LANG Committee Report

C. Community development

1. 2008-2013 Roadmap Investments: Initiatives and success stories

To support community development and the work of OLMC agencies and institutions, the Roadmap expanded two existing programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage: Intergovernmental cooperation and the Support for Official Language Minority Communities program.

1.1 Intergovernmental cooperation (Canadian Heritage)

By way of bilateral agreements, Canadian Heritage works with the provincial and territorial governments to deliver provincial, territorial and municipal services in the minority language. The federal government has been cooperating in this area for over 20 years, making it possible to deliver services to about 2 million Canadians from minority communities.[75]

This component of Canadian Heritage’s Development of Official-Language Communities program has an annual budget of $16.8 million, of which $4.5 million comes from the Roadmap. Over the 5 years covered by the Roadmap, intergovernmental cooperation on minority language services will have received $84 million, of which $22.5 million comes from the Roadmap. It is worth noting that this $4.5 million increase began in 2003 under the Action Plan for Official Languages.

OLMC agencies and institutions play a leading role in delivering minority-language services at the provincial, territorial and municipal levels. This was expressed by the Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta (ACFA) :

That’s where we come in. We take over when the Albertan government does not feel it has to promote linguistic duality or to serve the public in both languages. We support all kinds of initiatives that should ultimately be provided by government institutions, whether they be provincial or municipal.[76]

In many cases, we replace the organizations that don’t provide services in French back home. We use every means at our disposal to do so. An organization that handles justice issues deals with a number of things, in addition to the access to justice program. Cuts at a department can have a cumulative impact, as you said. We are funded by Canadian Heritage, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the province. If all those who fund an organization implement cuts, it goes without saying there will be a cumulative effect.[77]

The Intergovernmental Cooperation program led to a number of achievements. For instance, the Nova Scotia Office of Acadian Affairs produced a community marketing campaign, “Ça se brasse chu nous,” to inform Acadians of the growing number of provincial government services available in French, encouraging them to use these services and to insist on being served in French.

In Saskatchewan, the program helped create the Centre de services virtuel, a single window that provides the community with access to government services and programs in French. The Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise (ACF) told the Committee that the Government of Saskatchewan’s Francophone Affairs Branch (FAB) is funded in part by the Intergovernmental Cooperation program. As indicated by the ACF, the FAB is the access point for Government of Saskatchewan services in French. As well, the Roadmap funds the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Office of French Services.[78] It also funds Services TNO, a one-window Francophone service centre aggregating Government of the Northwest Territories (NWT) services and information, streamlining services for residents and facilitating access to public services in French.

Bilateral agreements also facilitate implementation of provincial and territorial language regimes, particularly in the NWT and Nunavut. The Fédération franco-ténoise told the Committee that the NWT Government and the Francophone community finalized an implementation plan for French-language communications and services. The NWT Government receives $1.9 million each year from Canadian Heritage to implement this plan.[79] The Association des francophones du Nunavut requested similar support from the federal government to implement the territorial official languages legislation planned for 2012.

In light of the foregoing, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 10

That the Government of Canada, in a future horizontal initiative for official languages, encourage the provinces and territories to provide concrete results and accountability mechanisms to refocus investments on the needs of official language minority communities.

1.2 Support for Official Language Minority Communities (Canadian Heritage)

Through the Support for Official Language Minority Communities initiative, Canadian Heritage supports close to 400 community organizations across the country in their work to promote the development and vitality of OLMC. Canadian Heritage supports a number of networks supporting the work of 131 cultural organizations, 24 youth organizations and 13 parents’ organizations, about 100 community radio stations and newspapers in as many communities, organizing activities in over 100 other cultural and community centres across Canada, and hosting major cultural gatherings such as the World Acadian Congress and the event that took place at the Place de la Francophonie during the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Support for Official Language Minority Communities initiative received $193 million over 5 years, of which $22.5 million was from the Roadmap.

