LANG Committee Report

In the fall of 2006, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages undertook a wide-ranging study on the vitality of official language minority communities. A total of 39 recommendations on a wide variety of subjects were adopted.

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

• assess the results of the Action Plan for Official Languages;
• To speak for the communities in making recommendations to the Government of Canada on measures to follow up on the Action Plan as of April 1, 2008, as well as on any other matter liable to promote the vitality of the communities;
• To foster closer ties with the communities so as to cultivate a productive dialogue, which will be critical for the success of the new initiatives to be launched starting in 2008.

To produce this study, 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 was a first for the Committee since its inception 26 years ago, as it had never had the opportunity to travel and meet with Anglophone and Francophone minority communities on their own ground.

The report is divided into four chapters:

• The first chapter provides the necessary information for subsequent analysis of the various themes. It includes a summary of key demographic data on the 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 fulfil the federal government’s commitment to supporting community development 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 be the subject of separate studies. 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’ perspectives.
• Chapter 4 presents the main themes other than health and immigration that were addressed during the cross-Canada 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 arrived at the following conclusions:

A.        Education

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 to be 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 $35.5 million for summer bursary and second-language monitor programs. This funding was in addition to that already provided under regular programs.

There has been constant progress with respect to minority-language education, namely, funding for kindergarten to Grade 12 at English-language schools in Quebec and French-language schools elsewhere in Canada, but not because of the Action Plan. The Plan’s significant investment in this area was offset by a nearly equivalent decrease in investment under regular programs. Hence this progress would in essence have been achieved even without the Action Plan.

The picture is very different for second-language instruction because funding for this purpose under regular programs was maintained, in addition to that provided under the Action Plan, doubling the total amount for this component of the program between 2002-2003 and 2006-2007.

B.        Health

The second largest investment was for health, at $119 million, and this was analysed in detail by the Committee. The results for networking and access to primary health care are convincing from every point of view. It is the Committee’s opinion that the Government of Canada should provide strong support for the implementation of the projects identified as part of the Préparer le terrain initiatives. Under the training and retention of health professionals component, which received two thirds of the Action Plan’s investment in this sector, the results also surpass expectations, but some matters remain unresolved, such as provincial and territorial involvement, the ambiguity of the federal government’s role, and the lack of financial analysis. For these three components, the Société Santé en français, the Quebec Health and Social Services Network and the Consortium national de formation en santé have expressed great concern that the health investments might not be renewed upon the expiry of the Action Plan. For the networking and training and retention of health care professionals components, ongoing funding is provided beyond 2007-2008 through the contribution program to improve access to health services for official languages minority communities. If the amount allocated under Health Canada’s Report on Plans and Priorities is indeed provided in fiscal year 2007-2008, the total expenditures under this program are expected to exceed the initial commitment by about $3 million by the time the Action Plan expires. The Health minister, Tony Clement, has also announced that the primary care enhancement component will not be renewed in 2007-2008, after being extended for one year in 2006-2007. The $4.5 million in funding announced in October 2007 is for the networking and training components but there is no indication whether this is new funding or to which period it applies.

C.        Other Sectors

In the justice sector, the $45.5 million investment obviously has little direct impact on the daily lives of community members, but representatives of the organizations that have benefited from it have acknowledged that it is justified and effective.

In the economic development sector, the Action Plan provided $33 million in funding, 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 fund, 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 that foster 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 development, primarily because the expected investments did not materialize. The Community Life component of Canadian Heritage’s Official Languages Support Program is the only one whose budget has been 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 of 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, the community organizations, which are in charge of a great many initiatives under the Action Plan, have had to manage more projects despite a net reduction in their funding.

It was very clear to the Committee members that the vitality of official language minority communities depends upon support for community organizations. These organizations are very 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 were widely critical of the thorough reorganization of these programs. Their greatest concern relates to early childhood services, which are the communities’ first priority for enhancing vitality. Many witnesses indicated that early childhood services are the real key to future community development 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 members were of the opinion that special efforts should be made in this sector when the Action Plan is renewed. The measures announced were received very positively, but the results were felt in Manitoba only, primarily because of the sustained 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 are much too fragmentary, and its targeted results are much too confused to allow for 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.

D.        Follow-up on the Action Plan

The report concludes that the Action Plan for Official Languages has been an asset for community vitality, but that its results have been well short of initial expectations, except in the health sector and, to a lesser degree, in justice and economic development.

Aside from these mixed results of the Action Plan, various other important aspects of community development were raised in considering the follow-up to be given to 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, even though it expires. Moreover, various targets in the Plan, relating in particular to education, were based on the assumption that it would continue until 2012-2013. For these reasons, the Committee has also recommended that the Government of Canada immediately establish a high-level committee, comprising representatives from government, the communities, and the provinces and territories, to prepare the second phase of the Action Plan for Official Languages for inclusion in the 2008-2009 budget.  The announcement of consultations headed up by former New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord is certainly a favourable response to this Committee recommendation, but reservations were expressed by the current members of the Committee about the way the consultations were conducted.

Another consideration raised by the communities pertains to how the federal government should refocus its efforts in order to fulfil its obligation to support community development and promote linguistic duality. For Francophone communities, the key is parents’ decision to enrol their children in French-language schools. It will 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, superior by far to immersion, and presenting such a decision as one that will enhance their child’s career options.

For English speakers, efforts must be continued via a campaign to promote French to Anglophones, with special attention to those in Quebec who need additional support to learn French. Postsecondary institutions as well as the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages could be called upon to join in this effort to promote linguistic duality.

For administrative reasons relating to the constitutional division of powers, it is often difficult to identify the appropriate source of funding for infrastructures that can enhance community vitality. The Committee members and the communities alike were in favour of creating 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 government’s commitment to the communities would be to include a clause on linguistic communities in all agreements through which the federal government transfers money to the provincial and territorial governments.

Certain 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 is underutilized. As for the arts and culture, they are directly linked to the strength of the community networks that support most of the 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 have been addressed by the recent publication of Statistics Canada’s post-census survey on the vitality of official language minority communities. ¹However, the avenues opened up by the compilation of this data must be pursued by adding a “research” component to the Action Plan.

This evaluation of the Action Plan for Official Languages and the consideration of follow-up measures have served to identify the primary condition for the success of its renewal, namely, encouraging a comprehensive approach to fostering community vitality. Such a broad approach would in particular include:

• active involvement of the communities, provinces, territories and the federal government in the development, implementation and evaluation phases;
• flexibility in identifying the key sectors targeted, for which the amount of funding can vary according to the priorities set by the communities.

Some important aspects of the Action Plan for Official Languages were not addressed in this study of community vitality. The follow-up to this report is thus designed to address this gap and to provide, in a single document, an overview of the Committee’s positions on all areas covered by the initial action plan. The following section pertains to the public service, a key element of the federal government’s responsibility for promoting linguistic duality; the language industry, for which the Action Plan provided a strong impetus; and finally access to justice for official-language minority communities, a key component of the vitality of these communities that was not directly addressed in the Committee’s last study.