Special Study

Linguistic duality is a defining characteristic of Canada’s international identity. We are widely known as a bilingual country with large English-speaking and French-speaking populations. Our linguistic duality gives meaningful expression to Canada’s commitment to pluralism and human rights.

Linguistic duality’s contribution to Canadian interests abroad

Promoting Canada’s linguistic duality abroad is important for both historical and practical reasons. Canada has long attracted immigrants of various cultures from all parts of the world. We owe our reputation of welcoming diversity in large part to the way we have supported and managed our linguistic differences.

Linguistic duality also gives Canada a marked advantage in the global competition of national interests. In a world where recognition and familiarity are important marketing tools, Canada’s bilingual brand gives us that extra edge when it comes to selling our products and services. It stands to reason that this is especially true for countries and populations sharing either or both of our official languages.

Questions about linguistic duality’s integration in international policy

As stated in the federal government’s October 2004 Speech from the Throne, Canada’s domestic and international policies “must work in concert.” However, previous interventions by this Office raised concerns about linguistic duality’s place in international policy issues.

Our studies on immigration revealed that little was being done to connect the flow of immigrants with the interests of our linguistic communities. At the same time, our studies concerning the Internet identified untapped potential within our international policy to promote linguistic diversity on the Web.

In addition, questions were raised about the image being presented of Canada’s Francophone and Anglophone communities at international gatherings and conferences.

A broader study

A broader examination of linguistic duality’s integration in Canada’s international relations was needed to identify overall strengths and weaknesses. This study therefore considers Canada’s bilingual identity in the federal government’s international policy and important programs and activities.

Our findings are based on 150 interviews conducted in November and December 2003. As it is the lead department for Canada’s international relations, most interviews were with officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.¹ We also met with officials at Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada, given the important roles of these departments in promoting Canada’s cultural and economic interests internationally.

Outside Canada, we interviewed staff at our embassies in Paris, Madrid, Brussels, Berlin, Prague, Budapest, Washington, Mexico City and Santiago, Chile, as well as at Canada’s consulates general in New York and Chicago and at our permanent mission to the Organization of American States. In addition, a member of our study team participated in the federal government’s December 2003 trade mission to Chile.

Some positive findings

Much has been done to build upon Canada’s bilingual identity. The federal government is working within international organizations such as UNESCO to support cultural diversity. Canada’s prominent role in La Francophonie helps to embed linguistic duality in the worldview of Canada. In addition, certain funding programs such as the Public Diplomacy Program and the Canadian Studies Program encourage a proactive approach to Canada’s linguistic duality in cultural promotion while favouring the pan-Canadian character of our linguistic communities.

Weak links and missed opportunities

Linguistic duality’s integration in policies, programs and activities in this sector of government operations is nonetheless far from complete. Key issues include the following:

large gaps between departmental programs promoting linguistic duality and their application by certain diplomatic missions;
linguistic duality’s absence in Foreign Affairs Canada’s strategic plans and priorities, other than as a human resource issue;
a tendency to dismiss linguistic duality’s contribution to Canada’s important relationship with the United States;
inadequate integration within diplomatic missions of cultural promotion with trade promotion, which means that linguistic duality’s value to Canada’s economic development is not being fully realized;
support within Canada’s Anglophone population for La Francophonie is underdeveloped; and
inadequate guidance, resources and monitoring in the relationship between headquarters and Canada’s diplomatic missions adversely affect linguistic duality’s most basic ingredient: service and information availability in both official languages.

The challenge and solution lie in Canada’s international policy

Linguistic duality’s incomplete status in Canada’s international affairs can be traced to its limited recognition in Canada’s current international policy. The policy places Canadian values and culture among the central pillars, or objectives, in our relationship with the rest of the world. However, left unsaid is linguistic duality’s connection to these values and to our cultural diversity, as well as that duality’s relevance to other international policy objectives. The result is unclear policy direction and commitment.

The priorities, objectives and orientations that have guided Canada’s international relations since 1995 are up for renewal, retooling or replacement. In the October 2004 Speech from the Throne, the federal government confirmed the forthcoming release of “a comprehensive International Policy Statement.”

Our report calls upon the government to ensure that projection of Canada’s linguistic duality is recognized as a government priority and is effectively integrated in all other priorities in the new international policy statement. The report includes 24 other recommendations for improvements and new ways of doing things in programs and activities that would reinforce our bilingual identity abroad.

The policy review presents a rare opportunity to set the tone for Canada’s relations with the rest of the world for years to come. It is in Canada’s best interests that linguistic duality be firmly entrenched in the new tone. To fail to do so would mean continuing inefficiencies in our international relations and uncertainty in our national identity, thereby undermining the promotion of Canadian interests around the world.

Government response

The Government of Canada responded positively to the report and supported most of the recommendations. The Commissioner expresses her appreciation for the constructive comments provided and for the excellent cooperation of all departments concerned during the study. The report includes in bold type the federal government’s main comments on each recommendation. Additional comments by the Commissioner follow in italics. The complete text of the federal government’s response to the preliminary version of the study report can be found in the Appendix.²

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

Promoting linguistic duality³ is important to Canada’s international relations for both historical and practical reasons. Canada is widely recognized as a society of diverse ethnic and cultural groups. We owe our reputation for effectively accommodating cultural differences in large part to the way we have managed our linguistic differences. Canada would be seen in an entirely different and perhaps less flattering light if it were a unilingual country.

From a more practical perspective, our linguistic duality gives Canada a definite advantage in competing for international attention and markets. It does this by distinguishing ourselves from other countries and by facilitating direct access to countries and populations sharing either or both of our official languages.

This office therefore became increasingly concerned after a series of interventions in recent years raised questions about the integration of linguistic duality in Canada’s international relations. Studies on immigration issues revealed a need to connect the interests of our linguistic communities and the flow of immigrants to our country. Our Internet studies identified untapped potential in our international policy to promote linguistic diversity on the Web.

Less formal interventions were based on concerns that the federal government, in the global competition for attention, was not sufficiently promoting the Canadian model of social harmony, founded on our linguistic duality and our diversity, as a distinguishing feature of our country. Authorities generally responded positively to this office’s findings and recommendations, but many aspects of Canada’s international relations had yet to be covered.

This study was launched in late 2003 to complete the picture, insofar as resources and time permitted. International relations are complex and dynamic. To complicate matters further, the study saw a change of government and a departmental reorganization before it was completed. Government officials helped us ensure that we covered key sectors and operations. From there we identified programs and activities particularly relevant to the issue at hand.

Our study took place in the midst of a major departmental review of Canada’s international policy. The priorities, objectives and orientations that have guided Canada’s foreign relations since 1995 are up for renewal, retooling or replacement. Before the Government of Canada finalizes plans for a new policy statement, this study assessed the federal government’s effectiveness in integrating linguistic duality so far and recommends ways of doing it better.

The observations are based on approximately 150 interviews with officials in three government departments that have played major roles in Canada’s international relations: the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada. Given DFAIT’s lead role in Canada’s international relations, most interviews were with officials of that department. Interviewees included senior headquarters officials and staff at Canada’s embassies in Paris, Madrid, Brussels, Berlin, Prague, Budapest, Washington, Mexico City and Santiago, Chile, as well as at its consulates general in New York and Chicago, and at the permanent mission to the Organization of American States (OAS). In addition, a member of our study team participated in the federal government’s December 2003 trade mission to Chile.

This office acknowledges and appreciates the excellent cooperation received from each department’s officials and at each mission we visited.

Our observations are grouped below into five chapters. Chapter One covers the policy dimension, taking into account public consultations during the policy review exercise. Chapters Two and Three take stock, respectively, of linguistic duality’s status in key programs and in the role of diplomatic missions in policy and program implementation. Chapter Four is devoted to the basics of linguistic duality, namely, the language-of-service issues raised during our mission visits, and Chapter Five identifies a number of internal programs important for supporting linguistic duality operationally. The Conclusion brings us back to the key issue of international policy in light of the study’s main observations.

Table of Contents

I. LINGUISTIC DUALITY IN INTERNATIONAL POLICY

This report begins, and ends, with an examination of linguistic duality’s integration in Canada’s international policy. In this section, we consider the government policy in place at the time of our study, focussing first on the policy’s objectives and their relationship to Canada’s linguistic character. We then review the results of the government’s public consultation exercise, A Dialogue on Foreign Policy, which launched the policy review in early 2003. In the report’s conclusion, we look back at our observations to offer the government direction as it completes the review process.

1. Three pillars

The federal government’s previous foreign policy review resulted in the establishment of three central objectives, or “pillars,” that have guided Canada’s international relations. The 1995 Government of Canada statement, Canada and the World, describes the three pillars as follows:

promoting prosperity and employment by advancing Canada’s international trade and economic interests abroad, by maintaining market access for Canadian goods and services, by attracting foreign investment and by promoting tourism to Canada;
protecting our security within a stable global framework by using diplomacy to protect against military threats, international instability, environmental degradation, natural resource depletion, international crime, uncontrolled migration and the spread of pandemic diseases; and
projecting Canadian values and culture to the world by promoting universal respect for human rights, the development of participatory government and stable institutions, the rule of law, sustainable development, the celebration of Canadian culture and the promotion of Canadian cultural and educational industries abroad.

Canada’s linguistic duality, or “bilingualism” as it was more narrowly referred to at the time, is most closely associated with the cultural component of the third pillar. Bilingualism is identified as one of the distinguishing features of our culture, along with Canada’s multiculturalism and our Aboriginal roots.

Despite linguistic duality’s constitutional status, Canada’s international policy fails to recognize it as a national value in itself or its relevance to the other key objectives. One has to read linguistic duality into the policy’s recognition that cultural and economic objectives are interrelated and that security and global stability are reinforced by our values. Unmentioned are the linguistic character of many of our cultural industries, which contribute to our economic development, and the lessons to be drawn around the world from Canada’s experience in managing social differences.⁴

Discussions with DFAIT officials suggest that budgetary factors in the mid-1990s weakened linguistic duality’s status in Canada’s international policy. We were reminded that the policy arrived in the midst of the government’s Program Review exercise in the 1990s, which was directed at reducing the cost of government.

Officials recalled that budgetary reductions within DFAIT had major consequences for our foreign posts in particular. DFAIT reduced the number of Canadian-based staff and increased the use of locally engaged staff to promote Canada’s interests. DFAIT staff now represent less than 45% of personnel in our diplomatic missions. For several years, little effort was made to ensure that local employees were sensitized to the Canadian reality, despite their growing importance in representing and marketing Canada’s cultural and economic interests. In addition, the period saw the loss of headquarters support for second-language training for mission staff, which continues to be a problem at some locations.