2. Evidence and recommendations

2.1 Investing in support for OLMC organizations and institutions

Regarding support for communities, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA) would have liked to see the Roadmap take a more balanced approach:

The implementation of the Roadmap was undertaken by a well-coordinated and committed network working on behalf of Francophones. The Roadmap emphasized services to citizens, but it was the organizations and institutions in the communities that delivered the services.

They did this without any significant strengthening of their capacity. However, it seems to us that the more you invest in the capacity of the service delivery agency, the greater yield you get from the investment in terms of effectiveness, results and client satisfaction. Hence it is important that the initiative following the Roadmap focus on service delivery and on strengthening this network of associations and organizations which, from one end of the country to the next, focus on the citizen and are best able to provide services at the least cost.[80]

Support for OLMC organizations and institutions is a priority for community networks. The Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta (ACFA) believes that community vitality is due in large part to the efforts of community organizations and institutions:

We have French-language schools, welcome and settlement centres, employment agencies and other services in French in Alberta because Francophone community agencies detected the needs and subsequently mobilized the resources, raised awareness and marketed those services.[81]

Canada is currently going through a difficult economic period, and major budget cuts have been announced. However, the fact remains that the federal government continues to have constitutional and legal obligations toward linguistic duality and the OLMC. The FCFA believes that the federal government needs to focus on OLMC organizations and institutions, and their community and institutional networks, in order to maintain minority language services:

At a time of financial austerity requiring the responsible and efficient use of public funds, it is important to remember that organizations and institutions serving French-speaking citizens, like others who serve all kinds of different communities across the country, have been doing their share for several years now. They have found innovative ways to deal with increasingly restricted resources and have nonetheless succeeded in achieving tangible outcomes for those individuals and families that wish to live in French — these results are consistent with the government’s commitment to support the development of official language minority communities.[82]

In the June 2011 Throne Speech, the federal government stated that “local communities are best placed to overcome their unique challenges, but government can help create the conditions for these communities — and the industries that sustain them — to succeed.”[83] In the FCFA’s opinion, creating these conditions involves a strategy of providing adequate funding to OLMC organizations, institutions and networks that deliver high-quality services on the government’s behalf to the public in the language of their choice:

… It must not be forgotten that delivering activities and services to individuals and communities efficiently at lower cost requires capacity-building within the organizations and institutions if they are to carry out these tasks. The resources currently available to them are clearly inadequate to properly meet growing demand for French language services and programs that can meet individual and community needs.[84]

The reduction or withdrawal of federal support could result in the dismantling of an entire network of organizations and institutions, forcing government agencies to find new strategies and partners. In a brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, the FCFA spoke eloquently about the importance of enhancing investments in support of OLMC organizations and institutions:

The additional funding that we are recommending, far from being unreasonable in a time of budget restraint, should instead be perceived as a strategic realignment of resources. Cutting funding for community organizations and institutions once again would make it impossible for them to deliver the services that its French-language citizens not only expect, but to which they are entitled. In many instances, this would require the government institutions to identify alternatives, because the government’s commitment to individuals, families, communities and support for the development of official language minority communities remains.[85]

It is worth noting just how important are the networks that OLMC, in partnership with federal institutions, have developed in recent years. The FCFA believes that these networks help coordinate and share good practices for developing and implementing services. They address OLMC needs perfectly:

How could it be otherwise? In a context in which the Francophone communities are often dispersed and remote, it is hard to see how they could ensure their development and access to French-language services of quality equal to that of the services enjoyed by the majority except by organizing themselves into networks and coordinating their activities based on specific issues and priorities.[86]

This partnership that has developed over time between the federal government and Francophone community organizations, institutions and networks is also in place for Quebec’s Anglophone communities. Organizations such as the Townshippers’ Association in the Eastern Townships have become beacons for the Anglophone communities they serve:

We are the door that the English-speaking community knocks on. We are a reliable source of information and the go-to place for multiple services and resources. We work with the federal government to ensure that the English-speaking community in the townships has the best possible access to services, information, and representation. We continue to find innovative and sustainable ways to mobilize and inform our community.[87]

During his appearance before the Committee, the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada raised the issue of budget cuts and their impact on OLMC development and the ability of federal institutions to fulfill their obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act. The Commissioner believes that it is crucial for federal institutions to analyze the impact of these reductions on the vitality of OLMC:

First, I don’t expect official languages programs to be sheltered from the forthcoming budget cuts. However, the government needs to ensure that these programs do not suffer disproportionately. The spending cuts in 1995 had a major impact on the development of official language communities, to the point where twice the effort was required to recover from them after 2003.

