2. Linguistic duality in key programs and initiatives
Page 4 of 13
In the second chapter of the study published in 2004 entitled Doorway to the World: Linguistic Duality in Canada’s International Relations (pages 8 to 27), the Office of the Commissioner addressed the issue of linguistic duality in three broad cultural strategies (the Public Diplomacy Program (PDP), the Canadian Studies Program and the promotion of cultural diversity on an international level).
This chapter also dealt with linguistic duality’s place in Canadian trade missions and in Canada’s participation in the Francophonie, the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).
This part of the study contained 14 recommendations if those divided into two parts are counted twice.
2.1 The Public Diplomacy Program
2004 study
- The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) created the PDP, one of the main goals of which is the “promotion of Canadian identity and values abroad.”
- According to DFAIT, the notion of Canadian identity under this program encompasses Canada’s “diversity, values and excellence,” which are promoted through the arts, academic relations and exchanges.
- Within DFAIT, the PDP is widely seen as an important source of funding for projects relating to linguistic duality.
- The operation of the program is based on partnerships. It complements various federal programs that do not all have the same vision of duality. This raises the question of the integration of linguistic duality into federal government programs.
- Canada needs an international policy that includes linguistic duality in program development.
Status of the follow-up
Recommendation 1 (2004 study)
That the Department of Foreign Affairs ensure that its forthcoming audit of the Public Diplomacy Program include a comprehensive assessment of the program’s contribution to linguistic duality in Canada’s international relations.
Measures taken by the Department since 2004
DFAIT conducted an evaluation of the PDP, which was published in July 2005 under the title Evaluation of the Public Diplomacy Program of Foreign Affairs Canada.
The evaluation mentioned that the report Canada in the World, published in 1995, proposed a foreign policy based on three pillars. One of these pillars was the projection of Canadian values and culture. This pillar provided the rationale for several programs that were part of public diplomacy. The PDP was created in 1998.
The evaluation revealed that the PDP had funded a number of existing programs in arts and culture, academic relations, communications and the institutions of the Francophonie, and that it had created a new program whose aim was to encourage the participation of Canadians, at that point in time, particularly young Quebecers, in international affairs.
Between 1998 and 2004, the PDP funded a total of 500 projects, most of them calling on the participation of stakeholders from universities, non-governmental organizations and cultural organizations. The evaluation stated that “Most of the PDP projects have also contributed to expand the views of project participants on the cultural, linguistic and regional diversity of Canada.” For example, approximately 72% of respondents to a survey agreed that the participants in the projects had improved their understanding of Canada’s bilingual and multicultural character. The evaluation stated that “The PDP has helped to enhance the visibility of Canada’s Official Language Minority communities, providing one of the main vehicles for FAC [Foreign Affairs Canada] to meet its obligations under the Official Languages Act. The PDP also funded international promotion of the Canadian francophonie […].”
One of the five recommendations made during the evaluation suggested that the PDP should “give continuity to successful initiatives such as the UN simulations, and provide ways for FAC to meet its legal obligations under the OLA [Official Languages Act].”
In its response to the draft of this follow-up report, the Department confirmed that the primary objective of the 2005 evaluation of the PDP was not a comprehensive assessment of the Program’s contribution to linguistic duality in Canada’s international relations. Rather, it was to verify the effectiveness, relevance and efficiency of the Program. However, the evaluation did cover the PDP’s contributions to enhance the visibility of Canada’s official language minority communities.
With regard to the cuts made in September 2006 (see the Commissioner’s conclusion on the next page), the Department states: “We understand your concern about the elimination of the PDP funding in September 2006, but we can assure you that DFAIT still carries out its activities in this area. Canadian missions continue to actively promote and maintain our partners’ awareness and understanding of Canada’s linguistic duality.”
Commissioner’s conclusion
The Commissioner notes that the results achieved through the PDP are positive. For example, the Program has increased the visibility of Canada’s official language minority communities and better informed project participants about Canada’s cultural, linguistic and regional diversity. However, he has several reservations:
- Although the evaluation touches on some aspects of the Official Languages Act, it does not include “a comprehensive assessment of the program’s contribution to linguistic duality in Canada’s international relations,” as was recommended in 2004.
- Moreover, since 2004, the government has made significant cuts to the PDP’s budget. The most recent cuts were made during a 2006 expenditure review conducted by the Treasury Board Secretariat.3 The officials interviewed during the preparation of the follow-up study stated that the negative effect of these cuts will be compensated for by the Department’s existing programs and current activities, such as Canadian studies programs in other countries; Edu-Canada, which is responsible for marketing education; international youth exchange programs; grants through PROMART; Canada’s ongoing participation in the Francophonie; the missions’ ongoing programs for the Journée internationale de la Francophonie; and the delivery of services in both official languages through the Department’s trade sector. Nevertheless, the Commissioner remains concerned about the weakening of the PDP, which is an important means of action.
