CHAPTER SIX: MIDTERM REPORT ON THE ACTION PLAN AND ROLES OF KEY INSTITUTIONS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page
A number of institutions within the federal public service play leading roles in the implementation of the Official Languages Act (the Act). These are called key institutions, since they are responsible for providing guidance to federal departments and other agencies. They also play crucial leadership and coordination roles in implementing the Act. Most are responsible for helping to deploy major government initiatives related to the Action Plan for Official Languages. The manner in which they meet these responsibilities has a decisive impact on progress (or setbacks) throughout the federal public service.
This chapter addresses two themes related to the roles of key institutions.
First, the report takes stock of the implementation of the Action Plan for Official Languages (2003), following the Commissioner's comments on the Action Plan in the last two annual reports. In the 2004-2005 report, the Commissioner praised the efforts of a number of federal agencies to keep their commitments under the Action Plan, and she deplored the fact that other agencies had gotten off to a very slow start and noted a lack of consistency and coordination. In 2005-2006, the federal government published the Update on the Implementation of the Action Plan for Official Languages (Midterm Report); it is therefore timely to offer an overall assessment of the Action Plan's implementation since 2003.
In the second part of this chapter, the Commissioner delivers her first assessment of the work of key institutions based on a number of specific criteria. How do these agencies carry out their roles and perform some of their official languages responsibilities? Are they active and visible in carrying out their duties? How do they provide guidance to federal institutions that report to them? These are some of the questions the Commissioner addresses.
Action Plan and Midterm Report
The Action Plan for Official Languages is a broadbased government initiative designed to give new momentum to Canada's linguistic duality and the vitality of official language communities. The Plan was initiated in 2003 and involves investments of more than $750 million over five years.
The Action Plan has three principal axes:
AXIS 1: Education – minority-language education and second-language education.
AXIS 2: Official Language Community Development – early childhood services, health, justice, immigration, economic development and community support.
AXIS 3: Public Service – communication and service delivery, language of work, and participation of English- and French-speaking Canadians in the federal public service.
In October 2005, the federal government published its Midterm Report, which takes stock of progress and challenges in implementing the Action Plan.
Of course, the Commissioner has been monitoring the implementation of the Action Plan from the outset. This section presents her assessment of accomplishments to date.
AXIS 1: EDUCATION
The largest portion of the Action Plan's budget is dedicated to education. However, tangible progress in this area is hardly noticeable halfway through the term of the Action Plan. For a considerable time, targeted investments designed to build on existing efforts were mired in intergovernmental discussions and negotiations. Substantial funding was finally freed up in the Fall of 2005. Therefore, systematic, concerted efforts to achieve educational objectives were slow at being initiated, but there is no room for stagnation in this area. Over the last three years, there has been a disturbing downward trend in enrolments in core French programs26. Canadian Heritage has inserted in its agreements with the provinces and territories a clause requiring them to report on participation rates in minority-language and secondlanguage education, thus following up on a recommendation put forth by the Commissioner in previous reports (since 2002-2003).
AXIS 2: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Although some sectors are still lagging, generally speaking, this is the area where there has been the most progress in implementing the Action Plan.
If a first prize were awarded, the health field would no doubt be the winner. Many projects have been developed to benefit the Francophone communities in four areas: recruitment, training, research and networking. These interventions helped increase the number of enrolments, which have tripled since 2003, in French-language training programs for health professionals. The Société santé en français has also created 17 regional networks made up of professionals, service and training institutions, government authorities and community organizations. Health Canada, through the Société santé en français, is funding 67 Frenchlanguage health services improvement projects in all regions of Canada.
Progress in Anglophone communities has been just as impressive. Coordinated by the Quebec Community Groups Network, one provincial and nine local and regional networks have been established. Some 30 projects aimed at improving access and adapting services for the Anglophone community have been approved in 13 of Quebec's 16 regions. McGill University is coordinating a major project to provide Englishlanguage training for health professionals working with English-speaking clients. There have also been efforts to encourage English-speaking health professionals to set up practice in regions where the need for English-language services is acute.
On the subject of justice in French, the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund provided resources to initiate 18 projects in 2003-2004 and 31 projects in 2004-2005. The network of associations of French-language legal professionals has received funding for the 2003-2008 period. Although the impact of these measures has not yet been clearly felt, these investments have benefited activities in the following areas: training, the development of legal and linguistic tools, consultation mechanisms and increased awareness of access to justice.
