• About Us
  • The Commissioner of Official Languages
  • Mandate
  • Mission
  • Roles
  • History of the Office of the Commissioner
• Your Language Rights
  • Official Languages Act
  • Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Official Languages Regulations
  • Filing a Complaint
  • Court Remedy
  • Legal Interventions
• Official Languages and You
  • General Information
    • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Linguistic Duality and Cultural Diversity
    • Immigration and linguistic duality
    • Studies
  • Teachers
  • Parliamentarians
  • Institutions
• Newsroom
  • Search
  • News Releases
  • Daily Highlights
  • Backgrounders
  • Speeches
  • Media Resources
  • Contacts
• Publications
  • Search
  • Reports
  • Studies
  • Report Cards
  • Language Laws and Rights
  • Audits
  • Newsletter
  • History of Official Languages
  • Youth
  • Videos
  • Posters
  • Other publications
  • Order Form
• Statistics
• Careers
• Archives
• Links
  • Travel and Hospitality Expenses
• Completed Access to Information Requests
• Proactive Disclosure
  • Contracts Awarded
  • Grants and Contributions
  • Position Reclassifications
  • Advertising and Public Notices Expenditures

2. The governance of the official language minorities in Canada

Page 5 of 16

2.1 The official language minorities

The official language minorities represent only a small percentage of the Canadian population, although they exist in every province and are sometimes even a majority in their respective environments. Regardless of their demographic weight, the issue of the status of these minorities has always been intimately related to that of the future of the country.

Appendix 1 provides an overview of the demographic, economic and constitutional situation of the official language minorities in Canada. We thought it useful to present a few tables on the subject to give a better picture of the situation of the players chiefly affected by the new linguistic governance.

Note, in particular, how the situation of the official language minorities differs from one province to another (see table 1 in appendix 1). Most of the Francophones outside Quebec live along the Moncton (N.B.) - Windsor (Ont.) axis close to Quebec, while elsewhere we find communities that are numerically very small, often receiving little legal protection aside from measures adopted by the federal government (see table 5).

Tables 2 and 3 show that the Anglophone minority in Quebec is the only one where the percentage of persons having the minority language as their home language is higher than the number of persons having it as their mother tongue, whereas elsewhere in Canada, Francophones are in the reverse situation. This makes the situation of Francophones much more difficult, requiring well-integrated and coordinated government action to compensate for their numerical weakness.

However, in regions such as the Eastern Townships, Gaspé and northern and western Quebec, the existence of Anglophone communities seems increasingly threatened because of the rural exodus, the drop in the birth rate, and the aging of the population.

 

2.2 The governance of the official language minorities

In 1988, when the new Official Languages Act, which better conforms to the spirit of the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was passed, the federal government added to it a new part, Part VII, which commits the government to doing more to ensure the vitality and development of the official language minorities. Section 41 of Part VII of the new Act states:

The Government of Canada is committed to (a) enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and (b) fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

Section 42 states that "the Minister of Canadian Heritage, in consultation with other ministers of the Crown, shall encourage and promote a coordinated approach to the implementation by federal institutions of the commitments set out in section 41."

The text of the Act does not specify whether the commitment of the Government of Canada is imperative or symbolic. The recent decisions of the Supreme Court in the Beaulac and Summerside cases, however, indicated the need to interpret language rights "as a fundamental tool for the preservation and protection of the official language communities, where they apply."1 Without ruling directly on the obligation of governments to ensure the vitality and development of the official language minorities, the broad and generous interpretations of the Supreme Court seek to go in this direction.

Sections 41 and 42 only began to be applied in 1994. They conferred new responsibilities on the various departments, particularly the Department of Canadian Heritage, and encouraged the development of new consultative structures and partnerships between the federal government and the official language minorities.