The international policy’s failure to integrate linguistic duality was reconfirmed as recently as 2002 in DFAIT’s adoption of its three-year Strategic Planning and Priorities Framework. The Framework lays out a set of five strategic objectives and 12 priorities for the government in international affairs up to 2005. The objectives refer to promoting Canada, serving Canadians abroad, interpreting the world for Canadians, serving the government through our global network and forging an innovative organization. The priorities range from client services to Canada’s relations with the United States and with other countries in multilateral organizations. Among these objectives and priorities, the only reference related to linguistic duality concerns “official languages” in the context of human resources management.

Linguistic duality’s low status as a policy objective and priority is at odds with the growing recognition within the federal government of its pertinence and contribution to Canada’s international relations. In a speech delivered in November 2003, the Minister of Foreign Affairs remarked that, amid global tensions, Canada’s membership in La Francophonie provides it with a valuable forum for dialogue with moderate Muslim countries such as Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal and Albania.

As documented in the following chapters, the government has also begun to recognize linguistic duality as one of Canada’s most distinguishing features as it seeks a Canadian “brand” for marketing our products and services abroad. National branding has taken on greater importance in the face of increasing globalization and economic integration though trade liberalization.

2. Public consultation

DFAIT analysed thousands of comments submitted by individuals and organizations during the public consultation phase, referred to hereafter as Dialogue,⁵ of the international policy review. DFAIT reported widespread public support for an international presence that reflects the values and diverse character of our society.

As stated by one Dialogue participant, “Canadian values could be well received as a unique asset that Canada could offer in a world growing increasingly insecure due to religious, cultural, social and economic divisions.” Another cited “bilingualism” as well as multiculturalism among Canada’s domestic values. Others were reported to have suggested, “Our experience of democratic pluralism might be able to provide ways forward for multi-ethnic societies to overcome violent divisions.”

By these statements, the Dialogue results go further than our current international policy in recognizing linguistic duality’s relevance to Canada’s cultural diversity and the importance of both to our international relations. This relationship should be built into the new policy, reflecting the fact that our English-speaking and French-speaking communities each consist of a multicultural mix of peoples and backgrounds sharing a common language. The government should advertise its success in bridging differences between our two dominant linguistic communities as well as in building a society of various cultures.

According to DFAIT, the Dialogue results tend to support a rethinking of the government’s pillar approach to international policy. DFAIT reported that some participants believed the three pillars currently used to conceptualize international policy directions should be redefined, or “be re-conceptualized to highlight their integration.” DFAIT added that contributors “indicate an underlying desire for a more integrated foreign policy framework that clearly articulates Canadian values and interests.”

These and other statements in the Dialogue report reinforce the sense that the government has fallen short in ensuring that all components of its international policy pillars are “interrelated and mutually reinforcing,” as described in the current policy.

The public consultation phase of the policy review was important for confirming the need for an international policy that is solidly based on Canadian values, including linguistic duality. In 2003, a government task force on Canada’s international policy framework reiterated this need, calling for policy frameworks “founded on enduring Canadian interests and values.”⁶ More specifically, the task force stated that a strategic policy framework in international relations should include “a vision of Canada and its role in the world that is based on a sharper definition of our key national interests and is informed of our values.”

We return to this subject in the concluding section of the report after examining the implications of the international policy’s shortcomings for linguistic duality’s status in selected government programs, activities and services.

Table of Contents

II. LINGUISTIC DUALITY IN KEY PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES

Turning to departmental programs and initiatives developed for achieving international policy objectives, this section addresses the issue of linguistic duality’s place in prominent cultural strategies (the Public Diplomacy Program, the Canadian Studies Program and the government’s international cultural diversity agenda). It also addresses linguistic duality’s place in Canadian trade missions and in Canada’s involvement in La Francophonie, the Organization of American States and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.

1. Public Diplomacy Program

DFAIT introduced the Public Diplomacy⁷ Program in 2000 to contribute directly to the third pillar of Canada’s international policy. Its strategic outcome is described as

“increased recognition of, and respect for, Canada’s role as an active participant in world affairs and as an economic partner, as well as promotion of Canadian identity and values abroad and development of an international environment that is favourable to Canada’s political and economic interests.” ⁸

Under the program, Canadian identity encompasses its “diversity, values and excellence,” which are promoted through the arts, academic relations and exchanges.⁹ Public diplomacy stresses the use of partnerships in its implementation. At the mission level, this refers to working with local interests in host countries to promote Canada. Domestically, this means coordinating provincial and territorial policies in international affairs with the federal government’s global agenda. The program is scheduled to end in 2005, although it may be renewed.

Within DFAIT, the Public Diplomacy Program is widely seen as an important source of funding for projects relating to Canada’s linguistic duality. Funding levels increased significantly in 2002 when the program qualified for support under Canadian Heritage’s Interdepartmental Partnership with Official-Language Communities (IPOLC) Program, a federal initiative that encourages partnerships between official-language minority communities and federal organizations.

As a result of the IPOLC agreement, DFAIT has targeted Public Diplomacy Program support to Francophone communities outside Quebec. During hearings of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages in March 2003, questions were raised about the program’s application to Quebec. DFAIT officials replied that although the program is focussed on French-speaking communities outside the province, it is open to all.

Our study confirmed that individuals and organizations from across the country receive support under the Public Diplomacy Program. Within Quebec, the federal program builds on existing provincial support programs in arts and culture to reinforce connections within Canada’s Francophone population. One example was a Quebec youth organization that, with federal assistance, expanded its existing international program to include Francophone youths in other provinces.

DFAIT officials added that Public Diplomacy Program funding is available for projects involving both of Canada’s linguistic communities. Examples included political simulations for youth of the Canadian and European parliaments and of the United Nations.

DFAIT officials pointed out that the Public Diplomacy Program supplements other federal government arts and cultural programs, such as federal partnerships with Quebec to support that province’s artistic community. We were told that the combination of provincial and federal support in this area results in a perception within the Canadian cultural community that Quebec artists are given more support than what is available to artists in other parts of the country. The program’s regional orientation is said to address that perception and ensure a balanced representation of Canada’s linguistic duality by targeting Francophone community needs in other parts of the country.

The need for such a program nonetheless raises questions about linguistic duality’s overall integration in government programming in this area. By supplementing existing programs, the Public Diplomacy Program reveals their weaknesses and the need for an international policy in which Canada’s linguistic duality is effectively translated into program development.

There is widespread concern within DFAIT about the future of the Public Diplomacy Program. The uncertain status of continued funding beyond 2005 inhibits long-term planning and adversely affects the program’s application at the mission level, as we show in the following chapter. We understand that DFAIT will audit the Public Diplomacy Program in the coming months. It is important that the audit fully incorporate linguistic duality in its assessment.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

1. the Department of Foreign Affairs ensure that its forthcoming audit of the Public Diplomacy Program include a comprehensive assessment of the program’s contribution to linguistic duality in Canada’s international relations.

The Government of Canada stated that it “will ensure that the evaluation of Public Diplomacy will address all issues related to Public Diplomacy including its contribution to linguistic duality in Canada’s international relations.”

2. Canadian Studies Program

The federal government’s Canadian Studies Program predates our current international policy. Like the Public Diplomacy Program, it is primarily a funding program, but one with a domestic and international agenda to promote learning about Canada. Canadian Heritage is responsible for it in Canada and helps DFAIT apply it internationally.

Under the Canadian Studies Program, DFAIT has established a series of programs supporting 26 national and multinational Canadian studies associations and almost 250 Canadian studies centres around the world. Each year, the programs help finance hundreds of research projects relating to Canada. Canada’s linguistic duality can be seen in the mix of English and French in the language of courses, the subject matter, the language of publications and even the mother tongue of visiting Canadian academics.

Officials at all levels emphasized the importance of respect for academic freedom in Canadian studies programs. We were repeatedly advised that funding assistance can only influence, not dictate. Our study found that the degree of influence in some programs largely depends on the role of our diplomatic missions. By developing close relationships with Canadian studies associations and centres in the host country, academic relations officers in our missions can effectively suggest themes, speakers or academics that would be in keeping with Canada’s linguistic duality.

Diplomatic missions play only a minor role in the Faculty Research Program, which offers grants to academics researching Canada or its international relations. Missions process grant applications before submitting them to a regional committee for consideration. In keeping with respect for academic freedom, approval criteria are broadly based, although the context or perspective must be Canadian. A review of proposals being processed at some missions during our visits showed that, nonetheless, several covered issues relating to Canada’s linguistic experience.

The integration of linguistic duality in the Canadian Studies Program is understandably restrained by the principle of academic freedom. It was suggested that minimal increases in financial assistance for Canadian studies associations and centres would enhance the degree of influence exercised by our missions. Our visits to 11 embassies and consulates provided convincing evidence that this would be effective where the responsible officials are sensitized to Canada’s linguistic duality and have established close working relationships with the targeted institutions. However, as we see in the next chapter, more work is needed to ensure the benefits are more widely spread around the world.

In the meantime, a suggestion concerning the Faculty Research Program merits consideration. Although academic freedom prevents DFAIT from including linguistic duality as a selection criterion, an official proposed that it be added to the list of topics of interest that are included in funding application forms. This would encourage applicants to consider applying for projects in this area.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

2. while fully respecting the principle of academic freedom, the Department of Foreign Affairs include Canada’s linguistic duality as a topic of interest in the application forms for the Canadian Studies Faculty Research Program, and that it do so in time for the program’s 2004 applications.

The Government of Canada informed us that the International Council for Canadian Studies has already been instructed to add linguistic duality to the list of topics of interest for the Faculty Research Program. It added that the theme of linguistic duality “is integrated in many research projects on a wide variety of subjects and we are firmly convinced that this subject is already a growing source of interest to many scholars.” Moreover, it “will continue to advocate this as an area of interest.”

Our review of another Canadian studies program, the Bank of Missions, revealed that federal efforts are affected by provincial activity in this area. The Bank of Missions facilitates exchanges (called “missions”) between Canada and countries with which we have reached a bilateral cultural agreement. Although France is among the countries covered by the program, we learned that the federal arrangement with France excludes Quebec because of an existing exchange program between the Quebec and French governments. The situation is contrary to the federal government’s responsibility to represent all of Canada in international relations and must be addressed.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

3. the Department of Foreign Affairs take steps, by December 31, 2005, to ensure that all international Canadian studies programs apply to all parts of Canada and both Anglophone and Francophone populations.

