LANG Committee Report

This study on the vitality of official language minority communities had three primary objectives:

·        To evaluate the results of the Action Plan for Official Languages as to specific benefits for communities, since the revised Official Languages Act now makes the government’s commitment to fostering community vitality and promoting Canada’s linguistic duality binding.

·        To reflect the communities’ concerns by making recommendations to the Government of Canada regarding follow-up on the Action Plan as of April 1, 2008, and on any other matters fostering community vitality.

·        To cultivate closer ties with the communities in order to establish a productive dialogue that will be essential to the success of new initiatives put forward as of 2008.

Of the initial investment of $751.3 million over five years set out in the Action Plan for Official Languages, starting in fiscal year 2003-2004, over half or $381.5 million was allocated to education, including $209 million for federal/provincial/territorial agreements for minority-language education, $137 million for federal/provincial/ territorial agreements for second language instruction, and $33.5 million for summer bursary and second language monitor programs. These investments were in addition to those already set out under regular programs, so the funding for these regular programs was at least maintained at the 2002-2003 level.

Progress has been constant with respect to minority language education, namely, funding for kindergarten to Grade 12 at French-language schools outside Quebec, but not because of the Action Plan. The Plan’s significant investment in this area was offset by a nearly equivalent decrease in the investment under regular programs. This progress would thus have been achieved even without the Action Plan. A significant shortfall of about $115 million is expected when the Action Plan expires at the end of fiscal year 2007-2008.

The picture is very different for second-language instruction because the investments for this purpose under regular programs were maintained, in addition to those made under the Action Plan, which nearly doubled the total amount for this component of the program between 2002-2003 and 2005-2006. Since the communities only feel the effect of these investments indirectly because they are directed to majority language communities, they served primarily to promote linguistic duality. As to the objective of fostering community vitality, they are not as important as those for minority language education, except perhaps in Quebec where they help retain Anglophones.

The second sector in which significant investments were made is health, at $119 million, and the Committee analyzed this in detail in Chapter 2. The results for the networking and access to primary care components are convincing in all respects. The Committee is of the opinion that the Government of Canada should vigorously support the implementation of projects identified under the “Préparer le terrain” initiative. With respect to the training and retention of health care professionals, which accounts for two-thirds of the investment in this sector under the Action Plan, the results also exceed expectations, although some matters are still in question, such as the role of the provinces and territories, the ambiguity of the federal government’s role, and the lack of financial analysis. With respect to these three components, the Société Santé en français, the Quebec Health and Social Services Network and the Consortium national de formation en santé expressed serious concerns that the investments in health might not be renewed when the Action Plan expires.

The third most important investment was made in the public service, at $64.4 million. The Committee did not look into this aspect in great depth because the bilingual capacity of the public service has an impact on communities especially in the National Capital Region, and Francophones are well represented in it. Moreover, there are various problems with access to federal services, but these are well documented in the reports by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. The main problem with respect to community vitality relates to the Anglophones of Quebec who, pursuant to Part VI of the Official Languages Act, are underrepresented in the federal public service in Quebec. Some concerns were also raised about the use of the $14 million from the Innovation Fund, which is managed by Treasury Board.

In the justice sector, the $45.5 million investment had little direct impact on daily life in the communities, but representatives from the recipient organizations maintained that it is worthwhile and effective.

The Action Plan provided $33 million for economic development, under the direction of Industry Canada. The stakeholders did not directly address this aspect of the Action Plan and it would make an interesting topic for a separate study by the Committee. However, the creation the Enabling Fund in 2005, with an investment of $36 million over three years in addition to the Action Plan, was viewed extremely favourably. Economic development and employability networks and CEDECs in Quebec benefited a great deal from this investment and expressed concern that this funding might not be renewed as of 2008-2009.

