
the language requirements of their positions.
Every Commissioner of Official Languages since 1979 has recommended
ending the program, calling for the integration of recognition of the additional
difficulties involved in working in both languages into the salary envelope
itself, rather than taking the form of a bonus.
In her last annual report, the Commissioner of Official Languages
reiterated her proposal to eliminate the bilingualism bonus and recognize
bilingualism as a basic skill. The Committee considers this a promising option and one that
is more consistent with reality. However,
the main Public Service unions have for a long time opposed the idea of doing
away with the bilingualism bonus and are even suggesting that it should be
increased. In the context of
official languages renewal within the Public Service, it is essential that the
dialogue between Treasury Board and the unions be pursued, with a view to
determining the best way of recognizing public servants’ linguistic
capabilities while respecting the main official languages objectives. Treasury Board must show leadership and take advantage of
this opportunity to review its policy on the bonus.
RECOMMENDATION
17
The
Committee recommends to Treasury Board that it review, in collaboration with the
main Public Service unions, its policy on the bilingualism bonus.
4.
Language Training
and Development
The
Committee notes that funds have been allocated to language training and
development in the Action Plan for Official Languages so that public servants
get better access to language courses early in their career, continuous training
is provided for public servants who want to improve their language proficiency
throughout their working life, to computerize teaching materials and to increase
the variety of learning methods so that they are better geared to the needs of
employees. At the present time,
federal departments have the possibility of sending their personnel on training
outside the Public Service, but most of them still opt for the language training
provided by the Public Service Commission.
In recent years, the training provided by the Public Service Commission
has apparently been characterized by accrued delays. Within this context, the
government should recognize that there are a number of teaching establishments
outside the Public Service with acknowledged expertise in language training and
development. They often use the latest teaching methods, tailored to the
needs of their various clienteles. The
government should seek to benefit from the expertise and methods used on the
outside by examining the possibility of working more closely with teaching
establishments that have recognized skills in language training and development.
Bill C-25,[45]
which is currently being studied by the Senate, endeavours to review certain
practices aimed at modernizing the Public Service of Canada. The bill calls for the creation of a Canada School of Public
Service that would be the new institution responsible for public servant
training. According to an
announcement made by the President of Treasury Board on September 16, 2003, it
is expected that “if Bill C-25 receives Royal Assent, […] the Government has
decided that language Training Canada will be transferred to the new school.”[46]
RECOMMENDATION
18
The
Committee recommends that the new Canada School of Public Service (as designated
in Bill C-25) investigate the possibility of setting up partnerships with
teaching establishments that have recognized skills in language training and
development, so that public servants learning their second language can benefit
from this outside expertise.
5.
Anglophone Public Servants in Quebec
It
has been acknowledged for a long time that the anglophone participation rate in
the federal Public Service in Quebec (about 8 per cent) is clearly too low
given the proportion of anglophones in Quebec’s population (about 13 per
cent). And yet the Official
Languages Act requires that the members of the two major linguistic
communities have equal opportunities for employment and advancement in the
Public Service. They must be
represented more or less proportionally to their demographic weight.
The Commissioner of Official Languages said to the Committee that the
Quebec Federal Council had made anglophone under-representation within the
federal administration in that province one of its priorities.
The Council has an official languages committee, which plans to make
anglophones a designated group in the same way as women, aboriginal people and
people with disabilities, in order to encourage departments to hire personnel
more representative of the population they serve.
The federal government, in particular the Treasury Board Secretariat, has
to continue in that vein and urge federal departments in Quebec to adopt
strategic plans aimed at recruiting more anglophones. The plans must make the departments more accountable by
committing them to implement this objective effectively.
RECOMMENDATION
19
The
Committee recommends that the government urge federal departments located in
Quebec to adopt strategic plans aimed at recruiting more Anglophones from Quebec[47]
in their institutions.