The Government of Canada explained that France has required the non-inclusion of Quebec at joint cultural commission meetings and that the requirement does not refer specifically to Canadian studies. Although Canada has previously acceded to the French requirement, the Government of Canada confirmed that this position would be reviewed at the next meeting, which will take place in 2005.

3. Cultural diversity agenda

The federal government has been playing an active role, even a leadership role, in the search for international protection of domestic policies favouring cultural diversity. This global campaign has been prompted by the worldwide trend toward trade liberalization and economic integration. Canada’s efforts have centred on the development within UNESCO of an international cultural agreement, the New International Instrument on Cultural Diversity (NIICD). The NIICD, which will be presented at the 2005 UNESCO General Assembly, will establish for the first time a set of international rules allowing countries to promote their culture.

The federal government has also been instrumental in the creation of the International Network on Culture Policies (INCP), which brings together cultural ministers and officials from various countries to promote national cultural diversity policies. Canadian Heritage has been at the forefront of such efforts, working with DFAIT, although we understand that DFAIT’s role will increase as the UNESCO agreement proceeds.

Canada’s linguistic duality is reinforced by the federal government’s cultural diversity agenda. Our prominent role in developing the NIICD and the INCP confirms Canada’s reputation as a culturally diverse country and sends the message that policies promoting diversity, both linguistic and cultural, are important to the Canadian identity.¹⁰

Canada’s effectiveness in shaping the global agenda on cultural policy is enhanced by its participation in organizations, such as La Francophonie, that recognize the importance of an international cultural agreement. Membership in such organizations enables Canada to work strategically with like-minded countries while sharing our experience as a culturally and linguistically diverse nation.

Such opportunities exist within the Latin Union, a network of 35 countries sharing Latin-derived languages, including French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. Active since 1983, the Union’s mission is to promote and protect the linguistic and cultural heritage of its members. Canada, however, has yet to join the Latin Union, despite shared interests and mutual benefits. A review of the organization’s activities over the years shows that many of these activities parallel Canada’s own actions abroad favouring cultural diversity. The Latin Union actively supports the development of an international cultural agreement. It organizes forums and coordinates studies related to the use of languages other than English on the Internet and to the development of language industries and terminology banks.

Canada’s failure to join the Latin Union is at odds with the federal government’s cultural diversity agenda. It runs counter to the inherent value of partnerships for the achievement of common goals, a value Canada readily recognizes when it joins and actively participates in other international organizations. Given the Latin Union’s mission and activities, membership in the organization would also enhance international recognition of Canada’s linguistic duality as well as our cultural diversity. Canada’s participation in the Latin Union would furthermore complement its membership in the Organization of American States, which shares French, Spanish and Portuguese as official languages (in addition to English).

Federal officials previously explained that membership in the Latin Union was not under study, given that Canada has well-established relations with the member countries. This rationale falls short of an adequate explanation, as it could apply to other organizations as well.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

4. the Department of Foreign Affairs, in partnership with Canadian Heritage, take the necessary steps by March 31, 2005, enabling the Government of Canada to seek membership in the Latin Union.

The Government of Canada responded that Canada supports the Latin Union activities and maintains close relations with the organization as well as with its member countries. It explained that, although Canada is not, for the time being, considering joining the Latin Union, the government “will work to develop its ties with the Latin Union, notably through its membership in the International Organization of the Francophonie.”

The Commissioner is pleased the government intends to develop its ties with the Latin Union. She nonetheless maintains her position that Canada’s membership would best complement government initiatives in promoting cultural diversity.

The fact that Canada’s linguistic duality is part and parcel of our cultural diversity appears to be well understood by the officials we met at the headquarters of Canadian Heritage and DFAIT. The same cannot be said at all the embassies and consulates we visited. We encountered Canadian officials in our diplomatic missions who suggested that our linguistic duality held little interest locally, while remarking on the great interest in Canada’s experience in managing our cultural diversity. Not only do these officials fail to understand that our linguistic duality is the result of successfully managing societal differences, but also they ignore their responsibility for promoting understanding of this important facet of Canada’s identity.¹¹

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

5. the Department of Foreign Affairs, in collaboration with Canadian Heritage, develop, by December 31, 2004, internal communication strategies to enhance understanding of linguistic duality’s pertinence to our cultural diversity and to related government initiatives.

The Department of Foreign Affairs stated it would develop a strategy in accordance with the recommendation. “The strategy will be designed to raise awareness among Canadian employees in missions abroad and locally recruited employees of the importance of linguistic duality as a foundation of our foreign and trade policies. This will enable us to promote Canadian identity (a product of cultural and linguistic diversity) more effectively with host countries, while working to promote our political and trade interests on the international scene.”

Canadian Heritage commented that it contributes to training sessions and briefings of outgoing Heads of Mission and cultural attachés “with the purpose of educating officials about the international cultural diversity agenda, including specific policy and program objectives of Canadian Heritage related to supporting cultural and linguistic diversity.” Canadian Heritage noted that “consistent messaging both at home and abroad among government officials contributes to a reinforced message about the objectives and successes of the Canadian cultural policy model.”

4. La Francophonie

The federal government describes La Francophonie as one of the main thrusts of Canada’s international policy. As a prominent member of this collection of states and governments representing the world’s French-speaking populations, Canada’s main goal is to further democratic, cultural and economic values inherent in La Francophonie. DFAIT manages the roles of several departments and agencies, including Canadian Heritage, that are involved in the organization.

La Francophonie offers a global forum for promoting Canada’s own Francophone community and our linguistic duality in general. The organization has multiple facets and Canada’s involvement and contribution takes many forms. For our study we focus on the Francophonie Promotion Fund, TV5 and Canada’s participation in Francophonie institutions.

a. Francophonie Promotion Fund

As the name implies, the Francophonie Promotion Fund financially supports projects that in turn support Francophone interests, both within Canada and abroad. Among other things, it finances Canada’s participation, through its missions, in annual international Francophonie celebrations.¹²

Officials advised us that the program is being directed away from large projects undertaken by major national and international organizations. Instead, it is being directed toward smaller, more citizen-focussed activities. Although in 2003–04 the program supported several projects by Quebec organizations, we were told that greater attention is being paid to projects by Francophone communities outside Quebec and to increasing awareness among these communities of such funding opportunities. While doing so, the federal government must ensure that the program remains open to Canadians in all regions.

The need for openness extends to Canada’s Anglophone population. It is in the interest of Francophones, both at home and abroad, that DFAIT take advantage of opportunities within Canada’s large Francophile population, and in particular that it strengthen ties between our linguistic communities. Our study revealed that recent awareness-raising consultations with Francophone community representatives included representatives of Canadian Parents for French. Several officials agreed that more could and should be done to reach out to our Anglophone community. We note that a survey conducted by Canadian Heritage in the late 1990s discovered important support for La Francophonie within our Anglophone community. The survey showed that support among English-speaking Canadians was proportional to their understanding of the issues.

Currently, the Fund’s main contribution to Canada’s linguistic duality lies in its support for Francophone interests and in a certain emphasis, reflected in its eligibility criteria, on building bridges within Canada’s Francophone community. Although eligibility criteria also include making La Francophonie known to the Canadian public, it is not clearly stated that this encompasses both linguistic communities.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

6. the Department of Foreign Affairs revise, by December 31, 2004, eligibility criteria for its Francophonie Promotion Fund to include projects aimed at improving links with, and awareness within, Canada’s Anglophone population.

The Government of Canada responded: “The primary purpose of the Francophonie Promotion Fund is to enable Canadians and organizations to take part in activities of the international Francophonie and to enable non-governmental organizations (NGOs) within the international Francophonie to raise awareness of their activities with communities. The Fund is barely sufficient to respond to the numerous applications from NGOs to participate in events of the international Francophonie.

“All Canadians, Anglophones and Francophones alike, can apply for funding through this program. The key criterion is that projects submitted respect the objectives of the Fund, which are to promote the international Francophonie.

“In addition, the provincial governments of provinces with substantial Francophone communities (Manitoba and Ontario) are usually associated with major events of international Francophonie. Provincial government representatives are encouraged to participate, within the Canadian delegation, at international meetings such as the Francophone Summit. Provincial governments are generally reluctant to commit human and financial resources in order to enhance their participation in activities of the international Francophonie.

“The Department is committed to using the opportunity of the next Francophone Summit, in Fall 2004, to develop a strategy in conjunction with Canadian Heritage to encourage greater participation by provincial governments. The Department will continue to directly support projects designed to enhance the participation of Francophone communities in the international Francophonie.”

The Commissioner welcomes the commitment by the Department of Foreign Affairs to encourage greater participation by provincial governments in La Francophonie activities. However, she maintains her position that the Francophonie Promotion Fund offers an opportunity for drawing increased support from Canada’s Anglophone community for La Francophonie. Eligibility criteria should reflect more clearly the fact that the Fund is open to applications for projects that build bridges between linguistic communities, in favour of La Francophonie. It is incumbent upon the Government of Canada to ensure that funding levels are sufficient to fulfil objectives supportive of Canada’s linguistic duality.

b. TV5

Launched in 1984, TV5 has grown into an international French-language television network, broadcasting in more than 150 countries. France contributes the bulk of the network’s financing and programming. Canada’s contribution to TV5 is jointly managed by the federal and Quebec governments and their agencies. Canadian programming content on TV5 is divided 60–40 between Radio-Canada and Télé-Québec.

Canadian Heritage is the lead federal department. In a 2002 assessment of Canadian participation in TV5, Canadian Heritage concluded that it is an effective means of promoting Canada’s cultural diversity. Discussions with responsible officials suggest that, domestically, linguistic duality would be enhanced by greater efforts to promote TV5 among bilingual English-speaking Canadians. In addition, Canada’s Francophones would be better reflected in TV5 by the participation of other provinces and territories. This applies especially to Ontario, given that province’s important Francophone community and its own French-language television network, TFO.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

7. a) Canadian Heritage develop and implement, by December 31, 2004, a campaign aimed at promoting TV5 within Canada’s Anglophone community; and

7. b) actively encourage the involvement and participation of more provinces and territories, notably Ontario, in the Canadian contribution to TV5 programming and financing.

Canadian Heritage responded that it would work closely with TV5’s Canadian operator, TV5 Québec Canada, to implement the first part of the recommendation. Canadian Heritage has already taken steps to improve awareness of TV5 within Canada’s English-speaking community. For example, it funded an advertising campaign in May 2003 by TV5 Québec Canada that was directed at both Anglophones and Francophones.

Responding to the second part of the recommendation, the Government of Canada explained that Canadian Heritage “ensures that Canadian programming, on both TV5 Québec Canada (which manages the signal in Canada) and TV5 Monde (which manages the seven other signals worldwide), is representative of the Canadian Francophonie in its entirety.”

