Notes
| 35 of 35 |
NOTES
1 William Tetley, The October Crisis, 1970: An Insider’s View (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007), p. xxviii.
2 Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712, at 750.
3 Michel Bastarache, ed., Language Rights in Canada, 2nd edition (Montréal: Éditions Yvon Blais, 2004), pp. 27–28.
4 Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217.
5 R. v. Beaulac, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768.
6 Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 3.
7 Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, at 80.
8 See Michael D. Behiels, Canada’s Francophone Minority Communities: Constitutional Renewal and the Winning of School Governance (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005).
9 “Substantive equality under s. 23 requires that official language minorities be treated differently, if necessary, according to their particular circumstances and needs, in order to provide a standard of education equivalent to that of the official language majority. Owing to the variety of circumstances encountered in different schools and the demands of a minority language education itself, providing the same form of educational system to the minority and the majority may be impractical and undesirable. Focussing on the individual right to instruction at the expense of the linguistic and cultural rights of the minority community
effectively restricts the collective rights of the minority community. A school is the single most important institution for the survival of the official language community, which is itself a true beneficiary under s. 23.” Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 3.
10 Solski (Tutor of) v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 201.
11 Scott Kissau, "The Depreciated Status of FSL Instruction in Canada," Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy 44 (August 1, 2005).
12 Appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages of the Honourable Josée Verner, Minister for Official Languages, June 8, 2006.
13 This guide was not yet available when this report went to press.
14As mentioned on page 53 of this report, 13 of the 16 institutions not required by section 41 of the Act to report to Canadian Heritage have now named coordinators responsible for Part VII or have created a committee to coordinate the institution’s efforts in order to meet their obligations.
15 Note that this is the only regulation that has been adopted under the Official Languages Act and that its adoption dates back to 1992.
16 Part VI (Participation of English-Speaking and French-Speaking Canadians)
17 See example of Principle 2, page 34.
18Usually carried out in mid-cycle of a program, formative evaluations are intended to quickly determine the improvements that need to be made to the program. In contrast, summative evaluations are undertaken at the end of a program’s life cycle in order to establish whether or not the expected results have been achieved and plan the program’s future.
19 See Action Plan for Official Languages.
20 The Canadian Network of Language Industries, the Language Industry Association and the Language Technology Research Centre.
21Non-compliance occurs when employees do not meet the language requirements of their position at the end of the initial two-year exemption period and have neither received an extension of the exemption period, nor been deployed to a position for which they are fully qualified, nor are granted an exclusion under the Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order.
22Survey entitled “The Evolution of Public Opinion on Official Languages in Canada” conducted by Decima Research Inc. in September 2006. The survey was conducted by telephone in February 2006 from a sample of 2,000 respondents aged 18 and older.
23In December 2006, the firm CROP conducted a survey for Société Radio-Canada.
24Survey conducted by Decima Research Inc., 2006.
25“French Culture and Learning French as a Second Language: Perceptions of the Saskatchewan Public”, a study conducted by the NRG Research Group for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, January 2007.
26Survey conducted by Decima Research Inc., 2006.
27“My Ideal Canada in 2020—The Views and Voices of Young Canadians,” a syndicated study of Canadian youth aged 16–30 conducted by FH Canada Research in 2006.
28The publication of this study is scheduled for December 2007.
29The publication of this survey is scheduled for the end of 2007.
30Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Chapter 9, December 2002.
31In Canada, nearly 200 institutions are subject to the Act; the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages has chosen to evaluate 37 of them. An attempt has been made to select institutions that are representative of a wide range of departmental realities, in terms of the government’s main responsibilities (or major portfolios), their relationship with the Treasury Board Secretariat (separate employers or institutions for which the Treasury Board Secretariat is the employer) and their size. Central agencies responsible for official languages have been excluded, since it is impossible to measure their performance according to the same evaluation criteria used for other institutions.
32This rating guide is available on the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages web site.
33This survey, carried out by Statistics Canada for the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada (PSHRMAC), included five questions on language of work. A list of these questions can be found on the language of work section in this chapter. It should be noted that this survey did not involve employees from separate employers, i.e., institutions of which the Treasury Board Secretariat is not the employer.
34The Office of the Commissioner requested this survey from Statistics Canada to round out the data from the 2005 PSHRMAC survey. Statistics Canada asked employees from 16 separate employers the same five questions regarding language of work that appeared in the 2005 Public Service Employee Survey.
35Since November 2005, all federal institutions are required to take positive measures to enhance the development of official language communities and promote the equal status and use of English and French. The Office of the Commissioner was careful to consult official language community representatives prior to making any changes to the evaluation framework. After strengthening the evaluation criteria, the Office of the Commissioner communicated them to the institutions concerned.
36Thirty-two federal departments and organizations are named in the 1994 Accountability Framework regarding the implementation of sections 41 and 42 of the Act as being key organizations that have a significant impact on the development of official language communities.
37For more information on institutions with specific compliance issues, see Chapter 5, page 61.
38Note that Statistics Canada also compiled observation results by province and territory, which included all observations from all institutions. These results were an approximation of each region’s overall performance. However, the results from the territories (Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut) are only representative of performance in their capital cities, since the observations were limited to these places. The number of observations carried out in each province and territory ranges from 7 (Nunavut) to 142 (Ontario). Results are available at www.ocol-clo.gc.ca.
39See the methodology section at the beginning of this chapter.
40Note that an institution can appear in the “Success Stories” section and still obtain poor grades on its report card. There is no contradiction between the two.
41The Group of Federal Tribunal Chairs brings together more than 20 administrative tribunals. Their periodic meetings are a privileged forum for discussing administrative justice and sharing their experiences and innovative practices. Questions regarding official languages have been at the heart of the group’s
activities for several years now. Many of the tribunals have modified or standardized their official language practices as a result of the Group’s work.
42The “Other” csategory includes complaints withdrawn by the complainant during the course of the investigation. It also includes complaints that the Office of the Commissioner decided to abandon for various reasons. For example, the complainant may not have provided enough information at the beginning of the
investigation, the investigation revealed that the complaint did not come under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Commissioner or the complaint was brought against an institution that no longer exists.
43In 2006–2007, 77% of complaints were admissible. Uninvestigated complaints are sent to the appropriate institution (among other reasons, when a complaint involves another federal law, for example, in the case of a complaint about product labeling) or refused for not coming under the Act or its regulations.
44The “Other” category consists mainly of complaints regarding notices, the administration of justice and discriminatory measures following the filing of a complaint.
45This section only includes information requests received by the Compliance Assurance Branch. Information requests pertaining to government policy, the responsibilities of other levels of government and related subjects are not included.
46The publication of this final report is scheduled for the 2007-2008 fiscal year.