A more proactive
approach by federal institutions responsible for official languages must not be
restricted to the Public Service. When
the Commissioner of Official Languages appeared before the Committee, she
reminded the members how important it is in a bilingual federation to have a
bilingual national capital. Over
the past three years, the Commissioner has repeatedly approached the City of
Ottawa and the federal and provincial governments to argue that Canada’s
capital must be able to offer services in both official languages.
She has taken on the role of persuading the various stakeholders of the
relevance and value-added that bilingualism represents for the capital of a
country where the equality of two languages is officially recognized.
The Government of Ontario has still not declared the new City of Ottawa
bilingual under its provincial legislation, despite a request from City Council
to do just that. On December 16,
1999, the Senate unanimously passed a motion for Ottawa, Canada’s Capital, to
be declared officially bilingual. The
Committee urges the government to continue its approaches, in particular to the
Ontario government, in order to promote a change of attitude at Queen’s Park
and stronger leadership on linguistic duality in Canada’s capital.
RECOMMENDATION
20
The Committee
recommends that the government pursue the commitments made by the Senate on
December 16, 1999, by acting on the unanimous motion to have the City of Ottawa
declared officially bilingual.
7.
Francophones in the Northwest Territories
In
the winter of 2003, the Committee examined another issued raised in the last
annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, namely the status of
official languages in the Northwest Territories (NWT).
In the fall of 2001, a parliamentary committee began a review of the
NWT’s Official Languages Act.[48]
At the same time, representatives of NWT’s francophone community filed
suit in the NWT Supreme Court claiming that neither the territorial government
nor the federal government was meeting its obligations regarding application of
the Act. The Special Committee on
the Review of the Official Languages Act of the NWT tabled its final
report and draft amendments to the Act on March 3, 2003.
To get a better understanding of the issues at play, the Committee asked
representatives of the Department of Justice of Canada and members of the Fédération
franco-ténoise to present their view of the situation.
In his testimony before the Committee, the president of the Fédération
franco-ténoise asked:
that the Senate […] see to the creation of a special committee composed
of members of existing Senate and House of Commons Committees responsible for
official languages to examine the Official Languages Bill of the Northwest
Territories, with a view to ensuring that language and constitutional rights are
respected. We are asking that this Committee urgently examine that bill and
ensure that it does not come into force before that review has taken place. We
are also asking that this same special committee ask the Minister of Justice for
a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to clarify the situation for the
parties and define the constitutional and legal status of this mysterious
federal creation which is the Government of the Northwest Territories.[49]
While
the problems encountered by the francophone community in the NWT are of great
concern, the Committee holds the view that creating a special joint committee is
not the best way of meeting the community’s needs.
On June 13, 2003, the NWT Legislative Assembly decided not to proceed
with the study of the bill proposed by the Special Committee because it felt
that more extensive changes were needed in the way the Act is applied.
A new bill to be drafted and submitted to the NWT legislature in the fall
of 2003 will take into account more of the recommendations made in the Special
Committee’s final report. The
bill should, for example, provide for the appointment of a minister responsible
for implementation of the Act and application of the Act to all NWT government
departments, offices and agencies. It
is essential that the federal government, in particular the Department of
Justice, undertake to review the newly proposed bill to ensure that it meets the
needs of the NWT’s official language communities, the francophone community in
particular. The federal government
has a duty under section 43 of the Northwest Territories Act[50]
to ensure that the proposed amendments do not weaken the rights of francophone
communities in the NWT. In addition
to appointing a minister responsible for official languages, the NWT government
would ideally take measures to ensure active offer of services in French
throughout its jurisdiction in order to meet the real needs of those
communities.
RECOMMENDATION
21
The
Committee asks the Department of Justice to review the new bill amending the Official
Languages Act of the Northwest Territories that is to be tabled in the fall
of 2003 to ensure that it complies with and respects the rights of the NWT’s
francophone community.
Based
on its meetings, the Committee finds that the Office of the Commissioner of
Official Languages, the Treasury Board, the Department of Canadian Heritage and
the Privy Council appear to have made a commitment over the past year to
revitalize Canada’s official languages program.