While pointing out that each operator chooses its own programming, the Government of Canada advised us that Canadian Heritage has financed initiatives to include more producers outside Quebec in the Canadian programming broadcast by TV5 Québec Canada. It also noted that TV Ontario is a part of TV5 Québec Canada’s administrative council and that Radio-Canada offers Canadian programming on TV5 Monde’s international signals, in collaboration with TV5 Québec Canada and Télé-Québec.

With respect to financing, the Government of Canada responded that provincial and territorial governments interested in participating in TV5 financing should send submissions to the appropriate authorities, which, in the case of TV5 Québec Canada, are the governments of Canada and Quebec.

Since the Government of Canada actively encourages provincial participation in other Francophonie activities, such as the Francophone Summit, the Commissioner expects it to explore ways of promoting greater provincial and territorial involvement in TV5.

c. Canadian participation in Francophonie institutions

A distinguishing feature of Canada’s involvement in La Francophonie is the level of participation by certain provinces, notably Quebec and New Brunswick. At times, this receives a high public profile, such as at the Francophonie Games, where the Canadian contingent consists of three teams: Canada, Canada-Quebec and Canada-New Brunswick.

Quebec and New Brunswick are also formally recognized as “participating governments” within the Intergovernmental Agency of the Francophonie, which is responsible for programs adopted by La Francophonie summits. The status enables the provinces to comment freely within the organization on matters under their jurisdiction. On other matters, they require federal authorization.

Questions have arisen in recent years about the federal government’s participation in the Agency and related activities, in relation to that of Quebec in particular. Officials acknowledge that Quebec’s activity and investment in the organization have created a certain imbalance in how the interests of Canada’s Francophone community are represented. This office has directly witnessed how limited federal participation is at certain Francophonie-related conferences and seminars, in relation to Quebec’s. When this occurs, Canada’s Francophone community is presented largely in terms of Quebec, thereby presenting a skewed picture of our society’s true linguistic duality.

An internal study commissioned by DFAIT found that a similar situation exists among Francophone organizations in the United States. The May 2003 report titled Promouvoir l’identité bilingue du Canada aux États-Unis noted that Canada and its missions in the U.S. have few relations with American Francophone associations. These associations, meanwhile, tend to have strong ties with Quebec due to ongoing promotional efforts by that province’s American delegations. As such, the national character of Canada’s Francophone population is little understood, as is our contribution to the international Francophonie.

The federal government is said to be taking steps to promote more actively all of Canada’s interests within La Francophonie, especially in France. DFAIT has also been reviewing Francophonie networks to assess the level of Canada’s participation. The resulting inventory will help the government identify sectors where its presence has been weakest and where attention and resources need to be focussed.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

8. the Department of Foreign Affairs and Canadian Heritage use the results of the current review of Canadian participation in Francophonie institutions to ensure that Canada’s Francophone community is fully reflected and represented.

The Government of Canada responded: “The federal government authorities who sit on various bodies of the international multilateral Francophonie represent all Canadians, regardless of their language of use or mother tongue. The marquee event of the Francophonie is the Francophone Summit, which is held every two years and is attended by the Prime Minister of Canada, representing the Canadian population. Canadians are thus already represented within the International Organization of the Francophonie and the Intergovernmental Agency of the Francophonie.

“The operators of the Francophonie include the Agence universitaire de la Francophonie, whose membership comprises almost all Francophone universities outside Quebec; the Assemblée des parlementaires de la Francophonie, […] whose membership includes parliamentarians from all provinces; and the Association internationale des maires francophones (AIMF), which is accessible to Canadian municipalities.”

The Commissioner notes the positive examples cited in the Government of Canada response and looks forward to learning of the results of the review under way at the Department of Foreign Affairs of Canadian participation in Francophonie institutions.

Another means of ensuring a balanced representation of Canada’s Francophone community in this context is through greater involvement of other provinces. As already noted, New Brunswick has established itself within La Francophonie. In addition to its status as a “participating government” within the International Agency of the Francophonie, New Brunswick is officially designated, along with Quebec, as an “interested observer” within Canadian delegations at Francophonie summit meetings.

In its response to the preliminary report, the Government reiterated that, as a member state of La Francophonie, Canada represents all Canadians within the institutions and bodies of the organization. It pointed out that the Prime Minister has in the past invited the premiers of other provinces with a substantial Francophone population and that had expressed an interest in designating representatives to join the Canadian delegation attending Summits of Heads of State and Government of La Francophonie. Ontario, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island have done so.

The Commissioner urges the federal government to encourage all provincial governments to become involved in La Francophonie. A possible vehicle might be the Ministerial Conference on Francophone Affairs, which brings together representatives from Anglophone-majority provinces and territories that have established agreements with Canadian Heritage to provide services in French in areas other than education. A more uniform provincial involvement in La Francophonie provides an additional mechanism for linking Canada’s Francophone communities across the country with each other and with global efforts to promote the French language and culture.

The Francophonie Games, referred to above, were cited by the federal government as an excellent example of provincial involvement. The pan-Canadian dimension of the Canadian team for each Games is said to be an ongoing concern, although the Government of Canada is not directly involved in participant selection. The artistic contingent of each Games is being made more representative of Canada through national contests for selecting artists, the use of Anglophone and Francophone media, and regional representation in selection juries.

5. Regional multinational organizations

Canada participates in many other multinational organizations. For purposes of our study, we examined the projection of Canada’s linguistic duality in two regional bodies with widely divergent approaches to linguistic diversity: the Organization of American States and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.

a. Organization of American States

The Organization of American States (OAS) brings together 35 nations of the Americas in a forum with four official languages: Spanish, Portuguese, English and French. As one of only two French-speaking countries,¹³ Canada has actively promoted the place of French within the OAS.

Canada is often obliged to insist that documents be in all four official languages, given a tendency within the OAS to produce documents only in Spanish, or in Spanish and English. Officials explained that Canada is frequently expected to take care of the French translation of documents. This is an apparent source of frustration within DFAIT given that it does not always have the funds to do so. According to Canadian Heritage, it has actively promoted and supported the translation of OAS documents into English and French. The Commissioner calls upon the two departments to work together to address ongoing translation issues concerning the OAS.

Our study revealed that the federal government has pursued its cultural diversity agenda on several levels within the OAS. Canada led the implementation of a recommendation for seminars on cultural diversity that was part of an action plan adopted at the Quebec City 2001 Summit of the Americas. The federal government subsequently hosted two meetings of cultural experts to share strategies on preserving and promoting cultural diversity in the region. Canada’s active role on cultural issues within the OAS is reflected in its election in 2003 as First Vice-Chair of the organization’s Inter-American Committee on Culture.

These initiatives speak well of Canada’s promotion of linguistic and cultural diversity within the OAS. This office encourages the government to pursue every such opportunity. For example, Canada should help implement resolutions on linguistic diversity adopted at an OAS seminar organized by Quebec’s Conseil de la langue française in 2002. It could also implement the remaining recommendations contained in the action plan adopted at the Quebec City summit.

The government should also revisit one of the actions taken following that summit, the creation of the Institute for Connectivity in the Americas (ICA). One of the goals in creating the ICA, which is located in Ottawa, was to build on and export Canada’s success in bilingual electronic connectivity. It was therefore surprising to learn that, although the ICA’s Web site is multilingual, its mandate does not specifically refer to linguistic and cultural diversity.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

9. a) as part of the federal government’s cultural diversity agenda, Canadian Heritage, in cooperation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and other responsible departments and provincial governments, pursue the implementation of all outstanding resolutions and recommendations on cultural diversity within the Organization of American States since the 2001 Quebec City Summit; and

9. b) take the necessary steps by December 31, 2004, in collaboration with other member states of the OAS, to fully integrate linguistic diversity in the mandate of the Institute for Connectivity of the Americas.

The Government of Canada indicated that it would implement both parts of the recommendation, noting that it has been a champion of linguistic and cultural diversity in the OAS and Summit of the Americas process. Among other measures taken by Canadian Heritage in this regard was funding for a feasibility study on an Inter-American Cultural Policy Observatory. The observatory would make it easier to share information on cultural policies and cultural diversity and to promote the dissemination of cultural information on the Americas throughout the world. Another measure was the organization, in conjunction with the OAS, of a Knowledge Sharing Workshop on Cultural Diversity, Youth Employment and Youth Exchanges in October 2003. One of the workshop’s themes was the importance of Canada’s linguistic diversity.

b. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), a regional trade liberalization forum of 21 member economies, contrasts sharply with the OAS with respect to language. English is the sole official and working language within the organization.

Government officials explained that Canada has never opposed APEC’s language policy. They described the decision as pragmatic, suggesting that promoting the use of French or multiple languages within the organization would be a “lost cause.” There is said to be little support for such an initiative among other APEC members, who tend to regard English as the language of business.

Instead of encouraging APEC to recognize the use of other languages, Canada has defended the principle of linguistic and cultural diversity in the policy positions it has taken within the organization. It opposed, for example, a proposal to invest APEC funds in making English-language training more available in certain member countries. Canada argued that APEC should not be used as an instrument to promote English at the expense of other languages. Canada also refused to support a draft APEC position recognizing English as the lingua franca of Internet activity and calling for strengthening the use of English as a working tool.

APEC’s English-only policy nonetheless raises questions about its impact on awareness levels within Canada’s Francophone community. DFAIT addresses the issue by providing some information about APEC in both languages on its Internet site and in brochures. We were told that DFAIT also offers briefings in English and French to Canadian non-governmental organizations and provincial officials. The effectiveness of these measures is unclear and at least one official suggested that more could be done.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

10. by December 31, 2004, the Department of Foreign Affairs review the impact on Canada’s Francophone community of the English-only language policy of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and the effectiveness of existing communication efforts.

The Government of Canada responded: “The report tries to link Canada’s policies within the OAS and APEC, and indirectly criticizes the Government of Canada for not succeeding in having French adopted as an official language of APEC, as it did within the OAS and the Summit of the Americas process. We feel that criticism is unjustified. The OAS comprises countries where a majority of the population speak only four languages: Spanish, Portuguese, English and French. It was therefore relatively easy for member countries to reach agreement on a multilingual organization that would use four languages. Within APEC, there are not four languages, but rather 14 […]. As French is the 14th most widely spoken language in the APEC region, it would be extremely difficult to have it adopted as an official language without giving equal status to the 13 other languages. Moreover, it would be impossible for an organization the size of APEC to function in 14 languages (its secretariat comprises only 40 people and its annual budget is under $5 million).