2.3 The institutional infrastructure supporting the governance of the official language minorities

As the federal government reviewed its methods of acting and proceeded to implement sections 41 and 42 of the Act, it developed an increasingly complex institutional infrastructure. Figure 1, below, gives an overview of some of the bodies supporting the governance of the official language minorities with respect to their vitality and development. Some are characterized by forms of horizontal governance that involve these minorities to a greater extent in the language planning process.

Figure 1 : The institutional infrastructure supporting the governance of the official language minorities in Canada: Government decision-making and consultative bodies

Among these bodies, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) are the ones that are supposed to have a special concern for the issue of the vitality and development of the official language minorities. In addition, in April 2001, the government assigned the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs the responsibility of ensuring the introduction of a new interdepartmental structure to coordinate action with respect to official languages, including action with respect to vitality and development. The federal government has stated that by doing so it intends to exercise more "political leadership with regard to the promotion of and respect for bilingualism and the application of laws protecting the English and French linguistic minorities everywhere in Canada" (Buzetti, 2001: A8) [our translation]. We will return to this subject later.

2.3.1 The Department of Canadian Heritage

The Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH) must ensure the coordinated application of sections 41 and 42 of Part VII of the Act, concerning the federal government’s commitment to the vitality and development of the official language minorities. It has accordingly become the chief body responsible for support to the official language minorities. It describes itself as having "responsibility for coordinating the federal government’s commitment to helping the official language minority communities by supporting various groups working for these communities, and by facilitating the contributions of other federal departments and agencies to their development" (PCH, http://www.pch.gc.ca/offlang/policy/authorities.html).

It is the role of Canadian Heritage, among other things, to conclude agreements with the provincial governments in specific areas such as education, school management and health in order to encourage the delivery of public services to the official language minorities. It also signs agreements with the official language minorities for their development.

In 1997, its objectives with respect to the development of the minorities were: "greater assumption of responsibility by the communities for themselves for setting their development priorities; more rigorous and appropriate use of the resources" made available to them; and "greater consistency and coherence in the measures taken by the various bodies at the local level" (PCH, 1997: v-vi). These objectives are directly linked to the signing of the Canada-community agreements, the details of which we will look at later.

Figure 2, presents the structure that exists within the Department of Canadian Heritage for coordinating action with respect to the vitality and development of the official language minorities. The draft agreements, including the Canada-community agreements, constitute one of the department’s five types of related activities. The others are: the Section 41 Steering Committee, the Interdepartmental Working Group on Official Languages Research, the national network of coordinators responsible for section 41, and the Interdepartmental Partnership with the Official Language Communities.

Figure 2 : The structure for coordinating within the Department of Canadian Heritage with respect to the vitality and development of the official language minorities

a) The Interdepartmental Partnership with the Official Language Communities

The Interdepartmental Partnership with the Official Language Communities is a sector undergoing great expansion. There are two possible types of partnership: one in which coordination with the official language minorities takes place primarily between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the other departments in order to promote the integration of the needs of the official language minorities into their program framework; and another that began with the signing of agreements and protocols between the official language minorities and certain departments.

Since 1998, four types of multilateral agreements have been signed between the various departments and public agencies and the minority communities:

• a multipartite co-operation agreement on the artistic and cultural development of Canada’s Francophone and Acadian communities;
  
• an agreement on French-language publishing and theatre in the minority communities;
  
• a national memorandum of understanding on human resources development for Canada’s Francophone and Acadian communities;
  
• a national memorandum of understanding on human resources development for Quebec’s Anglophone community (see appendix 4).

We note in particular the creation, in 1996, of the National Committee for Canadian Francophonie Human Resource Development and of another committee for Quebec’s English-speaking community. These committees are regarded by some as a model of co-operation between the federal government and the official language minority communities (see the committee structure in appendix 2). In 1997 a support fund of $21 million, over three years, was established to ensure the implementation of the official language minority communities’ development strategies. This fund is available to both the Francophone and the Anglophone committees.