Despite DFAIT’s assertion in its response to a draft of this report that its missions continue to actively promote linguistic duality, the Commissioner reiterates his concern about the budget cuts made to the PDP, given the key role that this program has played in promoting Canada’s linguistic duality abroad.
Status of Recommendation 1 Partially implemented
2.2 The Canadian Studies Program
2.2.1 Selection criteria
2004 study
- DFAIT created a series of programs to support national and multinational Canadian studies associations and Canadian studies centres around the world. The programs fund hundreds of research projects related to Canada.
- The principle of academic freedom prevents the Department from including linguistic duality in its criteria for project selection. Adding linguistic duality to the list of topics of interest included on funding application forms could be useful.
Status of the follow-up
Recommendation 2 (2004 study)
That while fully respecting the principle of academic freedom, the Department of Foreign Affairs include Canada’s linguistic duality as a topic of interest in the application forms for the Canadian Studies Faculty Research Program, and that it do so in time for the program’s 2004 applications.
Measures taken by the Department since 2004
DFAIT stated that it had modified its application form and its Web sites in order to comply with this recommendation. In 2004–2005, the Department received nine applications for funding that dealt with linguistic duality and accepted them. The following year, it received eight project proposals and approved all of them.
Commissioner’s conclusion
The Commissioner notes that the Department has followed up on the recommendation. The fact that the Department has added linguistic duality as one of the topics of interest on the application forms and its Web sites has led to positive results.
Status of Recommendation 2 Implemented
2.2.2 The Bank of Missions
2004 study
- One of the programs under the Canadian Studies Program, the Bank of Missions, facilitates exchanges (called “missions”) between Canada and countries with which a bilateral agreement has been signed. France is one of the countries involved in this program.
- Quebec is excluded from the program because of an existing exchange program between the Quebec and French government.
- This situation goes against the principle that the federal government is responsible for representing all of Canada in international relations.
Status of the follow-up
Recommendation 3 (2004 study)
That the Department of Foreign Affairs take steps, by December 31, 2005, to ensure that all international Canadian studies programs apply to all parts of Canada and both Anglophone and Francophone populations.
Measures taken by the Department since 2004
As part of the 2004 study, the Office of the Commissioner asked the Department to comment on this recommendation during the draft stage. At the time, the Government of Canada’s response was that “France has required the non-inclusion of Quebec at joint cultural commission meetings and that the requirement does not refer specifically to Canadian studies. Although Canada has previously acceded to the French requirement, the Government of Canada confirmed that this position would be reviewed at the next meeting, which will take place in 2005.”
For this follow-up study, DFAIT reiterated France’s position and stated that there has not been a meeting during which the question raised by the Office of the Commissioner could have been discussed.
The Department states: “We have not made any progress on this issue and we have not had any projects with France since April 2006. However, DFAIT is developing a new approach to support academic speakers abroad, and guidelines will be made to promote Canada’s linguistic duality. Given these circumstances, the Bank of Missions program with France is being reconsidered.”
Commissioner’s conclusion
The Commissioner notes that no progress has been made regarding this recommendation. He was hoping that the Department could have found a way to discuss this matter with representatives from the French government.
The Commissioner is still convinced it is important that all parts of the country and its Anglophone and Francophone communities be able to take part in the Bank of Missions program.
Status of Recommendation 3 Not implemented
2.3 Cultural diversity
2.3.1 The Latin Union
Status of the follow-up
Recommendation 4 (2004 study)
That the Department of Foreign Affairs, in partnership with Canadian Heritage, take the necessary steps by March 31, 2005, enabling the Government of Canada to seek membership in the Latin Union.
Measures taken by the departments since 2004
DFAIT responded by stating that Canada does not plan to join the Latin Union. In its response to a draft of this report, it asserts that the Organization of American States (OAS), of which Canada is a member, is the best forum to promote cultural diversity. It goes on to give several examples of its work in this regard.
Commissioner’s conclusion
The Commissioner accepts DFAIT’s decision regarding membership in the Latin Union. He also agrees with the Department’s decision to stress the promotion of cultural diversity through its membership in the OAS. The Commissioner would also like to mention the importance of highlighting the essential contribution of linguistic duality to cultural diversity when Canada participates in various international organizations.
The Commissioner encourages the Department of Canadian Heritage and DFAIT to continue its activities with member countries of the Latin Union by continuing with the methods used up to the present time.
Status of Recommendation 4 Not implemented
2.3.2 The importance of linguistic duality
2004 study
- The fact that linguistic duality is part of cultural diversity appears to be well understood by officials at the head offices of Canadian Heritage and DFAIT.