“That being said, the Government of Canada is doing everything it can to ensure that APEC’s initiatives and services are accessible to Canadians in both official languages. To that end, we have set up a Web site providing a host of information on APEC in English and French, and we answer all enquiries on APEC in the official language of the originator. We also organize information sessions on APEC for businesspeople and non-governmental organizations. The information sessions are bilingual, or in French in Francophone regions.

“Moreover, Canada is recognized as one of the strongest defenders of the concept of cultural diversity within APEC, [where] we take pains to ensure that it does not adopt common positions advocating the use of one language rather than another by citizens of member economies. There [are] also a large number of Francophones in Canadian delegations attending APEC meetings, and it is very clear to all the other delegations that Canada is a bilingual country. Delegation meetings are bilingual, and Canadian delegates very frequently communicate with one another in French. As well, the current chair of the largest APEC committee is French-Canadian.”

The Commissioner acknowledges measures taken to make APEC’s initiatives and services accessible to Canadians in French as well as English. The recommendation refers, however, to the need to assess the impact of these measures and ensure their effectiveness in order that Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs of both language groups fully share the advantages of the Asia-Pacific region’s economic development.

6. Trade missions

Canada’s trade missions represent federal–provincial–private sector partnerships that increase commercial opportunities abroad. Within the federal government, DFAIT has organized over 20 Team Canada and Canada Trade missions since 1994, often in coordination with other departments and agencies.¹⁴ A member of the study team accompanied DFAIT’s Canada Trade mission to Chile in December 2003.

In order to measure linguistic duality’s integration in trade missions, we looked at the provision of service in both official languages, the process for determining the composition of each mission and the choice of industrial sectors.

Our participation in the Canada Trade mission to Chile revealed that DFAIT understands its obligation to provide service and information in English and French to Canadian participants. DFAIT officials and embassy staff were bilingual, if not trilingual, and their presentations and documentation were in both official languages. Federal participation by other organizations, however, included at least one English-only presentation, during which simultaneous interpretation was not provided. Given that a major role of federal officials in trade missions is to advise Canadian business participants, the federal government should ensure that all key officials can do so in both English and French.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

11. for each trade mission, the Department of Foreign Affairs remind participating departments and agencies of their responsibility to ensure that the linguistic rights of private sector participants are respected at all times.

The Department of Foreign Affairs stated that it recognized the importance of the recommendation but that, in its view, it had satisfied the requirement in the case of the Chile mission. The Department explained that it “had taken all necessary precautions by advising participating federal partners, verbally and in writing, of their obligation to present information in both official languages out of respect for mission participants.” The Department subsequently emphasized that it will continue to take all necessary steps in the future.

In light of the situation that prompted the recommendation, despite the positive measures taken, the Commissioner calls upon the Department to explore ways to make its reminders more effective.

In discussing the private sector composition of trade missions, officials pointed out that DFAIT’s Team Canada and Canada Trade Mission Web sites invite businesses interested in a trade mission to register. We were assured, however, that the process is not entirely reactive. The Team Canada Division at DFAIT uses its own databases, other government departments and provincial contacts to identify businesses with a potential interest in a particular market and encourages their participation in writing.

Trade missions with a cultural dimension are handled differently under Canadian Heritage’s Trade Routes program, which is designed to help arts and cultural industries take advantage of international business opportunities. Businesses are invited to participate in cultural trade missions through an industry advisory board. Participation on the board is open to all Canadian arts and cultural organizations, and membership includes representation from both linguistic groups. It was pointed out that linguistic duality is built into the Trade Routes program in that one of its goals is “stronger international positioning for Canada’s English and French language cultural products and services.”

The make-up of other types of trade missions depends largely on the targeted business or industrial sectors. A mission focussed on Canada’s auto industry will be dominated by Ontario companies, given the industry’s concentration in that province. Similarly, one can expect Quebec companies to be well represented in a trade mission oriented to the aerospace industry. Linguistic duality is deemed to have little place in this exercise. We nonetheless note that a priority of Team Canada and Canada Trade missions is targeting the participation of specific populations: Canadian youth, Aboriginals and women entrepreneurs. Without questioning the needs of these groups, their identification suggests there is room for exploring the linguistic dimension of Canada’s business sector, beyond arts and cultural industries.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

12. the Department of International Trade review, by December 31, 2004, its priorities to ensure they fully incorporate and reflect linguistic duality, and that it modify programs accordingly, including those related to trade missions.

The Government of Canada responded: “From the Trade Commissioner Service (TCS) perspective, priorities and results are driven by the priorities of International Trade Canada. These tend not to be on a sector-specific basis but are more general, for example, ‘expanded base of Canadian businesses active in world markets.’ Each of our trade posts abroad use these priorities to develop their plans on a post-by-post basis. Priority sectors for each of these posts are determined by the business environment they are facing locally and the interest of Canadian companies in that particular market. In the report, a specific example is cited related to the Chilean government’s goal of promoting second-language training. Our post in Santiago recognized this opportunity and identified this as a priority sector for Canadian companies. This priority would not be shared by all of our posts abroad.

“Our posts abroad are constantly reviewing the business environment in which they are operating and these are reflected in the individual annual business plans developed by each post. Trade missions and other elements in individual post strategies flow from the results that a post hopes to achieve in particular sectors. If language-related opportunities exist based on their analysis of the business environment, these will be reflected in their business plans.”

True integration of linguistic duality in Canada’s identity means that it is embedded in all activities. The Commissioner recognizes that linguistic duality will take different forms in different activities and she acknowledges the federal government’s commitment to reflect language-related opportunities in the business plans of trade missions. However, the response does not address the fact that population groups targeted by TCS’s priorities do not include Canada’s minority-language populations.

Linguistic duality in trade missions and trade matters generally should be discernible in all sectors targeted for government attention. The federal government’s Action Plan for Official Languages, released in 2003, represents a significant step forward. Although the plan is otherwise silent on international relations, it does include specific measures to assist the development and export potential of Canada’s language industries, including enhanced use of trade missions.

Canada’s experience in second-language teaching appeared to be a valuable element in the recent trade mission to Chile. An ambitious plan by the Chilean government to promote English in its school system calls for heavy investment in second-language learning. We understand that this has led to considerable interest among government and education officials in Canadian initiatives and programs in this area. Accordingly, among the trade mission’s targeted sectors were education, on-line learning and related information technology.

Table of Contents

III. LINGUISTIC DUALITY IN MISSION ACTIVITIES

This section draws attention to the role of Canada’s diplomatic missions in implementing some of the government’s international policy objectives and programs referred to in the previous chapters. The relationship between missions and headquarters takes on special importance in this context. When asked to explain the relationship, one official pointed out that missions are accorded a degree of autonomy, while headquarters plays a validation role.

Our network of 164 embassies and consulates in 114 countries is perhaps Canada’s most familiar and visible international presence. They are staffed by a mix of Canadian-based officials, usually in management and supervisory positions, and locally engaged employees, who promote Canada’s cultural and economic interests.

Our observations are based primarily on visits to 11 embassies and consulates. Although this is a small percentage of the total, our visits covered several continents and a range of mission sizes. Given the importance of Canada’s relationship with the United States, three of the missions visited are located in that country. Our examination of linguistic duality’s integration at the mission level focusses on three activity sectors: culture and society, academic relations, and trade and investment.

1. Culture and society

Embassy and consulate staffs promote Canadian arts and culture in several ways. All missions respond to requests for financial or other assistance, such as for publicity, by Canadian artists performing abroad or planning to do so. This reactive approach leaves little room for ensuring linguistic duality in annual calendars of events, but officials repeatedly assured us that it occurs as a matter of course because Quebec artists tend to be well established internationally.

At the time of our study, the cultural calendars at several of the missions we visited included representation from both linguistic communities and from across Canada. Officials at several missions said that Public Diplomacy Program funding enabled them to offer a wider range of programming in recent years. However, other missions are far less active in representing Canadian culture and its linguistic duality. This was particularly the case in Chicago, where the cultural officer position was vacant at the time of our study.

The New York consulate general stood out among the missions we visited with respect to its cultural programming. We learned that the mission would not be taking part in regional activities celebrating the 2004 international Francophonie celebrations. Certain officials alluded to an “anti-French” sentiment in the United States to explain the decision. However, other officials informed us that interest in the region in Canada’s Francophone character is very high and pointed to a number of French-oriented initiatives. The explanation is also at odds with the Washington embassy’s extensive program of activities for the March 2004 celebrations.

Our findings match those of the 2003 study commissioned by DFAIT on Canada’s bilingual image in the United States. That study noted major differences among several Canadian missions in that country in promoting Canada’s French fact. Among other things, it noted Canada’s absence in Francophone events in Louisiana, which falls under our consulate general in Dallas. This contrasted sharply with an extensive month-long program of Francophone-related activities by our Atlanta mission. The study also revealed that Canada’s Miami consulate general works closely with the Quebec delegation in organizing a major annual Francophone festival, whereas the Los Angeles mission, like that in New York, has chosen not to participate in annual Francophonie celebrations. These findings take on increased importance in light of the federal government’s commitment to enhance Canada’s representation in the United States through the opening of new consulates and the upgrading of others.

Among other missions we visited in other countries, we noted that Madrid had organized a three-day exposition on Canada’s Francophone community in 2003. Officials at another embassy advised us that its contribution to Francophonie celebrations is steadily declining for want of resources.

Many of Canada’s diplomatic missions take part in La Francophonie celebrations every year, but our review of only a few embassies and consulates reveals a lack of direction, varying commitments and resource issues. Meanwhile, Canada’s absence at celebrations in New York and California shows a curious lack of regard for the potential benefits of reaching out to the significant Francophone and Francophile population in the United States.¹⁵ Given the contribution of La Francophonie celebrations to raising the profile of Canada’s linguistic duality around the world and given potential economic benefits, DFAIT should play a larger coordinating and supporting role.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

13. a) the Department of Foreign Affairs take steps, by December 31, 2004, to expand Canadian participation in annual celebrations of La Francophonie around the world; and

13. b) review the enhanced representation initiative in the United States to ensure that linguistic duality is effectively integrated in the priorities and operations of new and upgraded missions in that country.

Responding to the first part of the recommendation, the Government of Canada stated: “In recent years, the Department of Foreign Affairs has launched a support program to enable our embassies to celebrate the Journée internationale de la Francophonie. More and more missions are using the program each year. Over 60 missions in 2003, and over 80 missions in 2004, organized activities to celebrate the Journée internationale de la Francophonie.