These committees attempt to respond to the specific needs of the communities with respect to rural development, the knowledge economy, the integration of young people, economic development and tourism. They are made up of equal numbers of representatives of the official language minority communities and of federal agencies. They are supported by the Department of Human Resources Development. Among other things, their purpose is to establish a national framework for economic development and employability; to promote the ratification of memorandums of agreement with the government agencies concerned with economic expansion and human resources development; to establish Regroupements de développement économique et d’employabilité (RDEEs) in the provinces and territories; and to participate in the development of strategies that enlist the Francophone and Acadian communities in particular in the major national and international economic and employability trends. The duties of these committees include coordination, information, liaison, research and development.

The RDEEs are agencies affiliated with the National Committee in the provinces and territories. These bodies ensure coordination among the various economic development and employability groups. Their role is to define a strategy that promotes the development of their community while meeting the objectives of the National Committee’s strategic plan. They appoint one agency from among their members to coordinate, at the provincial level, the many economic development and employability initiatives. This delegated agency ensures liaison with the National Committee and is eligible for supporting funds.

We also note the creation, in 2000, of the Consultative Committee for French-Speaking Minority Communities in the health field and, in 2001, of a similar committee for Anglophones living in Quebec (see the committee structure in appendix 3). These committees consist of members of the minority communities and representatives of the federal and provincial governments. Their mandate is to advise the federal Minister of Health on ways his department can contribute to the vitality and development of the English and French linguistic minority communities and to provide their views on initiatives currently being developed to optimize their impact on the communities.

Other departments have developed projects that also involve representatives of the minority communities. They include the Francocommunautés virtuelles and VolNet projects of Industry Canada, which are intended to increase the connection of Francophone minority communities to the Internet. The department has funded 51 projects across the country (TBS, 2000: 14).

It should also be noted that Western Economic Diversification Canada has included the presence of one French-language agency in each western province in the government strategy for western economic development (TBS, 2000: 14).

In 1997, the Commissioner of Official Languages expressed the hope that "by the beginning of the millennium all federal institutions will be responding effectively to specific minority community development needs as an integral part of their mandate for program delivery" (Commissioner of Official Languages, 1998a: 7). In a recent annual report, the Commissioner wrote instead that "many government institutions are still characterized by an at best passive, if not defensive, attitude with regard to their obligations" (Commissioner of Official Languages, 2000: 8).

In addition, even before the agreements had been evaluated, criticisms were already being heard. Some emphasize the importance of providing adequate funding for the agreements, particularly in the area of arts and culture, where the needs of the minorities are very great. Others maintain that when the agreements lead to the establishment of new structures, as in the area of human resources development, this still further encumbers or bureaucratizes interventions with respect to vitality and development.

However, the official language minorities rely greatly on the interdepartmental partnership to broaden the range of funding options for activities in the minority communities, to make possible greater coordination among the partners, and to promote their assumption of responsibility for themselves (PCH, 1997: 14).

b) Agreements with the provincial and territorial governments on the development of the official language minorities

The Department of Canadian Heritage has signed a number of agreements with the provincial and territorial governments (see appendix 5).

Since 1995, federal-provincial-territorial agreements on the promotion of the official languages have been signed to facilitate the delivery of services to the official language minorities in the areas of health, the economy, justice, social services and recreation, as well as on promotion of the recognition of the two official languages and their use. The content of the agreements and their methods of implementation vary from province to province. Only the government of British Columbia had not signed such an agreement with the federal government.

A memorandum of agreement in the area of minority language education and second language instruction defines the federal-provincial-territorial partnership framework with respect to official language instruction. The agreements must facilitate access to mother tongue education for the minorities and second language instruction for the majorities. Each province or territory individually negotiates its agreement with the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Since 1998 there has been a five-year agreement on the system of school management in Ontario. This is a special agreement between the provincial and federal governments to fund the completion of the province’s system of school management.