Early childhood development in minority communities is another major concern. It is particularly worth noting that clauses providing for the creation of child-care spaces for official language communities were included in agreements in principle negotiated with the provinces27 under the Early Learning and Child Care Initiative. However, it is difficult to understand the delay in providing the funding necessary to launch planned pilot projects on child-care services for official language communities.
Agreements on literacy at the national and provincial levels have led to the development of many initiatives in support of Francophone communities, with the following objectives: training literacy trainers and workers; enhancing organizational capacity; research; promoting family literacy; developing and experimenting with models and approaches in family literacy; networking and partnership. Initiatives supporting the Anglophone community have been slower, however.
In the area of immigration (a target for the Francophone side only), the first two years have been taken up by strategic planning and implementation of a coordination and consultation infrastructure. There has been real progress, but efforts must continue in order to have long-term impact on communities.
Economic development is a key component of community vitality. Until quite recently, initiatives in this area were too fragmented to have a significant impact on the structure of local economies. However, the recent integration of the Enabling Fund for human resources and economic development in the Action Plan now allows for better coordination of the work of departments active in the sector. It also calls for enhanced support in strategic economic development projects through the Coordinating Group on Economic Development and Employability (RDÉE) and the Community Economic Development and Employability Committees (the equivalent for the Anglophone community in Quebec).
AXIS 3: PUBLIC SERVICE
Studies by the Office of the Commissioner show that service delivery in both official languages has reached a plateau. The use of French as the language of work also remains problematic. (See the next chapter.)
Some breakthroughs in this area are nonetheless worth mentioning. First, in spite of the fact that it does not have sufficient resources to carry out its monitoring role, the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada has improved its capacity to measure progress within federal agencies. For example, the revision of official language policies in 2005 has clarified certain aspects of the implementation of the Act. Secondly, the use of imperative staffing (other than in clearly established exceptional circumstances) is a major step forward in the area of language of work. In addition, the Innovation Fund helps implement innovative projects that may be beneficial. However, the gap between the demand and supply of language training for public service staff is growing. The resources set aside by departments to meet this need are clearly insufficient to respond to the demand.
ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK
The Action Plan includes an Accountability Framework that requires departments to consult official language communities. Most of the organizations consulted agree that the Action Plan has promoted greater participation by communities. They particularly appreciated the work of the Privy Council Office in establishing candid, positive communications. The Action Plan has also led to renewed energy within communities.
A number of shortcomings remain, however. As the performance report cards show, certain institutions do not have strategic plans to coordinate their activities and to ensure appropriate targeting. Even existing strategic plans do not always clearly set out timelines. Finally, these plans, though essential, are only a first step, the means to an end. Whether they achieve convincing results remains to be seen.
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
The Privy Council Office has developed a performance measurement framework under the Accountability plan, to be used to guide accountability and to evaluate the effectiveness of initiatives. The Commissioner is not convinced that the performance measurement framework adequately assesses the outcomes of the Action Plan. Several indicators are overly broad and insufficiently related to actual measures. More modest indicators closely linked to activities under the Action Plan would have been more appropriate.
Finally, the government itself admits in the Midterm Report that the implementation of the Action Plan has not been as transparent as it could have been. Data on activities and investments are not sufficiently accurate to allow for detailed accountability. In addition, some departments have delayed providing information without a valid explanation.
MIDTERM REPORT: VARYING RESULTS
The Action Plan has led to uneven progress, varying by sector and by linguistic community. Tangible results have been achieved for both language communities in such sectors as health services in the language of the minority, where high-quality projects have been implemented. Halfway through the term of the plan, however, significant shortcomings persist in certain areas. For instance, in the education sector, institutions have been very slow to implement initiatives, and action has repeatedly been delayed. In other sectors, such as literacy, clear results have been achieved, but only for the Francophone community.
As well, the federal government has acknowledged that additional measures are required in areas such as arts and culture, which are not covered by the Action Plan. The government also recognizes the need to reinforce the research component to respond better to the needs of official language communities. There will be catching up to do in some areas of the Action Plan, and the scope of work will need to be broadened. Once again, effective horizontal governance of these issues will be an essential element in the Action Plan's success.
Assessment of key institutions
During 2005-2006, the Commissioner assessed the work of five institutions that play a central role in the area of official languages. Although their mandates differ, they have a basic responsibility in common: to set the tone and exercise strong leadership in official languages. Since leadership is a shared responsibility, the resulting action must be coordinated. This issue has been addressed at length in an earlier chapter dealing with horizontal governance.
