CHAPTER I - PART 2: VISION, COMMITMENT AND LEADERSHIP
Page 7 of 25
THE ACTION PLAN
In March 2003, the federal government launched the Action Plan for Official Languages. The main purpose of the plan, which extended over a five-year period and had an initial budget of $751 million, was to enhance the vitality of official language communities and to strengthen linguistic duality in communities and in the public service. To this end, the government decided to simultaneously focus on four axes: education, the development of official language communities, the public service and the language industry.
The Office of the Commissioner has always supported this plan, which revitalized the communities and the official languages program after they were affected by several budget cuts during the 1990s. In his annual report last year, the Commissioner made a recommendation urging the Minister for Official Languages to develop an initiative intended to succeed the Action Plan 2003–2008.
| In 2006–2007, the Commissioner recommended: “that the Minister for Official Languages, in cooperation with the communities, provinces and territories, create an initiative, over the coming year, that will succeed the Action Plan for Official Languages and consolidate what has been gained. During the design process, the federal government must carefully consider expanding the scope of the Action Plan to include, in particular, arts and culture, youth initiatives and new measures for promoting linguistic duality.” |
The Commissioner’s request, and those of a number of other stakeholders, struck a chord. In his second Speech from the Throne, delivered on October 16, 2007, the Prime Minister reiterated his support for official languages by announcing his intention to renew the Action Plan for Official Languages. He then entrusted Bernard Lord, former premier of New Brunswick, with the task of consulting with official language community representatives and other stakeholders on the main issues and the direction of a potential official languages initiative.
In December 2007, Bernard Lord travelled across the country and heard from a number of groups, including Canadian Parents for French, the Society for Educational Visits and Exchanges in Canada (SEVEC), the Canadian Association for Second Language Teachers (CASLT), the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA) and the Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN). It should be noted that these last two groups had carried out a significant amount of work beforehand to identify their expectations. For example, at its summit in June 2007, the FCFA identified the challenges and priorities of the Francophone and Acadian communities. The QCGN did the same at its forum in February 2008. Following these consultations, Bernard Lord submitted his report to the Minister of Canadian Heritage on March 3, 2008,14 and it was made public on March 20, 2008.
In addition to the Lord report, other sources continue to influence the government, including the reports of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages on the vitality of official language communities and on bilingualism in the public service.15 Data from the post-censal survey16 also shed new light on the situation of official language communities and confirmed their concerns.
Although the Commissioner’s reaction to the Speech from the Throne and Bernard Lord’s consultations was favourable, the budget of February 26, 2008, dampened hopes. Oddly enough, it simply repeated the main points in the Speech from the Throne on linguistic duality. While it recognized the consultation process carried out by Mr. Lord, the budget did not offer any details about expected funding for the next phase of the Action Plan. In his report, Mr. Lord recommended that $1 billion be dedicated to the future initiative. While not wanting to comment on specific sums, the Commissioner is also of the opinion that additional funding, compared to the budget of the first Action Plan, will have to be invested to increase capacity and make progress.
In the meantime, what are the Commissioner’s impressions as the first Action Plan for Official Languages comes to an end and what are his expectations for the new initiative?
First axis: Education
Most of the funding under the Action Plan was allocated to education, more specifically minority-language education and second language instruction. Both of these topics will be addressed in the following paragraphs.
It should, however, be pointed out that the government transferred significant amounts for education to its provincial and territorial partners through the Protocol of Agreement for Minority-language Education and Second-language Instruction. This protocol expires in March 2009. In the meantime, the Commissioner is anxiously awaiting a midterm report that will summarize the results of the first two years (2005 to 2007). He takes this opportunity to reiterate the importance of transparency in accountability and the need to publish and share information on the fulfillment of objectives, in accordance with the clauses of the Protocol.
Achievements in minority-language education vary from one province or territory to the other. One thing is for certain, however: results are consistent with efforts made by provincial and territorial ministries of education, school boards and their community partners. The areas of intervention in which positive results are observed include the francization of students attending French-language elementary schools, or what some would refer to as “language upgrading.” In many settings, targeted programs have been implemented to ensure that eligible students17 who start at a French-language school have sufficient knowledge of French to be successful from their first year.
Despite efforts undertaken to improve curricula, the Commissioner is of the opinion that there is still a great deal to be done in the area of minority-language education. One of the main objectives of the Action Plan was to increase enrolment at minority schools. Yet data from the post-censal survey highlight troubling trends. The survey indicates that only 49% of Francophone rights holders attend a French-language minority school.18 About 36% are educated in English and 15% are enrolled in immersion programs. It should also be noted that more than one-third of parents who enrol their children in immersion programs would have preferred a French-language school: many had to settle for the immersion program in the absence of a Francophone school; others cite the proximity of an English-language school that offers an immersion program. Sustained efforts will be needed to improve access to French-language minority schools in the coming years.
In terms of the Anglophone community in Quebec, the survey shows that only 49% of students who have at least one Anglophone parent attend an English-language minority school. The percentage increases to 70% when both parents are Anglophone. This situation provides little consolation for English school boards that are concerned about a decline in enrolment in the next few years. In fact, in some areas, the exodus of Anglophones from Quebec and the aging population sometimes make it more difficult to maintain the number of eligible students needed to keep English-language schools open.
According to Patricia Lamarre,19 the members of Anglophone communities place an increasing amount of importance on knowing French, especially for their children. It should, therefore, not be surprising that, among the country’s Anglophones, young Quebec Anglophones are the most bilingual. For these communities, full participation in Quebec society hinges on learning French in school. This new way of seeing French as an added value partly explains the boom in French-language schools and immersion programs. In this context, it is even more important to support English-language schools in their efforts to offer sound programs for learning French. The result will be more competitive participants in the public and private sector job markets.
| Success story: Community learning centres20 One of the biggest success stories for Quebec’s Anglophone community has been the establishment of 22 community learning centres. These centres create lasting ties between the community and the school network. In addition, participating communities are linked via videoconference, which ensures that a broader range of programs is available to the public. |
The objective of the Action Plan in terms of second-language instruction was to double the proportion of young Canadians between 15 and 19 years of age who are bilingual. Under the Plan, approximately half of this segment of the population should be bilingual by 2013. Progress has been slow in this regard. According to data from the 2006 census, only 22.3% of young Anglophones and Francophones between 15 and 19 years of age declare themselves bilingual, a drop of about 2% compared to the 2001 census. Can this decline be attributed to federal and provincial budget cuts in the 1990s? It is difficult to say. However, it is clear that the gap between the 2013 target and the current situation is significant and efforts must be reinforced. This observation is even more relevant given that the Canadian public appears to be generally in favour of improving second language programs.21 When Canadian Heritage held online consultations22 on the renewal of the Action Plan, participants’ comments supported that view: Canadians want the opportunity to learn both official languages. It is essential that the federal government continue to work with the provinces and territories to enhance this component in the next Action Plan. Mr. Lord recommended in his report that the government place more emphasis on education in the next initiative. He also recommended that linguistic duality be promoted by enhancing second-language instruction.