In 1997 the Department of Canadian Heritage signed a co-operation agreement with the Alberta Department of Health to improve access for the province's Francophones to health services in French.

In 1999 Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) signed labour market development agreements with the departments of education or ministers responsible for vocational training of the various provinces and territories.² These agreements provide that HRDC or the provincial and territorial governments shall ensure, by means of joint management or a transfer of responsibility, the design, delivery and evaluation of active employment measures and national employment service functions. The language clauses differ from one agreement to another (providing, in some cases, for consultation of the minorities or the delivery of services in both languages where there is significant demand). These agreements were the subject of a more thorough study as part of the Fontaine report (1999).

With regard to the general funding of agreements with the provincial governments, the Treasury Board data cited, among others, in the Annual Report 1998-1999 of the Commissioner of Official Languages show that, in 1998, expenditures in the area of federal-provincial-territorial co-operation on official languages amounted to $167.78 million. Of this amount, $134.67 million went to agreements on minority language education ($80.15 million) and second language instruction ($49.17 million).

Quebec received the most funding for minority language education ($36.1 million), followed by Ontario ($23 million) and New Brunswick ($10.26 million). As for funds earmarked for second language instruction, Ontario received the lion's share of the budget ($17.65 million), followed by Quebec ($6.37 million), British Columbia ($5.72 million), and Alberta ($4.58 million).

The sum of $8.14 million was allocated to agreements in the area of services and the promotion of official languages, and $24.97 million to special measures such as school management and post-secondary education.

In short, the experience of the federal-provincial-territorial agreements should be studied further to promote more thorough reflection on the nature and scope of intergovernmental relations in the development of the official language minorities.

c) The Canada-community agreements

These are framework agreements between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the minority communities that set out a framework for co-operation to advance the vitality and development of the communities. They guarantee funding to agencies of the minority communities for a five-year period to enable them to develop programming and carry out projects in a variety of areas such as culture, the economy, communications, law, health and the rights of women and racial minorities.

Through the Canada-community agreements, the department seeks to achieve a threefold objective:

• to promote coordination among agencies within the community in order to increase the synergy of their actions and further the rationalization of their resources;
  
• to promote the participation of the various federal departments and agencies in the development of the community and co-operation with provincial and municipal bodies;
  
• to promote the long-term development of the community by seeking, for example, to increase its financial autonomy (PCH, 1997: 15).

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA) believes that the Canada-community agreements provide some financial stability for agencies working in the minority community. In addition, "consultation, the setting of development priorities and the participation of the communities at all levels of the decision-making process allow them to take more responsibility for their development." According to the FCFA, however, the agreements require "a major investment of time and energy by the representative organizations" (FCFA, 1999-2000, http://www.franco.ca/fcfa/documentation/ index.html) [our translations]. According to many, the Canada-community agreements have not always been an effective method of coordinating action; for others, when they have been effective, it was because of a combination of circumstances and not by design. We will return to this point.

The first Canada-community agreement was signed in 1988 with the Francophone community in Saskatchewan. In 1993 the Department of Canadian Heritage launched a process of negotiations with the other minority communities. From 1994 to 1996, an initial series of Canada-community agreements was signed; they expired in 1999. In 1999-2000, a second series of agreements was negotiated, and they will remain in effect until 2004-2005.

The funding of the Canada-community agreements has varied over time. For 1994 to 1999, it amounted to $59,413,155 over five years, or an average of $11,882,631 per year for all the Anglophone and Francophone minority communities in Canada. Of this sum, part of the funding was earmarked for the operation of provincial and national agencies and part for the completion of development projects (see appendix 6 for further details by province and territory).³

For 1999 to 2004, the sums allocated to the Canada-community agreements amount to $137,570,000. This represents a substantial increase of more than $78 million over five years, to an average of $27,514,000 per annum to be shared among the official language minorities. Moreover, unlike under the previous agreement, the communities are increasingly using the global envelope model, that is, an envelope from which funds for programming and special projects are allocated en bloc, the community being free to determine their allocation to each sector (see appendix 7 for further details by province and territory).⁴ This approach promotes a "self-management" model. However, some communities receive additional funding to ensure the smooth operation of coordination mechanisms within agreement secretariats in their province.