The Committee urges those institutions to take the necessary measures to
implement the federal government’s commitment set out in the Action Plan for
Official Languages. All federal institutions must follow their lead and
coordinate their efforts so that linguistic duality can, in the years to come,
truly be a value that is part and parcel of the thinking of decision makers,
government officials, official language minority communities and Canadians
generally.
Over
the past year, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages has itself
committed to making the advancement of official languages one of its priorities.
The Committee has already undertaken the study of a number of key issues
involving health, justice and the commitments of federal institutions to
official language minority communities. The
Committee wishes to recall that these institutions remain, in the end,
accountable and responsible for their actions to Parliament and the Canadian
people.
In
the months and years ahead, the Committee’s work will thus be greatly
influenced by the federal government’s new commitment to implement the
initiatives announced in the Action Plan for Official Languages.
The Committee will be monitoring the activities of the players who are
called upon to perform key roles in the area of official languages, in order to
promote real progress in linguistic duality throughout the country.
RECOMMENDATION 1
The Committee recommends that the government develop a framework for cooperation with the provinces and territories to ensure their full participation in achieving the objectives of the Action Plan for Official Languages.
RECOMMENDATION 2
The Committee recommends that the government work jointly with the provincial and territorial departments of health and with administrators of health care facilities across the country in order to identify ways of encouraging active offer of services in the minority language and provide language training in regions where the needs are most pressing.
RECOMMENDATION 3
The Committee recommends that the government step up its cooperation with Quebec's Réseau communautaire de services de santé et de services sociaux and with Quebec's educational institutions, in order to ensure that all anglophone communities in that province have access to health professionals able to provide services in the language of the minority.
RECOMMENDATION 4
The Committee recommends that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration work with provincial immigration officials and professional associations to foster the recognition of foreign credentials, in particular those of francophone health care professionals who wish to settle in official language minority communities.
RECOMMENDATION 5
The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage intensify its collaboration with the federal institutions responsible for arts and culture, with a view to making linguistic duality a genuine priority within these institutions.
RECOMMENDATION 6
The Committee recommends that the government work jointly with the private sector in order to more actively support the growth of language industries in Canada and the growth of cultural industries within official language minority communities.
RECOMMENDATION 7
The Committee recommends that the government allocate to the Department of Canadian Heritage sufficient human and financial resources for it to carry out properly its role of following up on the federal institutions designated by the 1994 accountability framework, designed to ensure implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
RECOMMENDATION 8
The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage revise, in consultation with representatives of the official language minority communities, the list of institutions designated under the 1994 accountability framework, with a view to including the departments and agencies with specific obligations for the development and vitality of official language minority communities.
RECOMMENDATION 9
The Committee recommends that the departmental committee responsible for coordination of the Action Plan develop an accountability mechanism involving precise criteria and indicators that will enable it to measure accurately federal institutions' performance with regard to official languages.
RECOMMENDATION 10
The Committee encourages the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Treasury Board and the Department of Canadian Heritage to include in their next annual reports both the successful and the unsuccessful aspects of their official languages activities, to help parliamentarians and the general public take a more objective look at the progress achieved within their institutions.
RECOMMENDATION 11
The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage improve the administrative practices surrounding the evaluation of its official languages programs so that it can report the results to Parliament and the players concerned within a reasonable time frame. Whether in the area of education or community support, evaluation results must guide the negotiation of federal/provincial territorial agreements from the start of the renewal process.
RECOMMENDATION 12
The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the Interdepartmental Partnership with the Official-Language Communities before the program ends in order to ensure that it is managed effectively and that it meets the objectives set for interdepartmental coordination.
RECOMMENDATION 13
The Committee recommends that the government consult the official language communities before spending the new economic development funds provided for in the Action Plan in order to identify means of fostering access to technology and participation in the knowledge-based economy in the communities that are the most vulnerable.
RECOMMENDATION 14
The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage always consult minority community representatives before it starts to negotiate the Canada-community agreements in order to determine whether it should adopt funding methods that aim for a longer-term commitment to community development.