| Success story: Second-language instruction The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, set up a working group to look at the possibility of developing a common framework for languages in Canada. The project is based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, a tool for setting clear standards to be attained at successive stages of language learning and for evaluating outcomes in an internationally comparable manner, based on six levels of reference. The project has the support of the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers, which is of the opinion that the use of such a framework could facilitate interprovincial and territorial dialogue, encourage cooperation and resource sharing among educational authorities, and promote educational and occupational mobility across Canada. |
Second axis: Community development
Community development includes health, early childhood education, justice, immigration, economic development and literacy.
| Success story: Health in Alberta Because of the financial support of the Société santé en français, Edmonton’s Francophone community can now benefit from the services of the Saint-Thomas Community Health Centre. Open since the fall of 2007, the Centre provides seniors with a complete range of services under one roof and also houses a clinic that provides primary health care and other specialized services. In February 2008, the University of Alberta’s Campus Saint-Jean granted its first degrees to graduates of the bilingual bachelor program in nursing. This program was the result of the joint work of the Campus Saint-Jean and the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Nursing, and a significant contribution from the Consortium national de formation en santé. These two initiatives are complementary because the Saint-Thomas Community Health Centre will hire graduates of the new bachelor program at Campus Saint-Jean. |
If there is one area where the Action Plan was an outright success, it was in health services in the language of the minority. The funds invested in the Action Plan made it possible to set up 17 health networks, most of which have become official representatives of provincial governments in French-speaking communities. The efforts of the Consortium national de formation en santé have resulted in a spectacular increase in the number of Francophone recruits in the health professions. Also thanks to the Action Plan, English-language health networks in Quebec, working with McGill University, have succeeded in creating training programs to accredit French-speaking health professionals so they can provide services in English. The health networks are also focusing on the retention of English-speaking staff in Quebec, by providing them with the means to maintain their knowledge of French. All these efforts are bearing fruit. However, to move to the next stage, which comes after needs are expressed and structures are created, increased investments will be needed.
| Success story: Health A few years ago, 10 colleges and universities came together to form the Consortium national de formation en santé with a view to training more health professionals capable of working in Francophone minority communities, as well as establishing a solid base of research on health in French-speaking Canada. The Consortium set an objective of welcoming 2196 new students and granting 1144 degrees between 2003 and 2008. Based on the evaluations in the 2006–2007 annual report of the Consortium, its advertising campaigns targeting young people have been effective because 2135 new students enrolled in member institutions and 574 of them graduated during the period in question. If this trend continues, the Consortium can expect to reach or exceed its goals. |
Early childhood education is one of the areas that saw some positive results, although not very strong, over the course of the Action Plan. The objective was to create daycare and kindergarten programs in minority community schools. The Commissioner notes in particular the key role played by the Commission nationale des parents francophones (CNPF) in defending the interests of young children and in serving as a catalyst for joint action by parents. Working with Human Resources and Social Development Canada, the CNPF unveiled a national framework for cooperation in June 2007. The framework sets out a common vision of early childhood education in Francophone minority communities and clarifies the roles of a long list of partners and stakeholders. However, major challenges still lie ahead for early childhood services, including a severe shortage of French-language daycares. Many Francophone parents who would like to put their children in daycares that are adapted to their linguistic and cultural reality have problems doing so. Also, French-language primary schools are finding it difficult to increase the enrolment numbers of young Francophones because of the lack of early childhood services in French. The federal government therefore must pay more attention to the provision of these services. It is particularly well placed to support the CNPF’s vision and to provide the necessary resources to carry it out. For their part, parents’ networks must continue to communicate their needs clearly to the various levels of government that are involved in early childhood education.
| Success story: Early childhood education The Cadre national de collaboration en développement de la petite enfance francophone en contexte minoritaire au Canada brings together 13 groups that are working to improve the lives of young French-speaking children, under the leadership of the Commission nationale des parents francophones. This framework is a concrete example of a multilateral partnership and draws on new knowledge about early childhood development and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It provides a common vision of development, and sets out the roles of the various partners.23 |
The Commissioner is satisfied with the activities undertaken to achieve the Action Plan’s objective of improving access to justice in both official languages. The Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund has increased the capacity of French-speaking lawyers’ associations to play a role in educating and informing the official language communities and building federal and provincial partner networks. The Fund has also made it possible to establish three advisory committees, including the Advisory Sub-Committee on Access to Justice, which brings together the key stakeholders of the Anglophone and Francophone communities affected by this issue.
According to the 2006 formative evaluation, the activities and projects supported by the Fund made it possible to raise awareness among legal officers, communities and the general public on the issue of justice in both official languages. The evaluation report noted the lack of visibility of the Fund within Quebec’s English-speaking community and the fact that the Fund is not adequately meeting that community’s needs. However, the QCGN is considering a survey to determine the needs of Anglophones in matters of justice. The results will allow Quebec’s English-speaking community to identify optimal strategies and therefore make use of support provided by the Fund.
At the meeting of the Advisory Sub-Committee on Access to Justice in November 2007, Justice Canada, basing itself on the Support Fund evaluation report and the comments of participants, proposed that the Fund be maintained and that a justice training consortium be established. The objective of the consortium would be to make bilingual resources available to the judicial system so that Canadians could receive services in either official language. The Commissioner supports the proposed consortium, which would target the training of students who will undertake a career in the legal field, the professional development of those already working in the legal system, the development and promotion of tools, and recruitment.