“This support takes the form of funding to enable our embassies to develop their own initiatives (performances, symposia, literary contests, film festivals and spelling bees) or to join in similar initiatives by a group of representatives of Francophonie countries; awarding books by Francophone Canadian authors to contest winners; providing French-language CDs to radio stations and videocassettes to television stations and/or cinemas; and providing flags and other promotional material.”

Regarding the second part of the recommendation, the Government of Canada replied that all Canada-based positions in the new offices in the United States respect official-language requirements and that services will be offered in both official languages.

The Commissioner recognizes the important involvement of the Department of Foreign Affairs in the Journée internationale de la Francophonie. She nonetheless calls upon the Department of Foreign Affairs to review its embassy support program in light of weaknesses identified both in our study and in its own study of the situation in the United States. While noting the commitment for bilingual services at new offices in the United States, the Commissioner asserts that effective integration of linguistic duality requires a comprehensive approach that includes priorities and all aspects of operations.

Another side of a mission’s cultural program encompasses activities promoting a better understanding of Canadian society and government. Such activities include exchanges and visits by politicians, journalists, experts and young people. Officials at several missions cited these activities as making an important contribution to raising awareness levels of Canada’s linguistic and cultural diversity. Visits by foreign journalists to Canada are considered to have a particularly significant impact, given the resulting media coverage. As suggested by one official, missions should organize such visits with a theme related to our linguistic duality.

Discussions with officials at all levels in the missions we visited point to leadership within each mission as a determining factor in the degree to which linguistic duality is actively promoted in cultural programs. Missions tend to draw from departmental programs to the extent that such activities are deemed important by the head of mission and section manager.

An example of positive leadership in this area can be found at Canada’s embassy in Paris, which has launched a multi-year series of major projects promoting Canada’s close relationship with France since 1604. Our examination of the plans and projects revealed a heightened sensitivity to projecting the national character of our linguistic communities. We also found that Canadian Anglophone cultural productions are well represented at the embassy’s cultural centre.

Cultural officers at several locations nonetheless advised us that their mandate can change dramatically with each change of head of mission or supervisor. Given that Canadian-based staff are posted abroad on a rotating basis every three or four years, it is important that senior staff and supervisors in our diplomatic missions be highly sensitized to the importance of linguistic duality in promoting Canada’s identity and interests worldwide. This need can be addressed by Recommendation 5, which the Government of Canada has agreed to implement.

Several of the missions covered in our study were located in countries where Quebec has established its own cultural promotion office. Federal officials explained that Quebec’s support for its own artistic community abroad complements the federal government’s own promotional efforts. Overall, federal–provincial relations at this level were reported to be positive and constructive, with few exceptions.

2. Academic relations

In our discussion of the federal government’s Canadian Studies Program in Chapter Two, we referred to the close relationship many missions have with educational institutions in the region under their jurisdiction. These relationships have evolved because Canada’s diplomatic missions are responsible for delivering many forms of direct support available under the Canadian Studies Program. Support includes travel assistance, provision of educational material, recommendations of academics for teaching and conferences and arrangements for financial contributions to national Canadian studies associations and study centres.

Our study revealed numerous initiatives at many of the missions we visited that reflect Canada’s linguistic duality. Canada’s embassy in Berlin recently announced a youth literature project that includes alternating the choice of books each year between English-Canadian and French-Canadian titles. The embassy in Mexico City previously funded the publication and distribution in Spanish of an anthology of short stories by Quebec authors, and the Washington embassy, under DFAIT’s Education Marketing Program, has taken steps to promote Canada as an alternative destination to France for American university students studying French. We also note that the Washington embassy provides funding to the American Association of Quebec Studies as well as to the American Association of Canadian Studies.

Canada’s linguistic duality can sometimes be seen as well in the mix of English-language and French-language study centres and courses in many countries, including Germany, Spain and the Czech Republic. A publication of the French association of Canadian studies includes articles in English as well as French, accompanied by bilingual abstracts. Although these situations arise from decisions taken independently by the institutions in question, our diplomatic missions can, as suggested previously, play an effective, influential role in favour of Canada’s linguistic duality.

The picture was not the same at all locations, however. At the time of our study, there was no academic relations officer at our Chicago consulate general, although this was expected to change soon. At the New York mission, we were told that there is little interest in local academic circles in Canada’s Francophone community, a situation that, if true, should represent an opportunity rather than an excuse for inaction.

In its response to a recommendation in the preliminary report, the Government of Canada explained that Canadian studies activities at the mission level are regularly monitored. The study’s findings indicate that monitoring is not always as effective as it should be.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

14. the Department of Foreign Affairs review, by December 31, 2004, existing monitoring mechanisms for Canadian studies activities at the mission level with
a view to enhancing their effectiveness and encouraging, where needed, a proactive approach consistent with Canada’s linguistic duality.

3. Trade and investment

Much of the routine business of our embassies and consulates is devoted to promoting Canada’s economic development. Essentially, this is achieved by helping Canadian companies market their products and services in other countries and by attracting foreign investment to Canada. Services are provided through a network of more than 500 Trade Commissioner Service (TCS) officers in Ottawa and 140 locations abroad, in partnership with various federal departments and agencies, provincial governments and industrial associations. Most TCS officers working out of our missions are hired locally.

Canada’s linguistic duality receives widely divergent interpretations in the commercial side of mission operations. At one end of the scale are officials who question its relevance on the grounds that “English is the language of business.” Several officials stated that Francophone businesspeople need to speak English to market their products abroad and that their Francophone clients prefer to deal with them in English.¹⁶ It was therefore perhaps not surprising to find that, despite an overall high bilingual capacity among TCS staff, this was not the case in two locations, where some officers are unable to deal with their Francophone clients in their own language.

At the other end of the scale are TCS staff who consider bilingualism essential to understanding not only the needs of Canadian clients but also the social and cultural context of each client’s business. They pointed out that this is all the more important because TCS officers are often sent to Canada to meet businesspeople and government officials at all levels. Several officials assured us that their Canadian clients include those who prefer to deal
with them in French.

The real and perceived relevance of Canada’s linguistic duality in the commercial sector is perhaps most subtle on the investment side, where commercial officers and managers attract foreign investors to Canada. Officials explained that this work requires understanding the culture of the host country and, ideally, speaking the local language. They also stressed that the federal government cannot favour or be seen to favour communities or regions in Canada when encouraging foreign companies to invest here.

Various factors come into play in how foreign investment is distributed in Canada. Foreign investment tends to follow the regional make-up of a given industrial sector, but the responsiveness of provincial and municipal partners is a major factor as well. Some provinces, including Quebec, Ontario and Alberta, seek foreign investors through provincial trade missions and their own trade officers, housed either within Canada’s diplomatic missions or separately.

Although provinces compete with each other for foreign investment, they tend to regard the federal role as complementary to their own efforts. Federal officials explained that each party offers different sets of services to potential foreign investors. As such, provincial efforts to attract foreign investment enhance the effectiveness of federal efforts. Officials at our embassy in Berlin recalled an initial meeting with a German company to which they invited representatives of two provinces.

The economic well-being of a linguistic community can be linked in part to the effectiveness of all levels of government in foreign investment promotion. In its response to the preliminary report, the Government of Canada said that the challenge lies in coordinating federal, provincial and municipal activities in both trade and investment promotion. It provided many examples of ways in which the Department of International Trade in particular meets this challenge. The examples range from regular contact and meetings and information sharing to joint funding of events and direct support.

Our study nonetheless suggests that some provinces and municipalities are more active in this area than others. Through its coordinating activities, the federal government is well placed to encourage and support the responsiveness of other levels of government to ensure that all regions and both linguistic communities share the benefits.

Canada’s linguistic duality and international commerce are perhaps most closely linked in our cultural industries. DFAIT, Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada have established a series of programs to promote Canada’s arts and cultural industries in foreign markets. One of the most recent initiatives was a major international cultural trade forum organized by Canadian Heritage in Paris, which was specifically targeted at Francophone markets in Europe and Africa and open to Canadian cultural entrepreneurs from across the country. Among other goals, the event nurtured contacts and partnerships between our entrepreneurs and their Francophone counterparts in other countries.

Our study found that links between the cultural and commercial sectors at the mission level depend largely on individual attitudes and resources. In Chile, the embassy’s trade side is taking advantage of that country’s interest in second-language learning to promote Canada’s language industries. However, trade officials in another embassy advised us that cultural industries are not a priority, while noting that the Quebec office in the same country was very active in this sector. Elsewhere, we were told that it is Canadian Heritage’s responsibility to take care of cultural industries. Other officials were more sensitive to the mutual benefits to be gained from stronger links between cultural and commercial promotion, suggesting enhanced training opportunities related to Canada’s cultural industries for officers in both sectors. Canadian Heritage is helping to build bridges at the mission level by planning to increase the number of cultural trade experts posted abroad, but a broader strategy is needed.

We also learned of foreign trade shows and expositions where limited resources were said to have prevented missions from ensuring a strong federal presence to match provincial participation. These situations should be closely monitored by headquarters, which should ensure levels of federal participation consistent with Canada’s linguistic duality. The recent separation of DFAIT into two departments must not diminish the government’s ability to effect positive change in this area.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

15. the Department of Foreign Affairs, in cooperation with the Department of International Trade and Canadian Heritage, develop an action plan by December 31, 2004, designed to ensure closer integration of the cultural and commercial activities of our diplomatic missions.

The Government of Canada stated that it “supports the goal of ensuring closer integration of the cultural and commercial activities of our diplomatic missions.”

It added, “Canada’s arts and cultural products and services help to express our diversity, values and identity, but also are an important element of Canada’s new economy and an essential part of our export story.

“Because of extreme variations in the staff and funding available to each mission, [the Department of Foreign Affairs’] network for promoting cultural and commercial activities is necessarily hybrid. The same holds true for promoting education services. Some missions are fortunate enough to have employees assigned to those duties in separate divisions. Others have to incorporate those activities into the same division, be it a general relations division, a cultural or academic affairs division, a public affairs division, or a communications or trade division.

“Activities are already seamlessly integrated on several levels, and affected employees in missions and the Arts and Cultural Industries Promotion Division and the International Academic Relations Division work in close consultation. The exceptions highlighted in the report are not representative, and the means to remedy problems that arise are already at hand. With respect to relations between [the Department of Foreign Affairs] and [the Department of International Trade] in terms of promoting arts and cultural industries, the possibility of a memorandum of understanding was already being examined before the report was received. The MOU would be designed to strengthen and continue that integration process.”