The Support for Communities component of the Action Plan was mentioned often during the Committee’s meetings. This component received funding of $33.5 million, including $19 million for projects fostering community vitality. The remaining $13.5 million was allocated to the agreements through which the federal government helps the provinces and territories improve the services they offer in the minority language. Overall, this component of the Action Plan did not produce results for community vitality, primarily because the expected investments did not materialize. The Community Life component of Canadian Heritage’s Official Languages Support Program was the only one whose budget was cut since 2002-2003. The investments made under the Action Plan were almost completely offset by decreased spending under the Strategic Fund and decreased spending under the regular program for federal/provincial/territorial agreements to improve services.

Moreover, the fact that the former Canada-community agreements were not renewed was often cited as a factor preventing community organizations from planning for the medium term. Without these agreements, funding is provided to organizations on an annual basis. In 2005-2006, the total amount provided to organizations was at the 2002-2003 level, after a decrease in the two intervening years. In other words, community organizations, which are in charge of many initiatives under the Action Plan, had to manage more projects despite a real reduction in their funding.

It was very clear to Committee members that the vitality of official language minority communities depends on support for community organizations. These organizations are more effective in identifying and implementing positive measures that are most likely to help the federal government fulfil its commitments under the Official Languages Act.

Another aspect of the Support for Communities component of the Action Plan was literacy programs and child care services. Community representatives criticized the thorough reorganization of these programs. Their greatest concern relates to early childhood services, which is the communities’ first priority for enhancing vitality. Various witnesses indicated that early childhood services are the real key to future community vitality and should be the cornerstone of the renewed Action Plan for Official Languages.

The last component of the Action Plan that the Committee examined is immigration. Despite a modest investment of $9 million, the Committee were of the opinion that special efforts should be made in this regard when the Action Plan is renewed. This is why an entire chapter in this report was devoted to it. The measures announced were received very positively, but the results were felt in Manitoba only, primarily because of the greater role played by the provincial government. In addition, the objectives of the Strategic Plan to Foster Immigration to Francophone Communities, unveiled in September 2006, are seen as very sound. This Strategic Plan is however based on data that is much too fragmentary and its targeted results are too confused to produce any improvement. The communities certainly welcome the $307 million investment announced for the reception and settlement of all newcomers to Canada, but it is impossible to know at this time how much of this money will go to minority communities. 

On the whole, the Action Plan for Official Languages furthered community vitality, but its results fell well short of initial expectations, except for in the health sector and, to a lesser degree, justice and economic development.

Aside from these mixed results of the Action Plan, various other important aspects of community development were raised in our consideration of the follow-up to be taken on the Action Plan as of 2008-2009.

The first consideration is the renewal of the Action Plan itself. Various witnesses expressed concern that nothing had been done so far for its renewal, although it will expire in just one year. Moreover, various targets in the Plan, relating in particular to education, were based on the assumption that it would continue until 2012-2013. The Committee therefore recommends:

Recommendation 38

That the Government of Canada immediately establish a high-level committee, comprising representatives from government, the communities, provinces and territories, to prepare the second phase of the Action Plan for Official Languages, so that it may be included in the 2008-2009 budget.

Another consideration raised by the communities pertains to how the federal government should reorganize its efforts in order to fulfil its obligation to foster community vitality and promote linguistic duality. For Francophone communities, the key is parents’ decision to enrol their children in French-language schools. It would be much easier for them to make this decision if preschool services are available, at a school-community centre for instance. This infrastructure should be supplemented by an awareness campaign targeted to Francophone parents regarding the benefits of enrolling their child in a French-language institution as the best guarantee of bilingualism, by far superior to immersion, and that this decision will in no way limit their child’s career options, on the contrary, in fact.

Efforts must be made through a campaign to promote French to Anglophones, with special attention to Anglophones in Quebec who need additional support to encourage them to learn French. Postsecondary institutions as well as the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages could be called upon to play a role in promoting linguistic duality in this regard.

For administrative reasons relating to the constitutional division of powers, it is often difficult to identify the appropriate source of funding for infrastructure. There may be good will at all levels, but the program criteria are not flexible enough to combine the federal responsibility to communities with the provincial jurisdiction in areas where a federal role would be more appropriate. Committee members and the communities were in favour of the creation of an infrastructure fund in which the provinces and territories could participate.