RECOMMENDATION 15
The Committee urges the government to launch a national awareness campaign designed to ensure that decision makers and key players understand and participate in the promotion of linguistic duality.
RECOMMENDATION 16
The Committee recommends that the Clerk of the Privy Council take the necessary steps to evaluate the performance of Deputy Ministers with regard to the implementation of official languages requirements in their institutions.
RECOMMENDATION 17
The Committee recommends to Treasury Board that it review, in collaboration with the main Public Service unions, its policy on the bilingualism bonus.
RECOMMENDATION 18
The Committee recommends that the new Canada School of Public Service (as designated in Bill C-25) investigate the possibility of setting up partnerships with teaching establishments that have recognized skills in language training and development, so that public servants learning their second language can benefit from this outside expertise.
RECOMMENDATION 19
The Committee recommends that the government urge federal departments located in Quebec to adopt strategic plans aimed at recruiting more Anglophones from Quebec in their institutions.
RECOMMENDATION 20
The Committee recommends that the government pursue the commitments made by the Senate on December 16, 1999, by acting on the unanimous motion to have the City of Ottawa declared officially bilingual.
RECOMMENDATION 21
The Committee asks the Department of Justice to review the new bill amending the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories that is to be tabled in the fall of 2003 to ensure that it complies with and respects the rights of the NWT's francophone community.
APPENDIX A - LIST OF WITNESSES
|
Organization |
Date |
|
Office
of the Commissioner of Official Languages
Ms. Dyane Adam, Commissioner
Ms. Johane Tremblay, General Legal Counsel and Director, Legal
Services Branch
Mr. Michel Robichaud, Director
General, Investigations Branch
Mr. Guy Renaud, Director General, Policy and Communications Branch
Mr. Gérard Finn, Advisor to the Commissioner
Ms. Louise Guertin, Director General, Corporate Services Branch
(only attended the May 5, 2003 meeting) |
December 2,
2002, and May 5, 2003 |
|
Treasury
Board
The Honourable Lucienne Robillard, President
Ms. Diana Monnet, Assistant Secretary, Official Languages
Mr. James Lahey, Associate Secretary |
May 5,
2003 |
|
Department
of Canadian Heritage
The Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister
Ms. Eileen Sarkar, Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship and
Heritage
Ms. Susan Peterson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs
Mr. Hilaire Lemoine, Director General, Official Languages
Support
Programs
Mr. René Bouchard, Director General, Broadcasting Policy and
Innovation |
May 26,
2003 |
|
Privy
Council Office
The Honourable Stéphane Dion, President of the Queen’s Privy
Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Robert Asselin, Policy Advisor, Official Languages
Mr. Geoffroi Montpetit, Executive Assistant
Ms. Anne Scotton, Director General, Official Languages |
March 24,
2003 |
|
CIC: |
Citizenship and Immigration Canada |
|
CMEC: |
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada |
|
CNFS : |
Centre/Consortium national de formation en santé |
|
CRTC : |
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission |
|
FCCF: |
Fédération culturelle canadienne-française |
|
FCFA: |
Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada |
|
HC: |
Health Canada |
|
HRDC: |
Human Resources Development Canada |
|
IC: |
Industry Canada |
|
IPOLC: |
Interdepartmental Partnership with the Official-Language Communities |
|
JC: |
Justice Canada |
|
OCOL: |
Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages |
|
OLA: |
Official Languages Act |
|
OLCDB: |
Official Languages Community Development Bureau |
|
OLD: |
Official Languages Directorate |
|
OLEP: |
Official Languages in Education Program |
|
OLLG: |
Official Languages Law Group |
|
OLSPB: |
Official Languages Support Programs Branch |
|
PCH: |
Canadian Heritage (Department of) |
|
PCO: |
Privy Council Office |
|
POLAJ: |
Program for the Integration of Both Official Languages in the Administration of Justice |
|
SOLCP: |
Support for Official-Language Communities Program |
|
SOLMC: |
Secretariat, Official Language Minority Communities |
|
TBS: |
Treasury Board Secretariat |
[1]
Official
Languages Act [R.S.