As was not the case in the first agreements, funds allocated under the new agreements are multi-year; that is to say, they are identical for the five years for which the agreement is in effect. These new funds come essentially from Official Languages Support Programs, whose budget was increased by $70 million over three years starting in 1999. This increase, however, barely suffices to cover the costs of the financial downsizing experienced by the official languages sector in recent years.

2.3.2 The Treasury Board Secretariat

To simplify, the TBS’s mandate is to ensure the application of the provisions of the Official Languages Act within the institutions of the federal government subject to it. In its documents, it is stated that the TBS has:

• the authority to recommend policies or regulations to the Governor in Council, to establish policies and issue directives, to monitor and audit compliance by federal institutions, to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of their programs, to provide information to the public and government employees, and to delegate any of its powers under this section to the deputy heads or administrative heads of federal institutions. In addition, section 48 requires that the President of the Treasury Board submit an annual report to Parliament on the status of the official languages programs in federal institutions. Therefore, it is important for the Treasury Board to receive pertinent and timely information from federal institutions (Treasury Board Secretariat, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/OffLang/INTRO_e.html).

In 1997, the Treasury Board and the Department of Canadian Heritage signed a memorandum of understanding on the implementation of section 41. This agreement was meant to encourage federal institutions to take into account, in their overall strategic planning and evaluation process, the government’s commitment to the vitality and development of the official language minorities. Accordingly, the agreement sought to promote interdepartmental coordination in the area of official languages.

Recently, the TBS, through Public Works and Government Services Canada, has also contributed financially to the establishment of single windows in Manitoba (St. Boniface, St. Pierre-Jolys), bringing together federal, provincial and municipal services. "The goal of the single window initiative is to provide the Franco-Manitoban community with better access to French-language services" (TBS, 2000: 14; Commissioner of Official Languages, 2001: 27).

Other single window or interactive Carrefour électronique projects are also being discussed in Quebec and Prince Edward Island. A single window project was also introduced in Saskatchewan in the fall of 2000 (Bellevue and Gravelbourg). It can provide information on everything related to employment: joining and rejoining the workforce, training, service to businesses, and departmental program services and information. This project is sponsored Human Resources Development Canada and the province’s Department of Post-Secondary Education and Skills Training. It also relies on the assistance of three provincial partners to ensure service delivery: the Service fransaskois d’éducation des adultes, the Conseil de la coopération de la Saskatchewan and Willow Bunch Communications.

In a recent study, the Commissioner of Official Languages made specific recommendations to the Treasury Board Secretariat regarding the scope of these new forms of co-operation for the vitality and development of the official language minorities. She proposed that it take into account some guiding principles concerning the labour force development agreements; "develop a framework for managing models of co-operation with community groups for the provision of services"; "put appropriate mechanisms in place to monitor and assess the implementation of any new model of co-operation"; "and report on this in their annual management report submitted to the Treasury Board" (Commissioner of Official Languages, 2001: 26).

2.3.3 The Department of Intergovernmental Affairs

It is still too early to assess the effectiveness of the new structure for coordinating action that the federal government announced in April 2001, since the structure had not yet been put in place when this study was carried out. In theory, the creation of such a structure within a central agency such as Intergovernmental Affairs should give greater coherence to action in the area of official languages. It seems that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will chair a review committee of official languages ministers.

Further, unless the Official Languages Act is amended, agencies such as the Treasury Board and the Department of Canadian Heritage will continue to provide the same services and carry out their respective responsibilities, as set out in the text of the Official Languages Act. It is therefore legitimate to wonder what role the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs will actually play with respect to the vitality and development of the official language minorities.