- However, some Canadian officials at Canadian diplomatic missions suggested that the country’s linguistic duality was of little interest to the host country. They also stated, however, there was a great amount of interest in Canada’s experience managing cultural diversity.
- Canada’s linguistic duality is the result of successfully managing societal differences, and it is important to promote understanding of this important facet of Canada’s identity.
Status of the follow-up
Recommendation 5 (2004 study)
That the Department of Foreign Affairs, in collaboration with Canadian Heritage, develop, by December 31, 2004, internal communication strategies to enhance understanding of linguistic duality’s pertinence to our cultural diversity and to related government initiatives.
Measures taken by the departments since 2004
In its response to this recommendation, DFAIT stated that it has worked with the Department of Canadian Heritage on mutual efforts to enhance understanding of the relevance of linguistic duality.
It states that DFAIT has implemented several internal communications strategies in every mission to enhance understanding of the importance of linguistic duality to Canada’s cultural diversity and government initiatives.
The Department adds that it has asked its Inspector General to assess the results as part of its audit process. Some of these measures and initiatives include the Public Diplomacy Program, annual Francophone festivals celebrated in every mission and grants awarded to Francophone musicians and artists. Most recently, a Francophone film festival was held in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. The Department adds that it has a long-standing program to promote Francophone literature along with Canada’s two founding nations in Paris, France.
For its part, the Department of Canadian Heritage stated that it was continuing to provide information and training sessions to heads of mission and cultural attachés with the Canadian Foreign Service Institute and DFAIT. These sessions are used to give a general overview of the issues and challenges in the area of cultural policy and the commitment that is needed on the international scene to help strengthen Canada’s cultural sector and to declare the values and diversity of Canadian society, including linguistic duality, throughout the world.
Commissioner’s conclusion
The Commissioner recognizes that DFAIT and the Department of Canadian Heritage have conducted periodic communications and information activities. He nevertheless notes that these activities are not part of a strategic framework that would include, for example, objectives, desired results and results indicators.
In 2004, in response to the recommendation, DFAIT stated that it would develop a strategy to comply with this recommendation. This has not been done.
The Commissioner underlines the fact that the recommendation called for the development of internal communications strategies to raise awareness among departmental staff of the importance of linguistic duality. While the measures that have been taken have given rise to a number of external promotional activities, the Department does not confirm that it has developed a strategic framework for raising awareness among its own staff.
The Commissioner thus believes that DFAIT, to which this recommendation was primarily addressed, has not fully followed up on the recommendation, which advocated a more structured approach to communications.
Status of Recommendation 5 Partially implemented
| New Deadline 1 September 2008 for the implementation of the 2004 recommendation that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, in co-operation with the Department of Canadian Heritage, develop internal communications strategies to increase awareness of the importance of linguistic duality among Canada-based employees in missions and locally engaged staff with respect to cultural diversity and related government initiatives. |
2.4 The Francophonie Promotion Fund
2004 study
- The Fund mainly contributes to highlighting Canada’s linguistic duality by supporting Francophone interests and placing a certain amount of emphasis on building bridges within Canada’s Francophone community.
- Although eligibility criteria also include raising awareness about the Francophonie within the Canadian public, it is not clearly stated that this encompasses both linguistic communities, Anglophone and Francophone.
Status of the follow-up
Recommendation 6 (2004 study)
That the Department of Foreign Affairs revise, by December 31, 2004, eligibility criteria for its Francophonie Promotion Fund to include projects aimed at improving links with, and awareness within, Canada’s Anglophone population.
Measures taken by the Department since 2004
DFAIT stated that the Francophonie Promotion Fund was dissolved in March 2005. The Public Diplomacy Program has been given the responsibility of promoting the participation of Canadian associations and experts in the activities of international Francophone organizations.
DFAIT stated that in light of its current funding situation, it is not in a position to reconsider reinstituting the Francophonie Promotion Fund and that it will review the impact of this decision.
Commissioner’s conclusion
The Commissioner finds the cancellation of the Francophonie Promotion Fund worrisome, the more so because the PDP, which was supposed to take over its functions, was the subject of significant budget cuts during the Government of Canada’s expenditure review in 2006.
The Commissioner believes that the Francophonie Promotion Fund was an important means by which DFAIT fulfilled its responsibilities for promoting the Francophonie and linguistic duality in its international relations.
The Commissioner shares the view that the impact of the cancellation of the Francophonie Promotion Fund in 2005 should be the subject of a departmental review.
Status of Recommendation 6 Not implemented
| New Recommendation 1 |
Notes
3 These budget cuts were the subject of a separate investigation by the Office of the Commissioner on the Government of Canada’s 2006 expenditure review.