Table of Contents

IV. LINGUISTIC DUALITY ON THE FRONT LINE: LANGUAGE OF SERVICE ISSUES

Linguistic duality begins with bilingual service. We visited 11 embassies and consulates to explore the issues raised elsewhere in this report. These visits provided an opportunity to assess each mission’s respect for its obligation to provide services in both official languages.¹⁷ Given that our findings are not based on a comprehensive audit, we restrict our observations to three areas of particular concern: consular services, mission publications and security services.

1. Consular services

Canadians living or travelling abroad often turn to our embassies and consulates when emergency situations arise. Consular officials in each mission are responsible for dealing with a multitude of problems, ranging from lost passports and injuries to deaths and imprisonment. Their clients may be in serious distress and confused by the unfamiliarity of processes and procedures. Service availability in both official languages takes on enhanced importance in these types of situations.

At most locations visited, we found heightened sensitivity among front-line consular officials to the linguistic needs and rights of their clients. Excellent bilingual capacity among consular staff was the norm. However, at one embassy the sole bilingual consular affairs officer had been temporarily replaced for several months by a person who did not speak French.

The other situation of note was at the Chicago consulate general, where the consular affairs section had had no bilingual capacity for many years.¹⁸ We were advised that service in French was available “on request,” although no active offer signs were visible. Not surprisingly, the mission reported little demand for French-language service. The fact that the situation in Chicago has been allowed to exist for years is disquieting and underscores the need for better monitoring mechanisms.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

16. a) the Department of Foreign Affairs take immediate steps to ensure bilingual capability and active offer within the consular affairs sections of all diplomatic missions; and

16. b) establish, by December 31, 2004, an effective mechanism for regularly monitoring bilingual service availability and capacity within these sections.

Noting our generally positive assessment of the linguistic situation of consular services, the Government of Canada replied that the two parts of the recommendation “appear to be based on a couple of isolated situations, rather than the norm within Consular Sections abroad.”

The Government of Canada added: “Management of missions abroad, including adherence to departmental and government-wide policies, is the responsibility of Heads of Mission. They are held responsible for their implementation through the Performance Management Agreement (PMA) process and audit and evaluations carried out by the Office of the Inspector General.

“Recommendations, and deadlines attached to them, will be monitored by audits of the Inspector General to ensure they are implemented. It should be noted that the Human Resource Audit Guide for Missions has recently been updated to ensure a more thorough review of the administration of Official Languages at Missions. The audit guide includes steps to ensure that the Consular Program has the capacity to meet its obligation to provide services in both official languages, that active offers are made, appropriate signage and availability of forms/hand-outs in public areas and language training is provided to [locally engaged] staff as required.”

2. Publications

DFAIT’s official languages policy establishes different language requirements for publications based on the targeted population. Departmental publications intended for the general public must be issued in both official languages. However, a publication for a “limited unilingual public,” using only one of Canada’s official languages, may appear in that language only. In the latter case, the policy cites the example of publications prepared by an embassy or consulate and designed for the local public.¹⁹

All headquarters material identified during our study was in both official languages, except for several brochures intended for an American audience. The availability of mission publications, such as speeches, press releases and cultural calendars, in English and French varied from mission to mission.

The Internet sites of Canada’s Washington embassy and the New York consulate general are notable for the degree to which information is offered in English only.²⁰ At a given point in our study, 18 of 35 speeches on the Washington embassy site were available in English only. The New York site also offered considerable material in English only, including a speech that was delivered in Canada.

Officials at our embassy in Paris explained that they aim to place all information in both languages on the embassy’s Internet site. The embassy makes considerable use of available tools and services, such as the federal government’s Translation Bureau, although we were advised that information is sometimes posted in one language pending translation. Translation delays would account for the fact that a list of events and speeches on the Internet site at the time of our study was more up to date in French than was the list on the English site.

Most missions where the host country’s language is neither English nor French include material in the local language on their Internet sites. Canada’s embassy in Mexico City ensures that major speeches are available in English and French as well as in Spanish on its Internet site, but the calendar of events is in Spanish only. Several other missions also issue their cultural calendars only in the host country’s language, often citing translation costs as a factor. The Budapest embassy issues press releases in English and French as well as in Hungarian, while distributing weekly newsletters to government officials in Hungarian only.

These varied approaches suggest that the language of the targeted audience is not always clearly established. Moreover, material issued by headquarters and Canadian offices abroad in the local language only fails to convey Canada’s linguistic duality. The situation calls for a rethinking of DFAIT’s policy, which should provide reasonable standards and criteria consistent with projecting our official languages, such as the inclusion of bilingual summaries. Headquarters should provide missions with the resources needed to fulfil linguistic responsibilities. One official suggested that DFAIT provide missions with guidance on the issue through its Internet site.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

17. the Department of Foreign Affairs revise, by December 31, 2004, provisions contained in its Official Languages Policy governing the language of publications with a view to ensuring that Canada’s bilingual image is fully reflected at all times, and ensure that Canada’s diplomatic missions are provided with adequate tools and financial resources to meet the requirements.

In response, the Government of Canada stated: “While requiring that all communications for the Canadian public be available in both official languages, the Official Languages Policy document of the two departments includes provision for a limited number of documents to be available to non-Canadians in their preferred language.

“To this end, the Web sites of Canadian diplomatic missions abroad aimed at members of the local public can be available exclusively in the language(s) of the local public. Each site available for the local public must be identified as such in both English and French as well as the local language.”

The Commissioner notes that the federal government’s response reiterates existing policy and does not address the issues, concerns and suggestions raised in our study. She calls upon it to reconsider its position and take corrective action as recommended.

3. Security services

Members of the study team were subject, as visitors, to some form of security screening at each mission. The screening ranged from being asked to show identification to undergoing a search similar to what one experiences at an airport.

At most missions, security services were not available in both English and French at the time of our visits. Often, security guards could speak only the host country’s language or only one of our two official languages. An incident at the Washington embassy merits special mention: in response to a visitor’s greeting in French, the security guard told the visitor to “talk in English.”

Security services for Canada’s missions abroad are usually provided under contract by a local security company. Officials explained that linguistic clauses requiring companies to provide the service in both of our official languages are not realistic in many countries: the low salaries do not attract bilingual or multilingual candidates. In an effort to resolve the situation, one embassy had established - and practiced - a procedure whereby visitors are brought to a bilingual receptionist when required. At another location, embassy officials placed an active offer sign at the security desk when the matter was raised during our visit.

Unilingual security screening at Canada’s diplomatic missions is contrary to the government’s linguistic obligations and sends the wrong message about Canada’s linguistic duality. Mission security guards are at the front end of service delivery. They are the first point of contact for Canadian and foreign visitors to our diplomatic missions. Moreover, the nature of that contact can be intimidating, unexpected and imbued with a sense of restraint. Being told to “talk in English” at the front door has a direct impact on Canada’s linguistic image and can significantly affect a client’s linguistic expectations beyond that point. Despite these considerations, the language of security services at our diplomatic missions has been ignored at many locations. The situation calls for a department-wide solution.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

18. the Department of Foreign Affairs take steps, by December 31, 2004, to ensure that security services at all Canadian diplomatic missions are actively offered and immediately available in both official languages.

The Government of Canada responded: “Security services at missions are normally provided by a third party. As such, requirements for the security clearance of individuals providing those services will often take precedence over the official languages competence. The Department will undertake a review of processes and systems to ensure that security services are actively offered and immediately available in both official languages.”

The Commissioner is pleased to note the Department intends to conduct the necessary review. However, she finds it difficult to reconcile the federal government’s intention to implement the recommendation with its position that security clearance requirements “often take precedence” over respect of linguistic rights. This position may account for the lack of security services in both official languages at most of the missions we visited and for the particularly unacceptable incident at the Washington embassy. In reminding the Government of Canada of its legal responsibility to provide service in both languages at all diplomatic missions, the Commissioner suggests that effective communication in a client’s own language enhances security, rather than conflicts with it.

Table of Contents

V. INTERNAL SUPPORT FOR LINGUISTIC DUALITY

Our study of policies, programs, activities and services in Canada’s international relations leads us to consider measures for supporting linguistic duality’s integration, particularly within our embassies and consulates. Bilingual service requires a system of language requirements, testing and training. Staff can be sensitized to Canada’s linguistic duality through professional development, while a network of official languages champions offers a focal point for concerns and needs in the workplace. The audit and evaluation functions provide opportunities to ensure that everything is in place. We consider each of these support mechanisms below.

1. Language requirements, testing and training

In preceding sections, we referred to the importance of bilingual capacity among cultural, commercial and consular officials in the diplomatic missions we visited. As is the case in other departments, minimum capacity levels in each sector and mission are the product of language requirements established during staffing actions.

Canada’s diplomatic missions differ from the rest of the federal public service because it distinguishes between Canada-based rotational staff and locally engaged employees. For several years DFAIT has required new foreign service officers to be bilingual at the level “C” before assigning them to their first posting. We understand that employees in the Administrative Services category must now meet the same requirement.

These initiatives speak well of DFAIT’s commitment to bilingual services abroad. Their impact is nonetheless limited, given that DFAIT’s Canada-based staff represents a minority of employees in most missions. Other employees include those from other government departments and agencies, such as Citizenship and Immigration, Agriculture and the Canadian International Development Agency, which may have different language requirements. A much larger group consists of employees hired from the local population. Canada has long hired members of the public in host countries to work in our embassies and consulates. However, the use of locally engaged staff has expanded since the mid-1990s to the point where they now outnumber Canada-based employees.

Missions establish language requirements for locally engaged employees. These requirements are not subject to the same standards set for public service employees. DFAIT’s official languages policy states that missions are encouraged to provide the necessary language training or to recruit local personnel who can speak both official languages. The policy accords priority for second-language training to locally engaged employees whose duties include direct contact with the Canadian public. However, the policy does not require testing the second-language skills of these employees.

Our study of the situation in 11 embassies and consulates found that the policy does not provide sufficient direction in this area and fails to ensure bilingual capacity where needed. A number of locally engaged employees dealing with Canadian clients informed us that, when they were hired, knowledge of one of our languages was an “asset,” rather than a requirement. In all cases, second-language skills were informally assessed during interviews. Some managers were concerned that linguistic capability is not professionally assessed, but they lacked guidance to address the problem. Other managers were concerned about the process becoming too bureaucratic.

We found a tremendous interest among locally engaged employees in second-language training to develop or maintain their skills. However, headquarters provides no funding for language training for these employees.²¹ This was not always the case. In 1996, following a previous study by this office, DFAIT noted that it had increased official languages training to locally engaged staff in contact with the public and stated that it would continue to provide such training.