In addition, to comply with their obligations under part VII of the Official Languages Act, the federal institutions will have to make sure they analyze the impact of the cuts they intend to make to their programs and services. As a result of the negative consequences for the vitality of the communities, they will have to find and take measures that can minimize those consequences.

Some official language communities are so fragile that major cuts in certain programs could seriously compromise their vitality.[88]

In order for the government and OLMC to fully leverage the investment of public funds, support for OLMC organizations, institutions and networks must be renewed:

Our community organizations and institutions are attuned to the communities they serve and able to deliver services and programs at lower cost than if they were provided by government institutions or the private sector.[89]

In this regard, the Government of Canada pledged in the 2011 Throne Speech to create the conditions for supporting communities, a commitment in keeping with its legal responsibilities under Part VII of the Official Languages Act. In the 2012-2013 Economic Action Plan, it reaffirmed its commitment to official languages.[90] In order for this commitment to take shape, the Government of Canada must recognize that the organizations, institutions and networks built by the OLMC deliver not only federal, but also provincial, territorial and municipal government services. They are also actively involved in implementing Part VII of the Official Languages Act. In addition, the Committee observed that the community partners are committed to continuously delivering services and using resources in more effective, efficient and innovative ways. Consequently, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 11

That the Government of Canada’s future horizontal initiative for official languages support Anglophone and Francophone minority community organizations, institutions and networks and that it fund their capacities to deliver services of equal quality in the minority language.

2.2 Multi-year funding

Funding strategies and services planning are central concerns of OLMC organizations and institutions. In this respect, several groups told the Committee that the lack of multi-year funding hampered their operations and, by extension, their ability to serve their communities:

Unfortunately, funding must be renewed from one year to the next. This means we have no guaranteed stability.[91]

Allow me to add something a little more pragmatic. Here you have brought together organizations consisting of individuals who have excellent training, abilities and skills that they can make proper use of as a result of stable funding provided by the Roadmap.

If we are required to advance on a project-by-project basis, we become preoccupied by the survival of our organization and cannot use our qualifications and expertise properly.[92]

The Black Community Resource Centre (BCRC) spoke about the impact of ad hoc funding on the human resources planning of community organizations and institutions. The inability to guarantee employment and provide employees with competitive salaries creates a climate of instability and leads to high staff turnover within the organization. This results in a substantial loss for the group, whose ability to develop programs, innovate and deliver services is considerably diminished:

The lack of core funding also means that the development of non-profit human resources is retarded. We spend an enormous amount of time training volunteers and project staff. However, the payoff for organizations like BCRC is immediate but of limited duration, as we have to release them, particularly staff, when projects are terminated.

Concomitant with engaging staff for projects, their hourly wage is tied to project funding, yet they are implicated in the resolution of BCRC’s long-term strategic areas. This knowledge transfer and expertise that we build up is sadly lost when this young staff is terminated or they transfer to higher-paying, more secure jobs. This is a waste of resources, human and financial, all the while slowing down our own internal capacity building.[93]

The BCRC also highlighted a problem that affects the design of certain programs. It would appear that funding rules are not sufficiently flexible to enhance and provide ongoing support to successful initiatives:

Another area of concern, and certainly one requiring a full review, is that OLMC are not rewarded for success. By this, I mean when we have identified and facilitated a successful program in the community, funding rules prohibit repeat funding. Even in our case, when a project has been evaluated as successful, the participant and stakeholder feedback is sometimes off the chart, but there is no chance that it will be funded again unless it is modified to fit within some criteria in another program. I’ve seen the results of failed projects treated much the same as successful projects, with little regard or interest in maintaining successful interventions in the community. Why? Because the success of projects is solely tied to the project’s immediate results, which we meet, but not to the long-term overarching need to have sufficient funding in order to ameliorate social, cultural, and economic outcomes, or to fill a gap, or to enable communities to be sustainable, and this is a goal of BCRC.[94]

Such cases require a program review.