The assessment targeted the following agencies:
- The Privy Council Office28, which plays a central role in the implementation of the government's Action Plan and also supports the Minister of Official Languages.
- The Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada, which manages the official languages program for all institutions covered by the Act regarding service to the public, language of work and equitable participation.
- Canadian Heritage, which coordinates the implementation of Part VII of the Act, designed to foster the development of official language communities in a minority setting and the promotion of English and French in Canadian society.
- Justice Canada, which provides legal advice to the government and its institutions and has a monitoring role in ensuring the respect of official languages in the development of bills, regulations, guidelines and policies.
- The Public Service Commission, which takes on the important role of monitoring the implementation of linguistic provisions in public service staffing.
| Methodology For the purposes of this assessment, the Office of the Commissioner developed a framework of six assessment criteria common to all institutions:
This exercise is not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of all official languages responsibilities of key institutions, nor an assessment of horizontal coordination. |
OBSERVATIONS
The following general observations are supported by examples drawn from individual reports on key institutions. These reports and other details about the exercise can be found on the Web site of the Office of the Commissioner.
In the context of this exercise, the Commissioner sought to better understand how key institutions make their mandate visible in matters of official languages. It is encouraging to find that key institutions generally do a good job in this area. Each one makes appropriate use of its Web site and annual report to publicize its mandate.
The second assessment benchmark was the responsibility of each key institution to provide guidance. The Commissioner examined whether key institutions provide appropriate guidance to the federal administration under their specific official languages responsibilities. Some successes were observed. For example, the Privy Council Office is to be commended for having sent its first reminder to federal institutions following the adoption of Bill S-3. It reminds them of their responsibility to take measures to implement Part VII of the Act. In other respects, Justice Canada rigorously prepares case summaries and analyses jurisprudential trends in language rights for its network of legal counsel who, in turn, support government departments. Another example: the Human Resources Management Agency provides guidance to the federal public service by offering interpretations of its policies and directives and providing training for managers. The Commissioner did note a number of areas for improvement, however. For example, Canadian Heritage should be more affirmative in providing guidance on implementing Bill S-3 to all institutions subject to the Act.
Do key institutions monitor outcomes in the field? Have they created appropriate mechanisms to survey and evaluate implementation outcomes in areas where they provide guidance to the federal public service? Although the Commissioner noted some efforts in this area, most of the work clearly remains to be done. The Privy Council Office, for example, has created a performance measurement framework to help it evaluate the effectiveness of initiatives taken by institutions targeted by the Action Plan.29 However, more sustained effort is needed to ensure that institutions are serious about following up and that they consult official language minority communities consistently. In addition, it must also intervene with parties concerned to ensure that key institutions subject to the Action Plan fulfill their commitments completely and in a timely manner.
Do key institutions consult communities in carrying out their mandate? If so, how? Although the answers to this question vary, some institutions perform well, especially the Privy Council Office, which formally consults official language minority communities twice a year: once involving senior officials of institutions targeted by the Action Plan, and once with the ministers responsible for the same institutions. As well, Justice Canada consults official language communities through the Advisory Committee—Justice in Official Languages.
The Commissioner also sought to determine whether key institutions evaluate their own performance. Do they use independent evaluators? Do they evaluate the leadership they show in the area of official languages? Here again, the results are mixed. On the one hand, the Commissioner found good practices in some institutions. Canadian Heritage, for example, has assessed some aspects of its programs and implemented a mechanism to determine the effectiveness of its leadership. Other institutions have developed or implemented management tools. On the other hand, the Commissioner has found that some institutions, including the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency, could do a better job of evaluating their leadership within the federal public service in the area of official languages.
The final assessment benchmark for key institutions dealt with the creation of a workplace conducive to the use of both official languages. How do institutions model the creation of such a workplace? The Public Service Commission, for one, has offered information sessions for managers and staff on language of work, and it stands out for the high bilingual capacity of its senior managers (97%) and its supervisors (95%) in bilingual positions.
Conclusion
This section has provided an opportunity to present the assessment exercise of the work of key institutions against a number of benchmarks related to their roles in the area of official languages. Key institutions perform well in some areas, but need to improve in others.
Although not a benchmark in the Commissioner's assessment, skill in horizontal governance appears to be an essential condition for key institutions to exercise strong and coordinated leadership.
This was the first assessment of key institutions conducted by the Office of the Commissioner. There will certainly be more. Over the coming years, assessments will focus more closely on the outcomes produced by key institutions' systems, infrastructures and leadership.