| Success story: Justice Bilingual Crown attorneys and others working in Ontario’s criminal justice system can now take professional and language training in French at the new French Language Institute for Professional Development. The Institute was created by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on Access to Justice in Both Official Languages in partnership with the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario. The Task Force is now considering the creation of a network of bilingual attorneys across Canada. |
Under the Action Plan, $9 million was given over five years to foster immigration to Francophone communities and retain French-speaking immigrants. The Commissioner was pleased that Citizenship and Immigration Canada launched its strategic plan in September 2006; however, there is still no specific funding attached to it. The Department states that funding will come from the operating budgets of its settlement services, but there is reason for concern. In many provinces, there are basically no services to welcome French-speaking immigrants and work in this area has yet to begin. Over the coming years, the Department will have to support the activities of the steering committee for Francophone immigration, whose role is essential if progress is to be made. The provinces must also direct a reasonable share of federal transfers to the Francophone communities so that these communities can organize and provide services in French. Finally, the Commissioner supports the idea of concentrating efforts on official language communities that want to move forward on immigration.24
| Success story: Immigration In October 2002, the Francophone minority community in Manitoba met to find ways to attract more French-speaking people to the province. At the same time, the provincial government was exploring measures it could take to increase the population. Together their efforts bore fruit. In 2005, the province welcomed 10,000 immigrants, a remarkable increase compared to the annual average of 3,500 that the province had seen up to 2003. |
| As for the English-speaking community in Quebec, the QCGN presented a brief to the National Assembly’s special commission on immigration in October 2007. Some 25% of the English-speaking community was born abroad and, historically, immigration has played a fundamental role in shaping this community. The Anglophone community understands and supports the need for new arrivals to speak French as a necessary step towards successful integration. Nevertheless, the QCGN feels that English-speaking immigrants can adopt the French language while maintaining their identification with the English-speaking community. The QCGN has therefore indicated its willingness to work with government institutions in the recruitment and integration process for new arrivals. |
Clearly, economic development plays a leading role in enhancing the vitality of official language communities. Above all, the Action Plan targeted three aspects of employability in the communities: the ability to participate in the knowledge economy, internships and online training, and improved access to existing economic development programs. Yet the Commissioner presents a somewhat mixed portrait of the progress that has been made in this area of activity. On the one hand, the beneficial effect of certain strategies is undeniable. For example, funding for the Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité (RDÉE) and the Community Economic Development and Employability Committees (CEDECs) was stabilized by the Enabling Fund, to which $36 million was allocated over three years starting in 2005. On the other hand, the measures that were taken do not appear to be anchored in a comprehensive, long-term vision, which leads the Commissioner to characterize the efforts in this area as piecemeal. Given the crucial role these organizations play in the communities, it would only be natural to renew their funding for a longer term so that they can implement their strategic plans.
The first years of the Action Plan gave rise to great hopes in the area of literacy in the minority language. The Office of Literacy and Essential Skills (formerly National Literacy Secretariat) at Human Resources and Social Development Canada got the process off to a good start by setting up structures for a variety of community projects. However, budget cuts in 2006 slowed the work of the organizations supervising the implementation of these initiatives. All the same, the Fédération canadienne pour l’alphabétisation en français (FCAF) reports satisfactory progress on family literacy. Action Plan funding was used to train literacy workers, increase the number of service points and launch a national campaign to raise awareness about reading together as a family. In March 2008, the FCAF held a national conference on family literacy. Manitoba and New Brunswick have been particularly active in this area and have initiated numerous activities related to literacy. The FCAF feels Action Plan funding made it possible to establish the groundwork for concerted national action on literacy, but a great deal of work remains to be completed. Numerous studies have found higher illiteracy rates among Francophones (both inside and outside Quebec) than among Anglophones.25 To deal with this problem, additional funds will be needed.
| Success story: Literacy Every year, with the support of Canada Post and funding from the Action Plan, the Fédération canadienne pour l’alphabétisation en français distributes hundreds of thousands of bookmarks to mark Family Literacy Day on January 27. These bookmarks encourage parents to read with their children. The Federation distributes the bookmarks in January to most French schools across Canada as well as to literacy centres and public libraries. |
Third axis: The public service
The third component of the Action Plan deals with communications and service delivery, language of work and the participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians in the federal public service.
The objective of this component was to increase bilingualism rates among public servants and improve the quality of bilingual services. With the exception of the awareness campaign carried out by the Canada Public Service Agency,26 the Action Plan’s performance in this area is disappointing. The Commissioner has highlighted numerous systemic problems that persist within federal institutions. As mentioned previously, the government’s efforts to improve implementation of the Act in institutions has been slowed by the 2006 budget cuts, in particular by the elimination of the Innovation Program. This program was established under the Action Plan, and through the support it provided to regional federal councils, it led to the creation of a large number of initiatives related to bilingualism in the public service across the country. The elimination of the program considerably reduced federal institutions’ enthusiasm for finding solutions to chronic problems. In addition, the Agency itself was subject to budget cuts, which complicated its task of overseeing bilingualism.
| Success story: Looking at official languages from the right angle The Quebec Federal Council held its bi-annual development conference on public service renewal November 15 and 16, 2007, in Québec City. The organizing committee was determined to make this important event both respectful of the Official Languages Act and one where all participants felt equally comfortable in their official language of choice. One of the greatest successes of the conference was the innovative approach in which it was organized. The conference was held in a bilingual format, but in a non-traditional way, as opposed to a strict, “by the book” approach: it pushed the concept of a bilingual conference beyond the minimalist (and often restrictive) formula of translated materials and an interpretation booth. Hosted in an impeccable and seamless French and English format by well-known Quebec media personality Christopher Hall, the conference demonstrated how major events can become showcases for linguistic duality within the federal public service in the regions. It also showed that federal organizations can truly benefit when they allow themselves to go beyond the minimum requirements contained in the letter of the Act and bring equal attention to the spirit of the Act. |
We have literally seen a return to the starting gate in this area because the situation remains unchanged. In March 2008, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages presented a report27 on the “public service” component of a future action plan. The Committee made 17 recommendations, and the Commissioner calls on the government to give them serious consideration.
| Success story: The public service In 2005, the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada (which later became the Canada Public Service Agency) launched an interesting initiative: the Forum on Official Languages Good Practices. Each year, the Forum allows federal institutions to pool their best practices on service to the public, language of work, advancement of English and French, and support for official language minority communities.28 |
Fourth axis: The language industry
The Action Plan stated that the language industry (translation and interpretation, language training and language technologies) could play a major role in fostering linguistic duality and increasing bilingualism in Canada. Yet for many years now, the industry has been grappling with a serious workforce shortage. The Action Plan therefore provided $10 million over five years to accelerate the recruitment of future language professionals and help the sector improve its image and strategically position itself on the world stage. This injection of funds led to the creation of the Language Industry Association (AILIA), which has been working to structure the network of language professionals in Canada and develop a technology strategy. AILIA also looks at potential partnerships and approaches for remedying the shortage of translators—a major issue for the future of a bilingual country. The Commissioner hopes that the next action plan will allow the Association to continue its work.
The Action Plan also led to the creation of the Language Technologies Research Centre by allocating $10 million over five years. Located in Gatineau (Quebec), the Centre carries out research and development in the area of tools and software to assist in translation.
