LANG Committee Report

In the fall of 2006, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages undertook a study on the vitality of official language minority communities. This study incorporated two previous studies conducted in the fall of 2006 regarding health care and immigration. Three key objectives were identified: 1. to determine the practical effects of the Action Plan for Official Languages extending from 2003-2008; 2. to make recommendations to the Government of Canada on measures to follow up on this action plan beginning in fiscal year 2008-2009; 3. to consult and listen to the communities’ concerns in order to strengthen ties between the communities and the federal government.

As part of this study of community vitality, the Committee travelled to the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Ontario from November 6 to 10, 2006, and then to Western Canada from December 4 to 7, 2006. Other evidence was heard in Ottawa beginning in the spring of 2006. A total of 121 witnesses from 85 different organizations were heard.

This is a first since the Committee’s inception 26 years ago, as it never had the opportunity to travel and meet with Francophone and Anglophone minority communities on their own ground. This report is thus intended as a collective commitment to the vitality of official language minority communities.

The initial impetus for this study came from two events:

·        The Action Plan for Official Languages, launched in March 2003 and expiring on March 31, 2008, provided an investment of $751.3 million over five years, with half being allocated to federal-provincial-territorial agreements on education for both minority language education and second language instruction, and the remainder going to community development (early childhood initiatives, health, justice and immigration), economic development, partnership with the provinces and territories, support for community life, the public service and language industries. An Enabling Fund to support community economic measures was added to the plan in 2005, along with annual funding of $12 million for the last three years, bringing the total budget for the Action Plan to $787.3 million. The Committee considered it essential to assess the effects of this plan, in order to identify directions to help the Government of Canada begin developing a strategy for further action as of April 1, 2008.

·        The amendment of Part VII of the Official Languages Act in November 2005 makes the federal government’s commitment to fostering community vitality and promoting linguistic duality binding. The Government of Canada must now take “positive measures” to fulfill this commitment since failure to live up to it is subject to legal remedy. In the Committee’s opinion, this change to the Act means that the federal government must reassess in a significant way the nature of its commitment to official language minority communities.

The Government of Canada’s approach to official language communities has thus far consisted primarily of encouraging the provinces and territories to uphold the federal government’s constitutional and statutory responsibilities. The federal government is certainly a partner to the communities in this sense, but the provinces and territories are still free to adjust their actions according to their own priorities. Simply put, the federal government’s support for communities has been in the form of the transfer of significant amounts of funding to the provinces and territories, but the provinces and territories have, for the most part, used these funds at their discretion. When the funding was not used in a manner that was at least compatible with the priorities set by the communities themselves, the courts rather than the federal government have more often been the communities’ allies in dealing with the resistance of the provinces and territories. The Committee believes that the now binding nature of Part VII of the Official Languages Act will likely lead to significant long-term changes, because if the partnership between the federal government and the communities suffers due to the circumstances, the communities can rely on the courts to counterbalance the federal government’s tendency to favour the majorities and the provinces at the expense of smaller communities. Given the highly favourable nature of court decisions for the communities when they take legal action against the provinces, the federal government will no doubt prefer a long-term pact with the communities. Many witnesses told us that a renewed action plan reflecting the federal government’s binding commitment to the communities, and including the provincial and territorial governments, would no doubt be a significant positive measure.

These two events reinforced each other and the Committee considered it appropriate to evaluate the results of the Action Plan from the perspective of the amendments to the Official Languages Act. The two main questions the Committee considered were: “Has the Action Plan contributed to the vitality of official language minority communities?”; and “What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Action Plan for Official Languages as regards community vitality?”.

The answer to the first question is a cautious “yes.” The Action Plan’s success varies tremendously with the topic and the specific characteristics of the community. On the whole, the communities have responded very favourably to the Action Plan’s initiatives as regards health; are eagerly awaiting the results of immigration initiatives; are worried about the continuation of measures in support of early childhood development; have not yet seen the practical effects of the major investments in education; and deplore the lack of weight given to the community sector. The other elements of the Action Plan were evaluated by organizations involved in the sectors in question, such as justice or economic development, but the effects have not been as evident as in other sectors. It was noted that the Plan says nothing of the arts, culture and the media. The organization representatives we met were, on the whole, well aware of the Action Plan for Official Languages, but a number of them stated that community members know very little about it.

The answers to the second question will be examined in detail throughout this report. The 39 recommendations are intended to bolster the strengths identified in the first phase of the Action Plan and to address the greatest shortcomings.

The study will not however be limited to the Acton Plan. For the federal government’s future initiatives to have some scope, the Committee had to lend an ear to the communities. This report also provides an account of what community representatives think of the Government of Canada’s role and actions, and what they consider to be the best avenues for the future. In this regard, the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program was an important topic at the Committees’ meetings. All the organizations that addressed the topic were opposed to the program’s cancellation.

The Committee also had to summarize the current status of official language minority communities. This is where the concept of vitality comes into play. Are the communities healthy? This apparently simple question is in fact tremendously complex. We did not wish to address it from an academic perspective. This perspective is absolutely essential, but the role of a parliamentary committee is not that of a team of researchers.[1]

The Committee decided instead to work from a common-sense definition: the change in the number of households where the minority official language is used within a given geographic area.

Despite the tremendous change in family models, the family is still the main, but not sole pillar of community vitality. In other words, the vitality of official language minority communities is defined primarily by the strength of the geographical roots of families that have chosen to have their children educated in the minority official language. This choice entails a number of disadvantages, like all aspects of being part of a minority community: less variety in jobs available in one’s language, less services available, risk of social isolation, virtual necessity of being bilingual etc. These disadvantages are real and significant. These are the factors that lead individuals or families to leave their region, and that lead exogamous families to raise their children in the language of the majority. To encourage these families to lay down roots and if possible to attract new families, one of the main factors that can offset these disadvantages is the sense of attachment people feel to their community.