(1985), c. 31 (4th supp.)].
[2] Interdisciplinary Research Center on Citizenship and Minorities (CIRCEM) and Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF), La petite enfance : porte d’entrée à l’école de langue française. Une vision nationale, Ottawa, March 2003, p. 3.
[3]
The Honourable Sheila Copps, Proceedings of the Standing Senate
Committee on Official Languages, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session, May 26,
2003, Issue No. 7, p. 11.
[4]
Government of Canada, The Next Act:
New Momentum for Canada’s Linguistic Duality. Action Plan for
Official Languages, Ottawa, National Library of Canada, 2003, p.27.
[5]
Angéline Martel, Rights, Schools and Communities in Minority
Contexts, 1986-2002: Toward the
Development of French through Education, Ottawa, Office of the
Commissioner of Official Languages, 2001, p. 9.
[6]
The Honourable Sheila Copps, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee
on Official Languages, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session, May 26,
2003, Issue No. 7, p. 19.
[7]
Government of Canada, op. cit., p.31.
[8]
Dyane Adam, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Official
Languages, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session, December 2, 2002,
Issue No. 2, p. 15.
[9]
Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, Study of the report
entitled “Environmental Scan: Access
to Justice in Both Official Languages”, Third Report, Ottawa, May 28
2003.
[10]
Table 1 is not exhaustive. The
data contained in this table are drawn on letters received by the Standing
Senate Committee on Official Languages from most of the departments and
agencies covered by the Action Plan for Official Languages, in the course of
summer 2003.
[11]
Dyane Adam, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Official
Languages, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session, May 5, 2003, Issue
No. 6, p. 32.
[12] Information taken from the Internet site of the Centre national de formation en santé (http://www.cnfs.ca).
[13]
The Honourable Stéphane Dion, The
health component of the Action Plan for Official Languages: a story of
exemplary cooperation,
Speech
delivered at the Symposium on the Creation of a French-language Health
Network for Nova Scotia, Dartmouth, May 23, 2003.
[14]
Government of Canada, op. cit., p. 41.
[15]
Carsten Quell, Official
Languages and Immigration: Obstacles and Opportunities for Immigrants and
Communities,
Ottawa, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 2002, p. 50-51.
[16]
Jack Jedwab, Immigration
and the Vitality of Canada’s Official Language Communities: Policy,
Demography and Identity,
Ottawa, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 2002.
[17]
Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Notes for an Address by The
Honourable Denis Coderre, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, Montreal, PQ, May 3, 2003, http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/press/speech/canadian-bar.html.
[18]
The Honourable Sheila Copps, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee
on Official Languages, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session, Issue
No. 7, p. 13.
[19] Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, “Le plan Dion : un rendez-vous manqué”, News Release, March 14, 2003.
[20] Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Des communautés en action. Politique de développement global à l’égard des communautés francophones et acadiennes en situation minoritaire, document submitted to the President of the Privy Council, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister responsible for Official Languages, the Hon. Stéphane Dion, Ottawa, May 2002, p.21.
[21]
Government of Canada, op. cit., p. 57.
[22]
The Honourable Sheila Copps, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee
on Official Languages, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session, May 26,
2003, Issue No. 7, p. 26.
[23]
It should be noted that the Department of Canadian Heritage recently agreed
to put the CRTC on the list of federal institutions designated in the 1994
accountability framework, thus increasing the total number of designated
departments and agencies to 30.
[24]
The Honourable Sheila Copps, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee
on Official Languages, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session, May 26,
2003, Issue No. 7, pp. 14-15.
[25]
See for example: The Honourable Sheila Copps, Proceedings of the
Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, 37th Parliament, 1st
Session, Meeting No. 40, May 28, 2002.
[26]
Standing House of Commons Committee on Official Languages, Role and
Responsibilities of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission in Developments in the Area of Official Languages in Canada,
Ottawa, Public Works and Government Services Canada, February 2003.