According to the Action Plan’s midterm report29 published in 2005, the Centre was to house 150 researchers and specialists. While the reality falls far short of this objective, several promising projects are under way. Research and development in this area requires a large amount of time and major funding. The government must continue its support, especially since it coincides with the government’s current strategy to rely on technological research and the commercialization of research results. Mr. Lord also underlined the importance of this sector for the advancement of linguistic duality in Canada.
| Success story: The language industry The Transcheck-2 project of the Language Technologies Research Centre aims to create software that detects translation errors (technical terms, proper names, numerical expressions, Gallicisms and inappropriate literal translations), omissions and the insertion of additional material. The software analyzes a translated text and generates an information report that enables the translator to correct the errors that are detected and thus improve the quality of his or her work at greater speed and lower cost. |
A 2006 study30 by the government aimed to better understand the economic structure, key trends and economic benefits of the language industry. It highlighted the strong growth of this industry in Canada, in particular among language training companies in British Columbia. The economic potential and the shortage of skilled workers are good reasons to invest in this sector.
The Official Languages Accountability and Coordination Framework
Throughout 2007, there was much talk about the new action plan and the need to maintain the Official Languages Accountability and Coordination Framework in order to identify the responsibilities of the institutions involved and define horizontal coordination mechanisms.
The Action Plan 2003–2008 demonstrated the merit of a comprehensive initiative that unites a large number of institutions around common goals and that involves community input. Many see such a plan as vital for not only ensuring the horizontal governance of official languages, but also enhancing the vitality of the official language communities and promoting linguistic duality.
The Commissioner stresses the need to revise the Official Languages Accountability and Coordination Framework, which accompanied the Action Plan, in order to reflect the new obligations under Part VII of the Act as well as any other recent changes that have been made to official languages governance.
| In 2006–2007, the Commissioner recommended: “that the Minister for Official Languages review the Official Languages Accountability and Coordination Framework, not only in light of the changes made to official language governance, but also to better reflect the obligations and responsibilities of federal institutions following the legislative amendments of November 2005.” |
The Commissioner’s other expectations
In his report, Bernard Lord made 14 recommendations and highlighted four sectors that he considers essential for community vitality: education, health, immigration and arts and culture. The Commissioner agrees that these sectors must remain at the heart of the Action Plan and is particularly pleased with Mr. Lord’s recommendation to include arts and culture, a recommendation the Commissioner made in his 2006–2007 annual report. However, the Commissioner notes with regret that other important sectors, such as literacy, early childhood education and access to justice in the official language of one’s choice, are not mentioned. The official language minority communities and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages have already clearly stated the importance of these key sectors for community development, and the Commissioner sincerely hopes these issues will have their place in the future initiative. The little attention given in Mr. Lord’s report to bilingualism in the public service and service in both official languages must also be noted.
The results of the latest census and the post-censal survey, made public in December 2007, shed new light on issues of concern that are already well known to these communities. For Francophones, aside from the matter of access by eligible students to French-language schools, there are the issues of their reduced demographic weight and the rate of language transfer to English. Meanwhile, Anglophones in Quebec are rightly concerned about the exodus of their young people to other provinces, access to health services in English, job prospects and opportunities for learning their second language so as to be able to fully participate in Quebec society. The new Action Plan must tackle these issues head-on.
The Commissioner has also expressed a wish on several occasions to see more emphasis placed on promoting linguistic duality to the public, especially young people and newcomers. He also reiterated the importance of young people learning their second official language and the benefits of learning about the culture associated with that language. For members of the majority, learning their second language and its culture is an ideal way to build bridges with the official language communities. The government’s new initiative must set out priorities for intervention in this respect.
Finally, enhancing the vitality of official language communities increasingly depends on actions taken by the provinces and territories in education, health and immigration. The Commissioner was pleased to hear the provincial ministers of Francophone affairs declare, last September, that they fully supported the renewal of the Action Plan 2003–2008.
The Commissioner therefore calls on the government to reveal its true intentions on the next phase of the Action Plan as soon as possible.
HORIZONTAL GOVERNANCE AND COORDINATION
Although they carry out specific mandates and set their own priorities, all federal institutions share statutory obligations regarding official languages.
Given their common responsibilities, federal institutions are all required to implement the Act and work together on files related to official languages. Consequently, a certain amount of consistency must be promoted when implementing policies and programs that are the responsibility of various institutions—hence the expression “horizontal governance.”31 Over the years, institutions have established mechanisms and practices that characterize the relationships they maintain.
In February 2006, the federal government made major changes to the official languages governance structure. The support role in coordinating official languages, previously entrusted to the Privy Council Office, was transferred to Canadian Heritage, among other changes. A number of well-informed observers have expressed concern regarding the transfer and the consequences it could have on the horizontal management of official languages.
This is the case with the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages, which questioned the impact of this change on public administration, in the report it tabled on May 8, 2007 on the relocation of head offices.32 The Committee therefore recommended that the Commissioner address the issue by analysing changes in official languages governance and make recommendations to improve the horizontal coordination of government action in this area.
The Commissioner agreed to examine this issue more closely and turned to Professor Donald Savoie, a well-known expert in public administration. Professor Savoie was mandated to study the current status of horizontal governance in official languages and provide practical advice.
The current structure of horizontal governance in official languages
Official languages governance is mainly structured around the Act, under which can be found a regulation, implementation mechanisms, policies and various types of directives.
The Act clearly states that Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board Secretariat are responsible for coordinating government action and reporting to Parliament on behalf of the government.
The Official Languages Accountability and Coordination Framework33 is one of the horizontal coordination mechanisms that these departments can use. Stemming from the Action Plan 2003–2008, this document explains the role and responsibilities of federal institutions in implementing their official languages obligations. Departments can also use the Horizontal Results-based Management and Accountability Framework34 as a guide. Presented in the 2005 midterm report of the Action Plan 2003–2008, the Horizontal Framework reaffirms the need to set up an effective interdepartmental coordination structure so all federal institutions can fulfill their obligations.
In addition, a number of committees were set up at various decision-making levels to translate the government’s approach toward official languages into action. In the past, some committees included ministers, and others consisted of deputy ministers. Today, there is only one official languages committee, whose members are assistant deputy ministers.
Furthermore, senior management in federal institutions includes champions who promote all aspects related to official languages. Many institutions have also appointed national coordinators for Part VII, and this network is coordinated by Canadian Heritage.
At the head of the administrative structure, the Minister for Official Languages oversees the horizontal coordination of this file. From 2001 to 2006, the Minister for Official Languages was able to count on administrative support from the Official Languages Secretariat at the Privy Council Office. As previously mentioned, the Official Languages Secretariat created by Canadian Heritage has been carrying out this function since February 2006.
