CONCLUSION
Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page
If there is one general conclusion to be drawn from the preceding pages, it is that linguistic duality is rooted more deeply than ever in the collective spirit of Canadians. It is a fundamental feature of Canada's personality and contemporary identity. However, the decisions and actions of political and public service leaders are not always in accordance with this core value of our society. Equality between English and French is far from being achieved. It is clear that the federal government still has many challenges to address.
The passage of Bill S-3 was no doubt a high point in the area of official languages in 2005-2006. The amendments made by Parliament to the Official Languages Act (the Act) represent a historic breakthrough for language rights in the country. The Government of Canada and official language minority communities now have better tools to build their communities' future and to promote progress toward true equality in the status and use of English and French in Canadian society.
Horizontal governance is one of the tools that must from here on play a predominant role in managing official languages. The development of official language communities and the promotion of linguistic duality require a more dynamic relationship between the federal public service and civil society. It is no longer an option for federal institutions simply to consult communities: they must truly share decision making with all stakeholders, so that all may fully contribute to developing policies and programs that affect them.
As well, any serious examination of official languages issues raises the need to revamp the regulatory framework. The 1992 Official Languages Regulations (Communications with and Services to the Public) were drafted in a bygone era and are no longer appropriate. These regulations must be modernized, and the time has come to reflect on the possibility of adopting new regulations to better define the implementation of obligations set out in other parts of the Act.
In this context of renewal, community vitality is another key notion. Vitality is what gives a community its vigour, strength and ability to develop to its full capacity. We need to increase our understanding of community vitality and promote empowerment through research and knowledge. Community vitality must also be addressed through an inclusive process in which all stakeholders—official language communities, public institutions and researchers—actively contribute.
We must also situate our official languages framework in the context of Canada's changing society. It would be difficult today to discuss linguistic duality without underscoring the decisive influence of the interweaving of English and French cultures, the recognition of Aboriginal peoples and the contribution of immigration. Linguistic duality and cultural diversity are core values in Canadian society. They must be reflected more adequately and promoted more vigorously, both in Canada and abroad.
Finally, it goes without saying that the Canadian government is the moving force in the area of official languages and that Canadians expect federal institutions to fulfill their obligations under the Official Languages Act. The latter section of this report deals with ensuring the compliance of federal institutions with these obligations. Based on an analysis of all the investigations, studies and audits, it can be said that the government has been fairly successful in creating plans and a number of administrative processes to meet its obligations. This progress is supported in the report. Although the necessary means are now in place, convincing results have yet to be seen. We must conclude that linguistic duality is not yet truly integrated in the organizational culture of most public institutions. Overall, the impression is that of a work unfinished. Unfortunately, too often the Act is misunderstood and applied by the federal public service as a series of unconnected rules.
A final word
Beyond laws, regulations, studies and investigations, there gleams in the distance a vision of a country founded on justice and equality, a Canada where everyone has an equal opportunity to develop and find fulfillment in either official language.
Many stakeholders must commit to the achievement of this vision—from politicians to public service leaders, from communities to individuals.
We must look to a future in which Canadians fully embody and experience the value of linguistic duality. A future in which each gesture by our leaders— politicians and public servants—communicate that value. A future in which all of our choices, both individual and collective, are aligned with that vision.
In short, through our concerted efforts, we will achieve the diverse and inclusive country that we seek.
Notes
1 In this report, the term "federal institutions" designates all institutions of Parliament or the Government of Canada that are subject to the Official Languages Act, that is to say, departments, agencies, Crown corporations and organizations, including those that have been privatized (such as Air Canada), unless otherwise expressly noted.
2 Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, A Blueprint for Action: Implementing Part VII of the Official Languages Act, 1988, 1994.
3 See Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2001 F.C.T. 239, also known as the case of the "Contraventions Act." In its study, the government clearly expressed its position concerning the declaratory nature of the commitment in Part VII.
4 R. v. Beaulac, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768, paragraph 24.
5 This chapter draws primarily on the following studies: Linda Cardinal and Marie-Ève Hudon, The Governance of Canada's Official Language Minorities: A Preliminary Study, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 2001; James Lahey, Andréa D. Rounce and Norman Beaudry, Using Horizontal Tools to Work Across Boundaries: Lessons Learned and Signposts for Success, Canadian Centre for Management Development, 2002; Jean-Pierre Wallot (dir.), La gouvernance linguistique : le Canada en perspective, University of Ottawa Press, 2005; Herman Bakvis and Luc Juillet, The Horizontal Challenge: Line Departments, Central Agencies and Leadership, Canada School of Public Service, 2004; Office of the Privy Council, Canada, Update on the Implementation of the Action Plan for Official Languages: Mid-term Report, 2005.
6 In particular, the implementation in 1981 of the National Program for the Administration of Justice in Both Official Languages.
7 The Minister's administrative support structure was transfered to Canadian Heritage in February 2006.
8 A new model replacing the Official Language Minority Communities Support Fund for economic development and employability, created in 1997.
9 However, the Official Languages Branch of the Privy Council Office does not report to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
10 Such groups include: Canadian Parents for French; French for the Future (Le français pour l'avenir); Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers (Association canadienne des professeurs d'immersion); Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers (Association canadienne des professeurs de langues secondes); Society for the Promotion of the Teaching of English as a Second Language in Quebec (Société pour la promotion de l'enseignement de l'anglais langue seconde au Québec); Katimavik.