[27]
Dyane Adam, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session, May 5, 2003, Issue No. 6, p. 44.
[28]
Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Annual Report
2001-2002, Ottawa, Minister of Public Works and Government Services,
2002, p.121 (Recommendation 3).
[29]
The Honourable Sheila Copps, Proceedings of the Standing Senate
Committee on Official Languages, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session, May 26,
2003, Issue No. 7, p. 27.
[30]
Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Report of the Auditor
General of Canada to the House of Commons. Chapter 9 – Modernizing
Accountability in the Public Sector, Ottawa, Minister of Public Works
and Government Services, 2002, p.1.
[31] Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, op. cit., p.52. (Recommendation 5).
[32]
The Honourable Lucienne Robillard, Proceedings of the Standing
Senate Committee on Official Languages, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session,
May 5, 2003, Issue No. 6, p. 10.
[33]
Office of the Auditor General of Canada, op. cit., p. 4.
[34]
Treasury Board Secretariat, Evaluation Policy, 2001 [1994], http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/dcgpubs/TBM_161/ep-pe1_e.asp.
[35]
Canadian Heritage, Official Languages, Interdepartmental Coordination,
2001-2002, Ottawa, Minister of Public Works and Government Services,
2003, p.1.
[36] Industry Canada, Francommunautés virtuelles, June 2003, http://francommunautes.ic.gc.ca/.
[37] Industry Canada, Francommunautés virtuelles Program Evaluation, October 25, 2000, http://www.ic.gc.ca/cmb/welcomeic.nsf/vRTF/AuditVerificationPDF2/$file/FrancommunauteF.pdf.
[38] Ibid.
[39]
The Honourable Lucienne Robillard, Proceedings of the Standing
Senate Committee on Official Languages, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session,
May 5, 2003, Issue No. 6, p. 8.
[40]
Dyane Adam, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session, May 5, 2003,
Issue No. 6, p. 38.
[41]
This profile means that a superior rating (C) has been obtained in
reading, an intermediate rating (B) in writing and a superior rating (C) in
oral interaction.
[42]
Treasury Board Secretariat, Update on the Linguistic Profile of Public
Service of Canada Executives, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ollo/even/index_e.asp.
[43]
Dyane Adam, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session, December 2, 2002,
Issue No. 2, p. 13.
[44]
The Honourable Lucienne Robillard, Proceedings of the Standing Senate
Committee on Official Languages, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session, May 5,
2003, Issue No. 6, p. 9.
[45]
Bill C-25, An Act to modernize employment and labour relations in the
public service and to amend the Financial Administration Act and the
Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and to make consequential
amendments to other Acts, 2nd Session, 37th Parliament.
[46]
The Honourable Lucienne Robillard, Speech before the Senate National
Finance Committee regarding the Public Service Modernization Act,
September 16, 2003, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/media/ps-dp/2003/0916a_e.asp.
[47]
“The
terms “Anglophones“
and “Francophones“
refer to employees in terms of their first official language. The first
official language is the language declared by employees as the one with
which they have a primary personal identification (that is, the official
language in which they are generally most proficient)“, Treasury Board Secretariat, Annual Report on Official Languages
2001-02, 2002, Ottawa, Treasury Board Secretariat, p. 42.
[48]
Official
Languages Act
(R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. O-1)
[49]
Fernand Denault, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Official
Languages, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session,
April 7, 2003, Issue No. 5, p. 45.
[50]
Northwest
Territories Act (R.S.C.
1985, c. N-27)
The Committee report is available in PDF format (Portable Document Format). These type of electronic documents retain the original look and feel -- complete with text, graphics, photos and colour -- of their printed versions, and can be disseminated independently of computer platform or distribution media.
Acrobat Readers are freely available and enable Windows, Macintosh, DOS and UNIX users to view, navigate through and print any PDF document.
If you need more information on how to use this format or require a reader for your platform, you may wish to visit Adobe Systems Incorporated.