Horizontal governance: Principles to keep in mind
Major public policy issues usually go beyond the mandate or jurisdiction of a single institution. Governments are thus forced to address the issue of horizontal management. However, in Canada and abroad, many practitioners and theorists have proposed ways of strengthening the horizontal management of government administrations. Unfortunately, there is no magic solution.
Many proponents of horizontality criticize the tendency of institutions to work in isolation. This should not be surprising in certain cases because public administrations conduct their activities according to each institution’s respective mandate. Nonetheless, public administrations are mainly evaluated according to their ability to carry out specific functions and minimize duplication.
Although there is social, political and even administrative pressure to implement horizontality, federal institutions do not naturally tend to do so. This is partly explained by the fact that accountability in the public service is primarily a bottom-up process. Each administrative unit must report to a higher level. Also, inter-institutional relations are more often affected by competition—to obtain a larger share of public funds—than by a true willingness to cooperate.
As a result, there are significant constraints for horizontal management in modern public administrations. These obstacles must be overcome if a new management philosophy is to take root.
Two main factors facilitate cooperation among institutions to achieve government-wide objectives. First, there must be a clear, strong and sustained commitment from the political executive (i.e., the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet), and second, an administrative system that has all the necessary tools to carry out this commitment is needed.
A political commitment cannot be fulfilled without solid administrative support, which raises the following question: Who should be given the administrative responsibility of promoting horizontality? A central agency or a department?
Central agencies are often in a better position to promote horizontality in the public service because they have a mandate to oversee policy development across the government. They can also exercise considerable influence on institutions’ work. Central agencies, in particular the Privy Council Office, “play an important role in horizontal issues management particularly in clarifying the relationships among ongoing initiatives, in establishing priorities, and in managing the policy load of departments.”35
However, the federal government’s central agencies are not infallible because they often lack the sectoral expertise of the institutions and tend to avoid the responsibilities related to program implementation. Their main role is usually to objectively assess different public policy options and to advise the executive. As a general rule, they have no regional offices, which removes them considerably from the reality of the communities.
This vision of a central agency’s role may explain the decision to transfer the Official Languages Secretariat from the Privy Council Office to Canadian Heritage. Although no explanation was given at the time of the transfer, this decision seems to be in line with the opinion expressed by the Clerk of the Privy Council that central agencies should not manage programs or policies.
The fact remains that, for the Commissioner and other observers, this transfer demonstrated a weakening of political will to ensure a horizontal coordination of official languages and put in place the means required for this coordination. The decision has had a snowball effect in the public service. According to the Commissioner, the government sent the message that official languages were no longer a priority.
There are also inherent limitations regarding the promotion of horizontal objectives by institutions. Under the government hierarchy, institutions are all on an equal footing. As a result, they are less likely to manage a file whose scope extends across the government as a whole. Moreover, Professor Savoie emphasizes that it is difficult for an institution to rise above the others to play a coordination role. Rivalry is such that other institutions could see it as a form of unfair competition. In addition, institutions could tend to leave the organization in charge of horizontal coordination to “deal with the problem” and go about their own business.
Professor Savoie points out that a certain amount of back-and-forth in decisions related to horizontal governance should not be surprising. Governments always proceed by trial and error to find solutions for coordinating files better.
While recognizing the inherent limits of horizontal management from the point of view of institutions and central agencies, one can only conclude that horizontality will be an ongoing challenge for the government. In fact, there is no universal model for horizontal governance, but rather a variety of approaches that are tailored to each specific situation. However, the Commissioner would like to point out that official languages clearly stand out from other horizontal issues because all federal institutions must fulfill common obligations and this issue is related to fundamental values and national unity. Since each federal institution has the same obligations, greater coordination would be appropriate to collectively achieve better results for Canadians and official language communities.
Understanding the current coordination of horizontal governance
Canada’s official languages program is a particularly useful example for the study of horizontal management. It illustrates both the intrinsic strengths and weaknesses of this management practice.
Let us list its main strengths. The strengthening of Part VII of the Act in 2005 requires all federal institutions to fully implement the objectives related to the development of official language communities and the promotion of linguistic duality in Canadian society, thereby reaffirming the horizontal nature of official languages. The most recent Speech from the Throne also gave the impression that the government intends to continue its commitment to the Action Plan for Official Languages and, at the same time, its horizontal management of the file.
Professor Savoie’s study revealed another strength. As part of his consultations with senior public servants, he observed a firm commitment to official languages. There appears to be a general consensus among public servants that federal institutions must take the appropriate measures to meet the objectives of the Canadian official languages policy. Some public servants recalled all that has occurred since 1969, both in the public service and in Canadian society, pointing out the impressive range of horizontal coordination mechanisms and tools available compared with other areas of public policy—and they are right. Nevertheless, there is still a lot of work to do.
While the fall 2007 Speech from the Throne and budget statement stirred up a certain amount of hope with respect to the future of the Action Plan, some of the respondents interviewed by Professor Savoie as part of his consultations said that they have seen less leadership since the responsibility of coordinating official languages was transferred from the Privy Council Office to Canadian Heritage. Most respondents felt that renewed support was needed in this respect, especially in light of the government’s decision to launch a new action plan.
Considering these observations, the Commissioner wishes to see renewed efforts to strengthen the horizontal governance of official languages. Given that linguistic duality is at the core of Canadian unity and is a fundamental Canadian value, the promotion of linguistic duality cannot be put on autopilot.
The Commissioner is therefore making recommendations to both political and administrative leaders that involve the role the Official Languages Secretariat plays as a coordinating body.
As Professor Savoie points out, political leadership is part and parcel of good horizontal governance. Without a political will that is clearly communicated throughout the government, the results would be like the cacophony of an orchestra trying to tune up, except the musicians cannot hear each other.
| RECOMMENDATION The Commissioner recommends that the Prime Minister: a) create an ad hoc committee of ministers, chaired by the Minister for Official Languages, to oversee the full implementation of the new action plan and language requirements within all federal institutions; b) ensure Cabinet, supported by the Official Languages Secretariat, reviews official languages matters at least once a year; c) ensure the Official Languages Secretariat is given the authority it needs to fulfill a horizontal coordination role in order to implement the Official Languages Act in its entirety. |
In light of the role it already plays with respect to the Action Plan for Official Languages, the Official Languages Secretariat should, in cooperation with the Privy Council Office, support the Cabinet and the Ad Hoc Committee of Ministers. A number of aspects of the current context could be reviewed by Cabinet, including the implementation of the Action Plan, the question of positive measures and official languages in the public service.
