ARCHIVED - Report of the Task Force on Government Transformations and Official Languages

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Chapter 1 - Mandate

1.1 Review of the Mandate

A review of the Task Force's mandate was included in the agenda of the first meeting, held in April 1998. The President of the Treasury Board asked the Task Force to "analyse the effects on official languages of the transformations in the structure of government in recent years and to propose appropriate measures to improve the situation." The following statement defines our mandate:

In addition to clarifying our mandate and its scope, it was necessary to specify the context in which our work would be carried out. Thus, the members of the Task Force decided that a study of government transformations with respect to official languages would include service to the public, language of work, equitable participation, and the vitality and development of minority official language communities. Our mandate led us to give special consideration to the question of language rights within the context of government transformations.

Because of the tight deadlines we were working to, we had to make some choices. We had neither the time nor the resources to conduct in-depth technical studies on the scope of the transformations, the cuts to services or the savings generated by the government transformations. Studies of this nature have been done in the past. The members of the Task Force agreed not to repeat the work that had already been done. Rather, we chose to contact the representatives of minority official language communities, the architects of the government transformations in central agencies, the managers of the institutions affected by the transformations and managers in the regions. Subsequent consultations confirmed the appropriateness of our approach.¹ 

The Task Force does not question the government transformations that have already taken place ? that is not our mandate.² Nor do we wish to challenge the appropriateness of government decisions regarding the need for those transformations, because that is also beyond the scope of our mandate. Rather, what we can, and must, examine is whether official languages are being taken into account in the transformation process and, above all, how to guarantee in that process the full recognition and respect of language rights. 

If the federal government has failed to ensure the respect of language rights, it is up to the Task Force to draw this to its attention.
 

1.2 Operational Framework

1.2.1 Meeting Schedule

At our first meeting, we decided on an operational framework. We set a meeting schedule and adopted a plan for consultation. Since the members of the Task Force came from every region of the country, it was agreed that meetings would be held in Ottawa.

During its nine-month mandate, the Task Force met eight times, or roughly once a month. A number of meetings were spread over two days. Each member therefore attended about 15 days of meetings. In addition, members spent individual time reading, doing research and writing the report. Between meetings, members communicated through conference calls, or by fax and e-mail.
 

1.2.2 Consultation Plan

1.2.2.1 Study of Documents

From the outset, we had a common knowledge of, among other things, the official languages regime in Canada, the Official Languages Act, the Official Languages Regulations and the development of alternative service-delivery methods within the federal system.

In the course of our work, we consulted a number of documents in order to familiarize ourselves with the internal processes of the federal government, including the Framework for Alternative Program Delivery published by the Treasury Board Secretariat (see the bibliography).
 

1.2.2.2 Consultations with Groups, Institutions and Individuals

Our consultation plan covered three sectors. First, we met with 11 provincial and territorial organizations representing minority official language communities, including Alliance Quebec and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFAC). We received 13 submissions, including a private one. The FCFAC asked that one of its representatives be allowed to stay for the presentations by the provincial and territorial associations, as an observer. We agreed.

Second, the Task Force consulted senior officials from organizations affected by past, present and future transformations of government. Officials from Human Resources Development Canada made the Labour Market Development Agreements available to us. We were particularly interested in the wording of language clauses in these agreements, the monitoring and evaluation mechanisms provided for in the Employment Insurance Act, and the remedies provided under agreements that had already been signed. We spoke with officials at Parks Canada and Revenue Canada who are working on the creation of new service agencies (Parks Canada Agency, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency). We also invited a representative of the Canadian Tourism Commission. To learn more about the Contraventions Act, we heard from representatives of the Department of Justice and held a conference call with the Executive Director of the Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario.

Given the importance that the Department of Canadian Heritage has for minority official language communities, we invited officials from that department to talk about Canada-community agreements³, the interdepartmental cooperation mechanism, and federal-provincial and federal-territorial agreements on service to the public. We also heard an independent opinion on Canada-community agreements. The members had discussions with the consultant who analysed the agreements for the FCFAC (see Appendix B, List of Organizations Consulted, and Appendix C, List of People Consulted).

Third, the Task Force consulted four regional councils of senior federal officials ? in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick. The Task Force member from each of these regions met with the representatives of the council from his or her region.

We met with the President of the Treasury Board at the beginning and the end of our mandate, and with the Commissioner of Official Languages on two occasions. Finally, the Chairman of the Task Force met separately with the Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council and the Secretary of the Treasury Board Secretariat. Some members of the Task Force also spoke to the Deputy Ministers Committee on Official Languages.

By the end of July, we had almost completed our consultations, except for the regional councils of senior federal officials, which were meeting only in September. In mid-September, we began an intensive process of reflection and synthesis. 

This approach enabled the Task Force to gain a broader perspective on issues surrounding official languages, namely those identified by the organizations representing minority official language communities, by managers dealing with the achievement of government objectives and the implementation of government transformations, and by regional managers. In many cases, regional managers watched from afar as decisions on government transformations were made, and then had to implement those decisions without delay.

We would like to thank everyone who agreed to attend our meetings, sometimes on short notice, for their invaluable contributions. We would also like to underscore the work they put into preparing the submissions and documents we received.

---

1 For example, the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique argued in its submission to the Task Force that "the Government of Canada has enough studies, reports and recommendations to allow it to take action": submission made to the Task Force on Government Transformations and Official Languages by the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, Ottawa, June 25, 1998, p. 2, translated from French. [ Return ]

2 The situations that were considered as government transformations and are dealt with in this report speak for themselves on this point. Thus, it will be noted that internal reorganizations carried out by federal departments and agencies are not considered government transformations for the purposes of this report.[ Return ]

3 After the cuts to all federal programs announced in 1993, the Department of Canadian Heritage had to review its direct-support program for minority official language communities. At that time, it conducted a broad consultation with the communities, which gave rise to the Canada-community agreements concept. Between 1994 and 1996, the Department signed 13 agreements ­ one with the minority community in each province and territory, and one with national francophone organizations ­ which provide for multi-year funding for the entire minority community in a province or territory. These five-year agreements expire in March 1999 and will have to be renewed soon. For 1998-99, $19.6 million have been allocated to the agreements.  [ Return ]

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page