LANG Committee Report
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
|
The
Liberal Party of Canada's Complementary Report to the The Committee report includes too many necessary recommendations to disassociate ourselves from it. However, it fails to warn the government adequately about two fundamental weaknesses in its current approach. The first weakness concerns the appalling lack of budgetary transparency regarding the entire issue of linguistic duality funding. The second concerns the lack of a vision that would mobilize every effort to move in a specific direction. 1. The need for budgetary transparency There was a fear expressed both in the evidence heard by the Committee and in its own proceedings that the Roadmap has become a showcase for the government to boast about investing millions of dollars, when in fact the envelope earmarked for linguistic duality may very well have remained unchanged or may have even been reduced. We do not actually have any guarantee that Roadmap funding is a complement to regular program spending. Even Canadian Heritage acknowledges the need “to spend more time on tracing funding on the ground” (para. 474). Of course, the Committee report attempts to address this by stating that the future plan must “improve on existing programs” (recommendation 2), that Health Canada must acknowledge its responsibilities “regardless of the Roadmap” (recommendation 5), that co-operation with the provinces is “an effort to build on their own initiatives” (recommendation 6), that these provinces are encouraged to “provide concrete results and accountability mechanisms” (recommendation 10), that the government itself must improve its “accountability practices [...] to properly distinguish between funding provided through the Roadmap and that provided through ongoing programs” (recommendation 37), and that the Department of Canadian Heritage must ensure “better intergovernmental coordination” (recommendation 37). While these recommendations are all welcome, they do not go far enough. Even with these, there would still be a concern that departments have little incentive to seek the funding needed to maintain or improve regular programs, since they will still be able to count on Roadmap funding to make up the shortfall. The Committee report confirms that “the Roadmap has led some federal institutions to disengage from their responsibilities” to such an extent that some federal institutions “have stopped investing their own resources” (para. 41; see also paras. 472–473). This risk is even greater given that, in the current period of fiscal restraint, departments and agencies are being forced to make serious cuts. They will be tempted to reduce funding for linguistic duality, knowing that they will then be able to take funding from the future Roadmap. The result could be brutal for official language communities, since unlike the majority communities, they do not enjoy the same financial flexibilities or economies of scale. It will be impossible to counteract this “harmful effect of the Roadmap” (para. 41) as long as regular program funding and Roadmap funding are not both disclosed transparently and consistently. This is why the Liberal Party of Canada makes the following recommendations: Recommendation 1 That the next horizontal initiative include a dashboard, along with a web portal, to both quantify existing funding for regular programs and follow additional investments from the next initiative, as they are made, by department, by year and by program. (This recommendation is based on suggestions from Canadian Heritage (in para. 474 of the Committee report) and the recommendation by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada (para. 475). It clarifies recommendation 37 in the Committee report.) Recommendation 2 That the next horizontal initiative for official languages come with financial resources at least equivalent to those of the 2008-2013 Roadmap and that this funding be a genuine addition to regular program funding. (Recommendation 1 in the Committee report unnecessarily limits the government’s ambitions by ruling out the possibility that the funding to be provided in its next plan will be higher than what was provided in the current plan.) Recommendation 3 That the funding for the next horizontal initiative be guaranteed for the length of the initiative, and that in the event that a program fully or partly funded by this plan were to be cut back or simply eliminated, the minister responsible for official languages report to the Standing Committee on Official Languages as to how these funds would be reallocated. (The Destination Canada program, praised in paras.89 and 99, was cancelled, along with the related Roadmap funding.) Recommendation 4 That, given the current period of fiscal restraint, the government recognize that official language communities do not have the same financial flexibilities or economies of scale as do the majority communities. That, following each budget, the minister responsible for official languages report on this issue to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Recommendation 5 That the funding allocated to the next horizontal initiative not include the salaries of Official Languages Secretariat staff. (That is a source of confusion and artificially inflates the figures, which the communities understandably complain about.) 2. The need for a vision As written, the Committee report leaves the impression of being unfocussed. There is no specific direction, nothing stands out and everything appears to be equally important. In order to be successful, we need a vision, an overall focus, with measurable objectives. This focus must be the very one that inspired the first action plan, which preceded the Roadmap in 2003: The Next Act: New Momentum for Canada’s Linguistic Duality. This overall objective, which must guide all the others, is what in 2001 the Société franco-manitobaine so aptly described as “expanding the Francophone presence.” This includes providing meaningful assistance to exogamous couples so they can pass on their dual linguistic heritage to their children. Exogamous couples are made up of francophones and non-francophones who start a life together and have a family. This is a massive phenomenon that has steadily grown over the decades, a reflection of how different groups intermingle in modern society. In 2003, two thirds of francophone children outside Quebec grew up in families with one parent whose mother tongue was not French (the proportion of exogamous couples was almost as high [55%] in Quebec’s anglophone community). That same year, in families outside Quebec where both parents were francophone, French was passed on to the children in 95% of cases. This figure dropped to 42% when one parent was non-francophone. However, this reached 70% when the non-francophone parent spoke French. These exogamous couples must be included in the francophone presence and supported in their efforts to pass on their dual linguistic heritage to their children. There is no more critical an issue than this in fighting assimilation and supporting the vitality of our official language communities. However, the Committee report barely mentioned this issue that nevertheless had been raised by witnesses (paras. 205 and 212). The report treats it just like any other issue. Several of the report recommendations will be helpful in rectifying this serious deficiency. But quite a few should be reworded or added. Limiting itself to the most important points, the Liberal Party of Canada makes the following recommendations: Recommendation 6 That, with the assistance of Statistics Canada (see recommendation 33 of the Committee report), the government:
Recommendation 7 That, in a future horizontal initiative, the government conduct a major national awareness campaign directed at parent rights holders, informing them about the conditions favouring their children’s bilingualism and their language rights under section 23 of the Charter. Recommendation 8 That, for a future horizontal initiative, the government, while respecting provincial jurisdiction, provide support for early childhood services, particularly with the aim of assisting exogamous parents in socializing their children in French. Recommendation 9 That, in a future horizontal initiative, the government, in a spirit of partnership and respect for provincial jurisdiction and in consultation with the communities, foster the establishment of an intake structure in French-language child care centres and schools open to a diverse clientele, one that is increasingly exogamous and multicultural. (Recommendations 7, 8 and 9 are drawn from the proposal presented by the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities in para. 212 of the Committee report). Recommendation 10 That, in a future horizontal initiative, the Government of Canada, in co-operation with the provincial and territorial governments, take the necessary steps to guarantee Canadians the right to learn their second official language at all levels, from early childhood to post-secondary. (This recommendation stems from paras. 293-296 of the Committee report.) Recommendation 11 That, in a future horizontal initiative, the Government of Canada, in co-operation with the provincial and territorial governments, implement structural programs that promote the civic engagement of young francophones, promote initiatives outside schools, and invest in post-secondary education to ensure accessibility and quality so as to help these young people acquire the language skills they need outside of the education system. (This recommendation was presented by the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française in para. 311 of the Committee report.) Recommendation 12 That, in a future horizontal initiative, the Government of Canada take the necessary measures to double the number of young Canadians who participate each year in short- and long-term language exchanges at the high-school and post-secondary levels. (This recommendation is taken from the annual report 2011-2012 of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.) |