Professor Savoie noted another weakness. Official languages are not currently given the attention they deserve in the accountability agreements of deputy ministers. These agreements refer to the Management Accountability Framework and leadership competencies which cover delivery of services to the public and the capacity to meet this requirement while allowing employees to work in the official language of their choice. Nevertheless, despite the recent amendment to the Act, deputy ministers are not held responsible for their departments’ activities regarding the promotion of linguistic duality and the vitality of official language communities. In order to send a clear message to the federal public service about the importance that the government places on official languages, deputy ministers must be held accountable for results.
| RECOMMENDATION The Commissioner recommends that the Clerk of the Privy Council ensure deputy ministers’ annual performance reviews include efforts to implement the Official Languages Act in its entirety, especially Part VII. |
Professor Savoie’s analysis also revealed other weaknesses. Many public servants seem tired of supporting the administrative red tape stemming from the number of reports produced by institutions in relation to the implementation of the various parts of the Act. The requirements have become a burden that impede, rather than promote, interdepartmental cooperation. Instead of fostering the achievement of real results, this situation encourages a culture of report writing. In addition, some tools have yet to be harmonized with the current official languages policy.
Consequently,
| RECOMMENDATION The Commissioner recommends that the Minister for Official Languages give the Official Languages Secretariat the mandate of reviewing the official languages accountability and reporting requirements to simplify the process and, above all, strengthen the focus on results. |
Such a study could be conducted by the Official Languages Secretariat in cooperation with other institutions that play a key role in managing the official languages program. The study should analyze the reports produced by institutions for Parts IV to VII of the Act.
Canadian Heritage must do all that it can to ensure that the Secretariat has greater visibility and a stronger presence within the government machinery in Ottawa, under the leadership of the Minister and senior departmental officials. Some of the recommendations are intended to give the Official Languages Secretariat greater visibility, and the government may have additional ideas. The goal is to enable the Secretariat to adopt a considerably broader perspective, rather than simply focusing on the Action Plan or the Department. The other departments and agencies should view the Secretariat as having a government-wide mandate.
Lastly, as mentioned previously, official languages are an ideal file for the study of the merits of horizontal governance. The work of the Official Languages Secretariat could serve as a testing ground for studying the strengths and weaknesses of horizontal governance. A study or pilot projects could give rise to innovative ideas that meet both language obligations and horizontal and vertical accountability requirements within the public service.
PUBLIC SERVICE RENEWAL
The federal public service is at the front lines of the implementation of the federal official languages policy. Canadians see the public service as the face of the federal government. As a result, the government’s commitment to Canada’s linguistic duality is often clearly and concretely translated through the public service.
The public service is currently facing major challenges. More than half of federal government employees are between 45 and 64 years of age, which implies a large number of them will be retiring in the coming years. In addition, the federal public service must meet the increasingly higher expectations of Canadians who demand efficient services, sound management and accountability. The public service must also better reflect Canadian diversity and the members of visible minorities who are part of this diversity.36 On top of these challenges, competition with the private sector to attract the best candidates is intensifying and technology is changing the way things are done.
The federal public service must therefore adapt to maintain its place in an ever-changing society. And the government is working to make sure that happens.
| An aging public service The average age of federal public servants is 45, five years older than in 1990. The average age of senior managers in the public service is 50. The average age of new senior managers is 46. Although the separation rate is generally low in the public service compared with the private sector, retirements are expected to peak around 2013 and gradually decrease thereafter. |
The Clerk of the Privy Council has set four major priorities for the renewal of the public service:
- Increase human resources planning activities in federal departments and agencies;
- Improve activities related to the recruitment of new employees;
- Enhance employee development;
- Modernize administrative processes and systems related to human resources.37
In addition, the government has set up two committees to support the renewal process: the Deputy Ministers’ Committee on Public Service Renewal, under the aegis of the Privy Council Office and the Advisory Committee on the Public Service, is an external committee set up by the Prime Minister in November 2006.
| “[…] we believe that the renewal of Canada’s Public Service should reflect a renewed commitment to fulfilling the obligations of the Official Languages Act, both in terms of service to the public and language of work inside government. A national institution must be fully respectful of national values.” First report by the Advisory Committee on the Public Service, March 2007 |
Over the course of the last year, the Commissioner followed the work of the two committees with interest and often expressed his opinion on the place of official languages in the public service renewal process. His message is unequivocal: Linguistic duality is a fundamental value of the public service and bilingualism is a key component of its leadership. These two principles are essential to a contemporary, efficient public service that reflects Canadian values.
Thoughts and perspectives
Clearly, progress has been made on official languages since the adoption of the Official Languages Act in 1969. The level of bilingualism in the federal government has increased substantially, the proportion of Francophones in the public service is much more representative than it was during Lester B. Pearson’s time and a greater number of Anglophone public servants have learned French over the years as a result of language training provided by the government.
| Success story: Promoting official languages A video created during the Official Languages Week, that was organized by the New Brunswick Federal Council’s Official Languages Committee, shows impressive testimonials from Council members about what linguistic duality means to them. Most of these leaders see linguistic duality as a value rather than an obligation, and their knowledge of the other official language has helped them discover a completely different culture. The video also shows a simulation of a bilingual meeting to remind viewers of the basic principles to be followed when conducting this kind of meeting. The Official Languages Committee received a number of positive comments from viewers. In short, this is an excellent tool for promoting official languages. |
Despite the progress made, however, English still dominates as the language used in most federal offices outside Quebec. Anglophone participation in Quebec remains a challenge. Over the years, the Office of the Commissioner has repeatedly pointed to chronic problems in the government machinery, particularly in relation to communications with the public, service delivery and language of work. Cultural institutions aside, government policies, programs and activities are largely developed in English and the majority of oral and written communications are in English. At all levels of government, there is a strong tendency to speak English, and many Francophone public servants feel obliged to speak their second language to make themselves understood.
In addition, a number of government employees seem to be under the false impression that linguistic duality and bilingualism are Francophone issues. This misconception persists because the public service still has a lot of work to do to fully integrate linguistic duality into its organizational culture.
Why is this? Why, after so many years of hard work, are official languages not more firmly entrenched in the culture of federal institutions?
Despite all the efforts to make linguistic duality an integral part of the public service, little emphasis seems to have been placed on the cultural values associated with the second official language.
Official languages policy has basically become a question of communication: communication with the public and among public servants. In this context, the emphasis has above all been placed on obligations and the requirements to be met. Although this approach produces individuals who can communicate in both official languages, it does not seem to lead to a significant increase in the use of the second language, nor does it foster the creation of a bilingual culture within federal institutions. How many senior managers have said, after passing their language test, that they would most likely not use their recently acquired language skills in the workplace? How many others have said that they have no opportunity to speak French in the workplace in the National Capital Region, where Francophones make up 41% of the workforce and as a result French is widespread? Why is there so little pride associated with using one’s second official language? Could it be because of a rigid learning environment marked by language obligations and requirements?