On a related topic, it is clear that one of the best ways of monitoring the federal commitment to communities would be to include a clause on minority communities in all agreements through which the federal government transfers money to the provincial and territorial governments.

Some sectors that are essential to community vitality were not mentioned in the Action Plan, including the media and the arts and culture. These sectors foster and reflect community vitality. The community media were seen as a potential partner for the federal government that was underutilized. As to the arts and culture, they are directly linked to the strength of the community networks that support most initiatives in this sector.

Finally, the Committee’s more detailed analysis of the health and immigration sectors revealed some significant gaps in the knowledge on which the Action Plan should be based. Some of these gaps will be addressed by Statistics Canada’s post-census survey on the vitality of official language minority communities. The avenues that these findings open must be pursued by adding a “research” component to the Action Plan.

This evaluation of the Action Plan on Official Languages and the consideration of future measures have served to identify the primary condition for the success of its renewal, namely, encouraging a broad approach to fostering community vitality. This broad approach should include at least two aspects:

1.      The full participation of the communities, provinces and territories and the federal government in developing Phase II of the Action Plan, in implementing it and in evaluating its results. It was evident that the success of health care initiatives was linked to this difficult but nevertheless very productive partnership. The communities cannot join forces with the federal government against the provinces or territories without generating resistance that would threaten the success of these initiatives.

2.      Greater flexibility in identifying specific sectors (health, education, etc.) to which funding is allocated. Allocating budgets to specific sectors can lead to inflexibility and “one size fits all” programs, which do not consistently meet community needs. This was a recurring theme in the testimony the Committee heard. What is good for one community is not necessarily good for another one. Programs must be tailored to regional realities, but the relative importance of the various programs should also be flexible. Part of the funding could then be allocated as a lump sum for a specific community, and the various partners would agree on the redistribution of the funds depending on priority sectors, without any obligation to spend more or less than necessary due to set amounts for each sector.

The Committee therefore recommends:

Recommendation 39

That the Government of Canada adopt a broad approach in its renewal of the Action Plan for Official Languages, including in particular:

·        Active involvement of the communities, provinces, territories and federal government in developing, implementing and evaluating the Action Plan;

·        Flexibility in identifying the key sectors targeted, for which the amount of funding can vary with the priorities set by the communities.

The Committee’s decision to embark on a cross-Canada tour marked a turning point. This was the first time it had travelled to visit communities, although the Committee and its predecessors have existed for 25 years. This decision was welcomed by community representatives and discussions were open and honest.

This openness and honesty was reflected most strikingly in the organizations’ generalized objection to the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program. This announcement in September 2006 was seen as an outright denial of the communities’ right to fight for the constitutional guarantees provided under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the resulting case law, and subsection 43 (2) of the Official Languages Act, which sets out the government’s commitment to consult the communities before developing or amending programs that affect community vitality. The members of the Committee were divided on this matter, and no compromise was reached despite their general agreement on most other subjects.

Finally, the Committee members cannot overemphasize the warm reception they received at these meetings, especially at the various locations that exemplify community vitality. This vitality is in large part bolstered by the community organizations that would long ago have ceased to exist without the tireless dedication of the volunteers who have carried the torch through every adversity possible. It is thanks to these volunteers that schools, community centres, health centres, postsecondary institutions and economic development organizations were founded during the last 30 years and have now become the very foundation of community vitality.

There are still significant challenges ahead, since negative demographic growth, dispersion and urbanization continue to threaten the survival of a number of these communities in the medium term. It is once again the volunteers who will ultimately do what it takes to support community vitality in the future, especially as regards the development of early childhood services, immigrant reception, and following through on health care projects identified as priorities by the communities.

The Committee wishes to dedicate this report to all these people on whom the communities’ future depends. We hope that we have helped strengthen the bridge between the communities and the Government of Canada and would very much like to see our recommendations accepted so that our two national languages may thrive throughout the country in communities that are stronger than ever.