Various times during our meetings, this sense of attachment emerged as the most striking sign of community vitality. Witnesses voiced their pride in being able to tell their parents or grandparents they can now send their children to French-language schools. Having roots entails a link to the past that extends into the future. There are many initiatives and people’s enthusiasm for their work has taken primacy over the fight for survival. They are now building on what has already been achieved.

The importance of this attachment also illustrates quite clearly that strong community networks are the foundation for everything else. Without solid community networks to provide support, education or health services do not flourish and the community will break apart. Strengthening community networks must therefore come before developing and expanding services; otherwise they will break down for lack of a solid foundation. Above all, this community strength is the key factor preventing families from moving away. Community strength allows people, who so wish, to develop a sense of belonging, which is difficult to experience as part of a majority in large urban centres. This can become a considerable factor in retaining families and could possibly attract immigrants.

We must not however lose sight of two realities that are more worrisome:

·        The status of Anglophones in Quebec outside the Montreal area is especially precarious since these communities face a triple challenge: they must cope with all the difficulties of being in a minority; must counter the strong appeal of more attractive future opportunities available to well educated families, throughout North America or at least in Montreal; and finally, they must fight the prejudice that Quebec’s Anglophones enjoy special status by definition, when in reality these communities are declining.

·        The second worrisome reality is the status of rural regions. For both Francophones and Anglophones, the ageing population is reaching alarming proportions. The average age of Francophones in Saskatchewan has reached 52 years. Clearly, this negative demographic growth is not specific to official language minority communities, but it is more difficult for those communities. If rural majority communities cannot retain their young families, how can we even imagine being able to encourage families in minority communities not to move away?

These are very complex issues to which lasting solutions will not likely be found in the short or medium term. The Committee wanted to call attention to these difficult realities to ensure they are not overshadowed by the predominantly optimistic tone of this report. This optimism is cautious of course, because the ice is still very thin in many places, as we will see. The predominant mood is nevertheless one of more assured strengths, felt by flourishing communities that look to the future full of confidence and positive energy.

Among the hundred or so witnesses the Committee heard, in Ottawa and other parts of the country, a number provided informative, surprising, provocative or insightful testimony, but one of them was especially important. That was Suzanne Roy, Executive Director of the Association canadienne française de l’Ontario du grand Sudbury. Her defence of community organizations served as a wake-up call, both for Committee members and for the other witnesses present:

“Thanks to the ACFO associative movement, Ontario now has a good infrastructure. If colleges have been established, it’s because of the work carried out at the grass roots. All of our institutions flow from the grass roots. However, people now seem to be saying that because the infrastructure is already in place, it is no longer necessary to carry out that work at the grass roots level.”[2] “Some associations working on the ground have to make do with $10,000 a year. It won’t be possible to do much if we don’t provide the necessary resources to ensure that development is appropriate.”[3]

Slowly but surely, the growth of larger institutions such as schools, colleges and health centres, with millions of dollars in funding, has overshadowed the fact that none of this would have been possible without the perseverance, commitment, dedication and even relentlessness of the volunteers who have brought these organizations along. These organizations are often not respected by governments due to their dependence on public funds and their sometimes persistent demands. They are however the source of projects that evolve from enthusiastic dreams to long-term, structuring initiatives that political officials later claim as their own. The great battles have been won and the younger generation may perhaps no longer have to push as hard to make their way. They have the privilege of choice for their future. For community organizations, it is time to consolidate what they have achieved and to pursue their projects. Though exciting, many projects have become increasingly complex, diverse and challenging. There are more balls in the air, but the same number of jugglers. They have dropped a few balls. It is not clear who will take over from the current generation. The volunteers are burning out. The Committee wishes to express its sincere appreciation to Ms. Roy and other witnesses for the invaluable work they have done and also for publicly demonstrating their support to community organizations.

This report is divided into four chapters:

·        The first chapter provides the necessary information for the subsequent analysis of the various themes. It includes a summary of the key demographic data on communities; a description of the constitutional and statutory framework for the official languages in Canada; a description of the Department of Canadian Heritage programs designed to fulfill the federal government’s commitment to fostering community vitality and promoting linguistic duality; and finally, a summary of the key elements of the Action Plan for Official Languages.

·        The next two chapters, on health services and immigration, entailed more in-depth study by the Committee, since these two topics were initially to subjects of separate studies. When the Committee’s tour across Canada was confirmed, it seemed best not to separate these two studies from the study on community vitality since health services and immigration are aspects of vitality and form an integral part of the Action Plan. The main difference between these two chapters and Chapter 4 is that they include testimony from expert witnesses and Government of Canada officials, and also provide a detailed account of the communities’ perspective.

·        Chapter 4 presents the main themes other than health and immigration that were addressed during the Committee’s tour. Eleven themes were identified: education, from early childhood to the postsecondary level; community life; infrastructure; management of transfers from the federal government to the provinces and territories; the budget cuts of September 2006, especially the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program and literacy programs; the promotion of French; the media; the arts and culture; justice; economic development; and research.

The Committee members hope their efforts will contribute to closer ties among the communities, the federal government and the Parliament of Canada. We feel we have performed our role of oversight of the decisions made by the executive with conviction and sincerity. We are eagerly awaiting the Government of Canada’s response and hope this report provides some support for the growth and vitality of English-speaking and French-speaking minority communities. These are not only our official languages but also our national languages, which are at the core of our Canadian identity.