Whatever the answer, the current language requirements-based approach does not produce second-language users, which unfortunately means that the public service does not truly embody the values of linguistic duality.
There is nothing wrong with the current approach in and of itself. However, it is now known that if it is not based on the more fundamental values that give it legitimacy and encourage a stronger commitment, this approach will not be enough to achieve the goals the government has set for itself. One must go beyond simply knowing the language and discover the cultural values of the two language groups. At its core, learning and using a second language should be seen as an advantage that is provided by society and that is returned by recognizing the reality of the other language group. It is possible to imagine a future where government employees willingly take up the challenge of learning a second official language, while seeing this challenge as both an individual responsibility and an opportunity for cultural enrichment.
There is no easy answer to these questions. Nevertheless, they are a relevant and essential part of the process of renewal in the federal public service, if the public service is to reflect the bilingual character of this country.
Since little or no research has been carried out on the management of bilingual public organizations, the Office of the Commissioner plans to conduct an extensive study on this subject this year. The key objectives of the study will be to examine the following: the cultural differences between Anglophones and Francophones that have an impact on the workplace, how these values affect management models, success stories of the integration of the two official languages in various organizations within the public service, how linguistic duality and Canada’s diversity are embodied by the country’s leaders and what consequences these findings will have on the management of a bilingual public service.
The Commissioner hopes that this study will contribute to the reflection currently underway and the identification of sustainable solutions.
Recruiting bilingual employees
A public service with a firm commitment to linguistic duality must inevitably recruit new bilingual employees from the graduates of Canadian post-secondary institutions. Public service renewal therefore provides an opportunity to develop recruitment strategies for new employees.
Since taking office in October 2006, the Commissioner has often criticized the tendency of Canadian post-secondary institutions to gradually eliminate incentives for learning the two official languages. This should be cause for concern for the federal government.
The federal government, which is the largest employer of university graduates in Canada, must ensure that post-secondary institutions are aware of the importance it places on recruiting employees who are proficient in both official languages, particularly for graduates of communications, journalism, law, public administration and health care programs.
In its March 2008 report on bilingualism in the public service, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages recommends that the federal, provincial and territorial governments work together with post-secondary institutions to encourage bilingualism among students and that the government of Canada raise awareness about the language skills required in the federal public service.
If a larger number of bilingual people applied to the public service, linguistic duality could be ensured as one of the values of tomorrow’s leaders and it would become an integral part of the organizational culture of institutions.
A public service that places greater emphasis on linguistic duality would benefit the country as a whole. It would give Canada a distinct advantage in a global economy where language skills are a major asset and a key factor in productivity. It would also help enhance Canada’s visibility and image as an open and diverse country and spread the values of democracy and inclusion across the world.
This year, the Office of the Commissioner plans to conduct a study on second-language learning opportunities in Canadian universities, be they English-language, French-language or bilingual. The study will focus on the second language courses and programs offered by the universities, as well as other services and activities related to second-language learning opportunities.
Linguistic duality: A key component of public service renewal
The observations described in the previous paragraphs show that the federal public service is at a turning point in its history, and that linguistic duality and the ability to communicate in both official languages are key components that must be taken into consideration during its renewal process. As thousands of new recruits prepare to enter the public service, those in charge of renewal must closely examine these issues.
It should be understood that the goal is not to make all federal government employees bilingual, or require the federal government to only hire post-secondary graduates who speak both official languages. Nevertheless, if it wants to truly reflect the values of linguistic duality, position bilingualism as a key leadership skill and comply with the requirements of the Act, the public service must have a critical mass of employees who choose to communicate in the two official languages. In other words, it would be unrealistic to believe that progress can be made in terms of the language of service provided to official language communities unless breakthroughs are first made in terms of language of work in the public service.
The Commissioner therefore urges the Clerk of the Privy Council, as well as the committees created, to support public service renewal and to give linguistic duality its rightful place, both when examining human resources management issues within the government and when developing strategies related to recruitment, training or branding. During the renewal process, an effort must be made to dispel the myth that linguistic duality and bilingualism in the public service are only an issue for one language group and that language requirements are simply a means of ensuring that more Francophones are hired. In order to move forward on this issue, unilingualism must cease to be seen and accepted as the norm in government operations. There must be a widespread understanding that linguistic duality is a matter of respect, that it is a source of individual and collective enrichment, and that it is everybody’s business. An unachievable ideal, some would say with cynicism. However, consider the following questions: Was Lester B. Pearson wrong in 1966 to dream of “a climate [...] in which public servants from both language groups will work together toward common goals, using their own language and applying their respective cultural values, but each fully understanding and appreciating those of the other?”38 Was he mistaken in believing that the linguistic and cultural values of both English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians could be reflected in the culture of the public service? If an attempt is not made to achieve these goals, there is a real danger that we could lose sight of them all together.
Possible courses of action
The following are some factors to be considered for successful public service renewal.
1) Commitment from senior management
First and foremost, it is essential to ensure the support and commitment of current senior managers in the federal government. They all must embrace the values of linguistic duality by giving this issue priority in the federal public service renewal process.
When hiring new senior managers, we must be able to turn to a pool of candidates who embody the values required to lead a bilingual public service.
| “This has to be understood from top to bottom and our actions must reflect these words rigorously and consistently across the system. That is the job of leaders.” The Honourable Frank Iacobucci39 |
2) Training
Training and development programs for senior managers are an excellent opportunity to pass on the skills and values related to the management of a bilingual organization. The Canada School of Public Service must therefore go beyond its current practice, which simply involves explaining the standards, rules and requirements that apply to service in both official languages.
Finally, the government would be well advised to step up its awareness-raising activities for new employees. During the hiring process and in orientation programs, new recruits should be clearly informed about the importance the institutions place on linguistic duality.
| RECOMMENDATION The Commissioner recommends that the Clerk of the Privy Council ensure linguistic duality is fully integrated into public service renewal initiatives, especially in recruitment, training and development, so that linguistic duality is considered a value in the federal administration. |
3) Post-secondary recruitment
The federal government must work closely with Canada’s post-secondary institutions to encourage students to learn both official languages. Universities must be made aware of the language requirements of the federal public service in order to help the government recruit graduates with adequate language skills.