11 Jack Jedwab, Immigration and the Vitality of Canada's Official Language Communities: Policy, Demography and Identity, Office of the Commissioner, 2002; Carsten Quell, Official Languages and Immigration: Obstacles and Opportunities for Immigrants and Communities, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 2002.
12 One for the Anglophone community and the other for the Francophone community.
13 The numerical criteria refer to the estimated number of minority language individuals, or the percentage of the English or French linguistic minority in the region served by the office or, in some cases, a combination of the two criteria.
14 The data in this part are extracted from: Statistics Canada, Population Estimates by First Official Language Spoken, 2001, reference no. 94-F0042XCB, March 2003.
15 The key services the linguistic minority population has the right to receive when it comprises more than 500 individuals but represents less than 5% of the total population are the services most often used by the public, when such a service is offered, namely: income security services (pensions, family allowances and old age security), services at employment centres, post offices and Canada Revenue Agency offices, as well as from Canadian Heritage, the Public Service Commission of Canada and RCMP detachments.
16 It should be noted that different regulations are in effect in the cities of Toronto and Montréal, adding to the confusion of citizens.
17 In February 2006, this department was renamed the Department of Human Resources and Social Development.
18 See Making it Real (bilingual regions in Quebec), April 2005, and Walking the Talk (National Capital Region), March 2004.
19 Nicole Vaz, "The Principle of Equality of the Official Languages" in Language Rights in Canada, 2nd ed., M. Bastarache (ed.) (Cowansville: Yvon Blais, 2004), p. 612.
20 Marc L. Johnson and Paule Doucet, A Sharper View: Evaluating the Vitality of Official Language Minority Communities, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages (to be published in 2006); Anne Gilbert, André Langlois, Rodrigue Landry and Edmund Aunger, "L'environnement et la vitalité communautaire des minorités francophones : vers un modèle conceptuel", Francophonies d'Amérique 20 (2005): 51-62.
21 Jane Jenson and Martin Papillon, The "Canadian Diversity Model": A Repertoire in Search of a Framework, Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc., 2001.
22 Towards a New Beginning, Task Force on Aboriginal Languages and Cultures, www.aboriginallanguagestaskforce.ca/foundreport_e.html, 2005.
23 OECD definition. In Minutes: The Opportunity and Challenge of Diversity: A Role for Social Capital, International Conference, Montréal, November 23-25, 2003.
24 What We Need to Know About the Social Economy: A Guide for Policy Research, Policy Research Project, Government of Canada, July 2005.
25 http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/html/stu_etu_112004_e.php
26 See www.cpf.ca.
27 It should be noted that the language clauses vary from province to province.
28 In February 2006, the Official Languages Branch, which is responsible for coordinating the management of official languages within the federal government, was transferred from the Privy Council Office to the Department of Canadian Heritage.
29 The institutions targeted by the Action Plan are: Canadian Heritage, the Treasury Board Secretariat (the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada has taken over Secretariat responsibilities under the Action Plan), Health Canada, Human Resources Development Canada (now known as Human Resources and Social Development Canada), Industry Canada, Justice Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and the Privy Council Office (Intergovernmental Affairs).
30 See the section on the roles of key institutions in Chapter 6.
31 http://www.officiallanguages.gc.ca/html/performance_rendement_e.php
32 Results for each institution are posted on the Web site of the Office of the Commissioner.
33 i.e. recorded telephone messages on telephone lines advertised as bilingual service points in BUROLIS, in telephone directories or in minority language media, as well as greetings by attendants who answer such lines.
34 Vers une nouvelle relation entre le gouvernement et les citoyens, Summary of the colloquium proceedings, CEFRIO, Quebec, May 2005.
35 The sample used for field data collection was established by Statistics Canada and was primarily designed to collect representative information in order to evaluate the performance of each institution.
36 It should be noted that the Office of the Commissioner did not carry out any observations on in-person service in Nunavut.
37 Data on "active offer" do not distinguish between various types of initial contact (automated system, answering machine or attendant). The "adequate service" column reflects the number of occasions where the service was delivered in the minority official language with a level of quality comparable to the service delivered in the majority language.
38 Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Making It Real: Promoting Respectful: Co-existence of the Two Official Languages at Work (April 2005) and Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Walking the Talk: Language of Work in the Federal Public Service (March 2004).
39 See details at http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/html/dnd_mdn_05_06_e.php.
40 See details at http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/html/dnd_mdn_05_06_e.php.
41 The category "Others" includes complaints withdrawn by the complainant during the investigation. It also includes complaints that OCOL decided to abandon for one of three reasons: the complainant failed to provide sufficient information; the investigation revealed that the complaint did not fall within the purview of OCOL; or the complaint is pending a decision by a third party.
42 The high number of complaints from Nova Scotia under the category "Others" is the result of notices published by the Halifax International Airport in English-language newspapers and not published in French-language newspapers.
43 See http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/html/pwgsc_tpsgc_05_06_e.php.
44 See http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/dnd_mdn_05_06_e.php.
45 See http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/html/cbsa_asfc_05_06_e.php.
46 See http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/html/stu_etu_092005_e.php.