2.3 Increasing investments

In addition to multi-year funding, a number of witnesses argued for increasing the federal support provided to OLMC organizations, institutions and networks. The financial requirements of groups are in large part influenced by their success:

Although requests for our service have increased, our credibility rises and we accomplish solid, measurable, and sustainable results with the funding that is accorded to us, despite the fact that our reality is one of an aging, low income, scattered community with low levels of education. We can no longer rely on donations and membership fees to support all of our initiatives. Government funding is crucial to our existence. And I assure you of this: our existence is crucial in assuring the vitality of our community, granting us a voice, and forging for us a place within Quebec society.

The federal government must continue to recognize the importance of developing programs that support official language minority communities, through both program funding and project funding that will allow us to continue our work and to maintain the momentum we have gained over the past years, and by supporting us in the continual development of relationships with our public and community partners through our well-established networks, while continuing to recognize the concrete and measurable results we have achieved.[95]

A few witnesses told the Committee that the core funding for building OLMC capacities was not indexed to the cost of living. According to the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick, core funding has not been increased over the past 10 years:

… In 10 years, we had lost 30% of our revenue based on the inflation rate. We fought for multi-year funding in the 1990s. We thank the federal government for granting our request. However, we forgot to negotiate to ensure that funding was indexed to the cost of living, which would have prevented us from winding up 10 years later with 30% less revenue.[96]

This was echoed by the Fédération des francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador:

… The fact that the community budget has not been increased for more than a decade, there has technically been a cutback since no allowance was made for inflation. We can estimate that our ability to take action has been cut by more than 30%.[97]

OLMC organizations, institutions and networks are able to help federal institutions fulfill their obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act. As service delivery partners, they must receive adequate support to provide high-quality services to minority communities. From the government’s perspective, this is a return on investment, since the federal government has supported, and has even made it possible to create, a number of community organizations. In order to foster initiatives with a lasting impact on communities, federal support must be over multiple years. Funding must also be proportional to community needs. The comprehensive development plans and strategic plans of communities are tools for gauging the growing needs within OLMC and identifying priorities. They also guide federal government investment strategies. The Committee believes that building OLMC capacities requires planning and a strategic funding plan. It further notes that one viable option could be establishing a trust fund.

2.4 Northern communities

In concluding this section on OLMC capacity building, the special situation of Francophone communities in the three territories deserves mentioning. The Fédération franco-ténoise asked that the high cost of living in the Far North be taken into account by federal institutions in providing support to Northern Francophone communities:

In calculating the quantity of services delivered per dollar invested, we see that the Territories are clearly far behind the provinces with large urban centres. Not only do we have low numbers in absolute terms, but also our costs in terms of salaries, housing, transportation and energy are vastly higher. As a result, we believe that the principle of fairness and equal access needs to apply to the way Northerners are treated when setting parameters for government programs and evaluating the results achieved.[98]

For Francophone communities in the territories, special consideration should be given to community infrastructure needs. The cost of climate-appropriate materials and the cost of shipping them are much higher. Construction also requires long-term planning.

The Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (CanNor) has been called upon to take a leadership role in the development of Francophone communities in the Far North. Through its commitments under Part VII of the Official Languages Act and involvement in the Roadmap, CanNor has begun significant work with Francophone communities, thereby positioning itself as a leading federal player in the development of Northern Francophone communities. Consequently, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 12

That the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (CanNor) play a leadership role within the federal government in promoting official languages and the vitality of Francophone communities in Canada’s Far North.

The Committee believes that it is important to consider the special circumstances of OLMC, regardless of where they are located in Canada. The Committee believes that federal institutions should come up with programs and investment strategies that are flexible and suited to the communities. The principles of equity and access should be factored into departmental programs and results evaluations.