4) Language training
Language training is a popular topic of conversation in the public service and the Commissioner takes it very seriously. A significant number of public servants are currently under the impression that allocated resources for statutory language training have been cut in recent years. Since responsibility for statutory language training was transferred from the Canada School of Public Service to federal institutions, employees feel a step has been taken backwards. The Commissioner is also concerned about quality control of the teaching offered, and is keeping a close eye on this issue.
| Success story: Maintaining language skills The Ontario Federal Council launched a pilot project in the Toronto area for English-speaking federal public servants who meet the language requirements of their position and master the French language, but are at times hesitant to use it. This project is intended to help them practice their second language skills. Public servants are invited to participate in sessions that include discussions, presentations and debates. During each session, facilitators control the direction of the conversations, make comments and provide feedback. There was so much interest in the first 10-week session that five times as many groups were created for the second session. An evaluation is underway to determine whether the project should be continued and expanded. |
The Commissioner recognizes that each employee is responsible for developing his or her language skills. He therefore encourages young public servants to include language training in their learning and development plans from the outset of their careers in order to develop the skills they will need to continue moving up the ranks. However, their managers must provide learning opportunities, and institutions must adopt innovative training approaches, such as granting leave to allow employees to take language immersion courses.
| Findings of the Canada Public Service Agency survey40 In the summer of 2007, the Canada Public Service Agency conducted a survey of federal public service executives (EX) and EX feeder groups (EX minus 1 and 2). Close to 16,000 employees took part in the survey. The purpose of the survey was to provide the government with a clearer understanding of the executive community and its feeder groups. Over one-third of respondents from the EX feeder groups believe that a lack of access to language training has moderately or severely affected their career development. In the executive group, only 18% feel the same. In both groups, the lack of access to language training was a much greater concern for Anglophones and members of employment equity groups. |
Notes
14 The report submitted to the Minister of Official Languages titled Report on the Government of Canada’s Consultations on Linguistic Duality and Official Languages (February 2008) can be consulted on Canadian Heritage’s Web site at www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/consultations/lo-ol_2008/lord_e.pdf
.
15 This report can be consulted on the Standing Committee on Official Languages’ Web site at http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?COM=10472&SourceId=206230&SwitchLanguage=1.
16 On December 11, 2007, Statistics Canada published a survey on the vitality of official language communities. This survey addressed various topics, including language use in daily activities, health care, the sense of belonging and educational experience. A number of federal institutions, including the Office of the Commissioner, contributed to the funding of the project and to the development of the main topics. See chapter III for more details.
17 Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets out the three categories of parents whose children are eligible to receive instruction in the minority language of a province or territory. The term “eligible student” refers to a child whose parent is a citizen of Canada and (i) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the linguistic minority population, or (ii) who has received his or her primary school instruction in a province where the language in which he or she received that instruction is the language of the linguistic minority population, or (iii) of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in Canada in the language of the minority.
18 Statistics Canada, Minorities Speak Up: Results of the Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities (Ottawa, December 2007), p. 50.
19 Patricia Lamarre, “English Education in Quebec: Issues and Challenges,” in Richard Y. Bourhis, ed., The Vitality of the English-speaking Communities of Quebec: From Community Decline to Revival (Montréal: CEETUM), pp. 61–84.
20 www.learnquebec.ca/en/content/clc
21 Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, The Evolution of Public Opinion on Official Languages in Canada (Ottawa, September 2006). Study of the results of a telephone survey conducted by Decima Research Inc. in February 2006 based on a sample of 2,000 respondents aged 18 and over.
22 For more information on these consultations, see the Department’s Web site at www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/consultations/lo-ol_2007/index_e.cfm.
23 For more information on this success story, see the document published by the Table nationale en développement de la petite enfance francophone, available on the Web site of the Commission nationale des parents francophones at http://cnpf.ca/documents/Cadre_national_collaboration_DPE.pdf (in French only).
24 For more information on immigration, see Chapter II.
25 Lynn Barr-Telford, François Nault and Jean Pignal, Building on Our Competencies: Canadian Results of the International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey (Ottawa: Statistics Canada and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, November 2005). See also Jean-Pierre Corbeil, The Canadian Component of the 2003 International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey (IALSS): The Situation of Official Language Minorities (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, December 2006).
26 For more information on the Canada Public Service Agency’s awareness campaign, see the Agency’s Web site at www.psagency-agencefp.gc.ca/ollo/campaign-campagne/index_e.asp.
27 House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, Leading by Example: Bilingualism in the Public Service and Renewal of the Action Plan for Official Languages, third report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, 39th Parliament, 2nd Session (Ottawa, March 2008).
28 For more information on this success story, see the Canada Public Service Agency’s Web site at www.psagency-agencefp.gc.ca/ollo/forum/gp-bp-2006/summary-resume_e.asp.
29 For more information on the midterm report, see Canadian Heritage’s Web site at www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/consultations/lo-ol_2007/03_e.cfm.
30 Statistics Canada, Survey on Language Industry in Canada: translation, interpretation and language training, Canada, 2006.
31 Horizontal governance is also defined as the management of public programs that are delivered by more than one organization and whose consistency must be ensured.
32 Senatorial Standing Committee on Official Languages, Relocation of Head Offices of Federal Institutions: Respect for Language Rights (Ottawa, May 2007).
33 For more information on the Official Languages Accountability and Coordination Framework, see Canadian Heritage’s Web site at www.patrimoinecanadien.gc.ca/progs/lo-ol/legislation/bill_S7_e.cfm.
34 For more information on the Horizontal Results-based Management and Accountability Framework, see Canadian Heritage’s Web site at www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/consultations/lo-ol_2007/03_e.cfm.
35 Privy Council Office, Managing Horizontal Policy Issues (Ottawa, December 1996), pp. 11–12. Report prepared by the deputy ministers’ task force.
36 The proportion of members of visible minorities in the public service is lower than their labour market availability, according to the Public Service Commission’s 2005–2006 annual report, pp. 103–104.
37 For more information on public service renewal, see the Canadian Public Service Agency’s Web site at www.psagency-agencefp.gc.ca/PSR-RFP/psrenewing-renouvelerfp_e.asp.
38 Canada, Official Report of the Debates of the House of Commons, Vol. IV, Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1966, p. 3915. From the statement of policy respecting bilingualism in the public service made by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson on April 6, 1966.
39 The Honourable Frank Iacobucci, at the First Annual Gordon F. Osbaldeston Lecture, Public Policy Forum, November 2006.
40 The results from the census of EXs and feeder group employees (the core public administration), published in March 2008, can be found on the Web site of the Canada Public Service Agency at www.psagency-agencefp.gc.ca/reports-rapports/cenus-ex-recensement/results-resultats_e.asp.