The Prime Minister’s announcement followed criticisms by the Commissioner of Official Languages to the effect that the federal government lacks commitment and firm and genuine leadership in the area of official languages. Earlier, in the Fontaine, Savoie and Simard reports, the issue was raised of the need for integrated leadership "exercised by a central authority vested with the necessary political and administrative powers" (Fontaine, 1999: 52).

We will have to see the articulation of the new structure to determine whether leadership with respect to the official languages will be more responsible, particularly as regards community vitality and development. It also remains to be seen whether horizontal governance that takes into account the concerns of all the non-government players will lead to better coordination of action.

2.3.4 Other consultative and decision-making bodies

Figures 1 and 2, while not exhaustive, show that a large number of government bodies, committees and programs are involved in the implementation of the Act and co-operate with the TBS and the Department of Canadian Heritage in this regard. The agencies that deal with the vitality and development of the official language minorities include: the Public Service Commission of Canada; the Federal Court of Canada; the Privy Council Office; the departments of Justice, Human Resources Development, Industry, Health, and Public Works and Government Services; Western Economic Diversification Canada; Statistics Canada; Canada Post; the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages (created in 1980); and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. This last agency holds interdepartmental consultations and meetings with the Francophone communities in the Atlantic region.

A recent study by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages adds to this list the Council of Senior Federal Officials, the deputy ministers and heads of organizations, and the managers of offices designated bilingual (Commissioner of Official Languages, 2001: 10-13).

The existence of a central committee on official languages should also be noted: the Committee of Deputy Ministers on Official Languages, created in 1985. It has been a forum for the convergence and integration of action in the various departments (see figure 3). "The committee's expanded mandate ... requires that each year it develop integrated priorities as well as an implementation plan, and that it set strategic objectives to guide all federal institutions with respect to institutional bilingualism, the promotion of linguistic duality and the development of the official language minority communities" (TBS, 2000: 8).

We also note the existence of an Interdivisional Committee on Official Languages in the TBS, the National Program for the Integration of Both Official Languages in the Administration of Justice (POLAJ), and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, as well as the presence of official languages champions whose role is to enhance the visibility of the official languages in federal institutions and ensure that obligations with respect to institutional bilingualism and the development of the communities are fulfilled.

Within this institutional infrastructure, a number of consultative bodies have been established in direct partnership with the minority community.

This brief outline of the institutional infrastructure with respect to vitality and development certainly testifies to greater consideration of the official language minorities by the federal government. It shows, to use TBS terminology, the existence of more integrated leadership.

2.3.5 The funding of activities targeted to the official language minorities: a summary

The most recent budget figures on official languages are found in the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for 1998-1999. They include figures for official languages support programs; i.e., federal-provincial-territorial co-operation, support for the official language communities, and promotion and dialogue. These expenditures were made by the Department of Canadian Heritage and amount to $220,340,000.

In 1998-1999, the cost of providing federal services in both official languages was $255,200,000, and total spending on official languages amounted to some $500 million.

As a percentage of total public spending for this period, the official languages represent only about 0.5% (TBS, 1998; http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ tb/estimate/ped9899f.html). Moreover, the budget for official languages in federal institutions has been substantially reduced since 1990, falling from over $300 million (in current dollars), the highest sum allocated, to less than $250 million in 1998-1999, a sum equivalent to the budget in 1984-1985.

Notes

1. Beaulac v. The Queen [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768; see also Arsenault-Cameron v. The Queen [2000] 1 S.C.R. 3.

2. In general, the agreements were signed by ministers of education or ministers responsible for vocational training, but in some cases, by ministers of intergovernmental affairs, health, or, in the case of Quebec, even the Premier.

3. We do not have detailed financial data indicating the sums allocated to each agency or project in each province and territory

4. We do not have detailed financial data indicating the sums allocated to each agency or project in each province and territory.

Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page