It is currently up to each mission to offer such courses and to fund them out of its operational budget. The result is that most missions we visited do not offer language training to their local employees. Some used to do so, but had stopped due to the cost. Three of the missions nonetheless maintain on-site language-training programs for their locally engaged employees. The courses are considered by some officials to be important for staff development. It was also suggested to us that making language training available to these employees contributes to their sense of the importance attached to Canada’s linguistic duality.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

19. the Department of Foreign Affairs adopt, by December 31, 2004, a comprehensive program of support for ensuring adequate bilingual capacity among locally engaged employees at all diplomatic missions. This program should include appropriate guidelines, resources and direct assistance.

The Government of Canada responded that the Department of Foreign Affairs would review the current support program for locally engaged employees to identify appropriate improvements to guidelines, resources and direct assistance. It also pointed out that not all mission staff need to be bilingual.

In discussing the issue of language training with Canada-based staff, several expressed concern about their ability to maintain second-language skills. We were advised that acquired language skills become rusty during extended absences from Canada, especially during postings to countries requiring the learning and use of a third language.

The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages believes strongly in personal responsibility for retaining language skills acquired at government expense and that this responsibility applies to government employees posted abroad. The particular circumstances of these employees nonetheless merit consideration by their home departments.²² One official suggested that, following language training, rotational staff be posted to countries where their second language is commonly spoken.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

20. the Department of Foreign Affairs develop, by December 31, 2004, a strategy for assisting rotational staff in maintaining second-language skills.

In its response, the Government of Canada referred to measures already being taken by the Department of Foreign Affairs to help all staff maintain second-language skills. These include maintenance training at headquarters, distance programs for reading, writing and comprehensive skills and the reimbursement program referred to above. It is also committed to offering distance programs that target speaking skills “once technical issues are resolved.”

The Commissioner believes considerable potential lies in the proposed distance program for maintaining second-language speaking skills and notes that such a program will help to address concerns raised at several missions we visited.

Canada’s bilingual identity must extend to the very top of our representation abroad to include heads of missions. Canada’s ambassadors, high commissioners and consuls general are appointed by order-in-council, with support from the Privy Council Office.²³ To be effective representatives of our country, heads of mission should embody our national values in their dealings with foreign audiences and individuals. Among those values, linguistic duality can be conveyed in a meaningful manner by heads of mission only with appropriate levels of knowledge of our two official languages.

At the time of our study, six of 114 mission heads appointed by Governor-in-Council did not meet the language requirements (“CBC”) for senior executive positions in the federal administration. No information was available for another five appointees who had not previously been part of the federal public service. Our study also revealed that only half of the 28 senior officers appointed by DFAIT to head consulates and trade offices were confirmed to be bilingual. Eight were not bilingual, and information was not available for the remaining six. Linguistic duality’s integration in Canada’s foreign affairs will not be complete as long as such gaps in bilingual capacity persist at the top levels of our diplomatic and trade offices.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

21. the Privy Council Office and the departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade each take steps, within their respective areas of responsibility, to ensure that future appointments to Canada’s most senior representative positions abroad meet the “CBC” requirement, or a comparable level, for second-language skills.

In its response to the preliminary report, the Government of Canada said that, for the past three years, employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs considered for the positions of ambassador, high commissioner or consul general have been expected to meet the “CBC” requirement before taking up their assignments. More recently, this requirement has also been applied to public servants from other departments. Employees already posted abroad who do not meet the requirement must return to Ottawa for language training.

The Commissioner notes that the response is incomplete. It does not address appointments from outside the public service or appointments to heads of consulates and trade offices.

2. Professional development

Most of DFAIT’s professional development program falls under the Canadian Foreign Service Institute (CFSI). CFSI’s curriculum is derived in part from DFAIT’s priorities, which in recent years have included increasing attention to the role of locally engaged employees in Canada’s missions. Four years ago, the Institute introduced an orientation program for these employees. The program aims to bring all locally engaged employees to Canada within a year of their appointment for two weeks of training that covers, among other things, Canadian culture. The Institute has now trained approximately half of all such employees. In addition, local employees have seen increased access to specialized training courses in their fields. This is particularly the case with trade officers who regularly come to Canada for courses.

DFAIT’s initiatives in this area offer excellent opportunities for sensitizing front-line staff about the Canadian context. An internal evaluation of CFSI’s professional development program for locally engaged staff found that it had a positive impact on their “cultural awareness,” among other things, and had enhanced their knowledge of Canada in general. However, our discussions with locally engaged employees suggest that the program’s contribution to awareness levels of Canada’s linguistic duality is not being fully realized. Few locally engaged employees could recall discussions of the linguistic dimension of our culture, society and economy in their courses, beyond the requirement to provide service in both languages.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

22. the Department of Foreign Affairs take steps, by December 31, 2004, to better incorporate understanding of Canada’s linguistic duality in professional training programs for locally engaged staff.

In the Government of Canada’s response, the Department of Foreign Affairs committed itself to trying harder “to mainstream linguistic duality in our course offerings by asking presenters to address this theme and its consequences to the work of our staff.” The Department added that one of the distance language learning courses for locally engaged employees “addresses the issue of linguistic duality through its review of La Francophonie as found in Canada and other countries.” It also stated that professional courses are designed to give locally engaged employees a “deeper understanding of the socio-economic Canadian context” to help them in their work. According to the Department, employees frequently get the chance in these courses to discuss how Canada’s linguistic duality expresses itself in work-related challenges.

DFAIT also offers opportunities for Canada-based staff to better appreciate our linguistic as well as cultural diversity. A five-year development program for new employees includes a cross-Canada tour. Each tour must cover a given number of provinces and territories, including regions with which the participant is not familiar. We understand the tours involve meetings with provincial officials as well as representatives of various economic sectors and cultural industries. We also note that different courses in the program are taught in either official language, thereby reinforcing second-language skills.

3. Official languages champions

In January 2003, DFAIT announced that each head of mission had been asked to appoint an official languages champion. According to DFAIT, each mission’s champion would be a visible representation of its official languages program.

Our mission visits included discussions with several official languages champions. Some were well informed and active in this capacity. However, several others were unsure of their role and thus had taken few initiatives. These champions tended to be unfamiliar with obvious linguistic lapses and issues of concern to mission staff, although most demonstrated an immediate willingness to deal with such matters. Several champions did not know whether their mission had established official languages objectives.

The existence of an official languages champion can contribute to linguistic duality’s integration in each of our diplomatic missions. This will occur only if incumbents of these positions have a clear mandate that includes actively promoting all aspects of the official languages program and if other employees are informed of the position and its purpose. To help ensure these conditions are met, each mission should begin by establishing official languages objectives.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

23. the Department of Foreign Affairs review its network of official languages champions in diplomatic missions and establish, by December 31, 2004, means of enhancing their effectiveness in promoting linguistic duality, including the adoption of official languages objectives at each mission.

The Government of Canada responded: “Since the 1980s, each Head of Mission has been requested to name a champion to be responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Official Languages Program at the mission. The Head of Mission retains ultimate responsibility for program delivery at the mission. All employees at missions, as well as at headquarters, have access to the Official Languages Site of the Human Resources Branch on the Intranet. This site contains all salient information on the Official Languages Program and summarizes the directives applicable with respect to serving the public and questions concerning language of work.

“As a general rule, whenever the Official Languages Section of the two departments is apprised of the name of a newly appointed champion, an electronic information kit is sent to the individual. This kit summarizes the major responsibilities of the champion and provides links to all relevant official languages sites. To this end, the champion can acquire the necessary competencies to perform his or her tasks.”

The Commissioner reminds the Department of Foreign Affairs that our study revealed existing measures to be inadequate to ensure the effectiveness of its official languages champions’ network.

4. Audit and evaluation

DFAIT’s internal audit and evaluation services are well placed to support linguistic duality’s integration in mission activities as well as headquarters programs. DFAIT audits, half of which are devoted to missions, focus on practices and procedures, whereas evaluations primarily consider the effectiveness and relevance of policies and programs.

We understand that official languages are reflected in DFAIT’s audit process and guide. Officials added that linguistic lapses are noted during an audit and corrective action is usually taken. However, taking a recent audit report on the Canadian embassy in Beijing as an example, we note it contained little information related to mission efforts to project Canada’s bilingual image, other than a reference to two consular service employees being trilingual. Audits, such as the forthcoming audit of the Public Diplomacy Program, are nonetheless excellent opportunities to address linguistic duality.

Officials expressed interest in incorporating linguistic duality in the branch’s evaluation process. A review of recent evaluations shows that some covered subjects and issues important for Canada’s bilingual image. One such evaluation was that of a major marketing campaign in 2001 by our embassy in Tokyo. The campaign, titled Think Canada, increased awareness of Canada in Japan while promoting a particular brand image of our country. Such endeavours lend themselves to projecting Canada’s linguistic duality. DFAIT’s evaluation report does not say whether Think Canada did so.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

24. the Department of Foreign Affairs revise, by December 31, 2004, its audit and
evaluation processes to include policy and program effectiveness in integrating linguistic duality at all levels of operations, including missions.

The Government of Canada noted: “For brevity purposes, mission audits are usually reported on an exception basis. This method of reporting is necessary due to the large number of policies and programs administered at missions abroad. Consequently, where linguistic requirements are fully satisfied the results are reported orally to management and the details are not included in the audit report. In the future, audit reports will be expanded to include pertinent comments regarding linguistic duality. Audits of policies and programs will include a review of the integration of linguistic duality as appropriate, that is, where programs and/or missions have been effectively mandated.

“Evaluation processes do integrate linguistic duality when such a component is present in the policy or program evaluated. In the future, evaluation reports will reflect any findings related to official languages.”

Table of Contents

CONCLUSION: INTERNATIONAL POLICY REVISITED

Our observations of the federal government’s programs, activities and services in international relations led us to conclude that linguistic duality is being increasingly recognized as a valuable component of Canada’s identity on the world stage. We found considerable evidence of the importance of linguistic duality to Canada’s international image and an appreciation that linguistic duality opens doors in the global competition for attention and markets.

This particular image of Canada can be largely attributed, we believe, to our country’s activist cultural diversity agenda and its prominent role in La Francophonie, not unlike the role Canada plays in the Commonwealth. Our country enjoys a certain international profile in these areas, which serves to remind the world that we are a nation that places high value on protecting and promoting differences and that we have been successful in doing so. In certain areas at least, Canada’s linguistic duality is more than image; it forms an integral part of our identity abroad.

Linguistic duality can also be found in a number of important government programs, such as the Public Diplomacy and Canadian Studies programs. However, their uneven application at the mission level, including instances of outright resistance, speaks volumes about the low priority attached to promoting and taking advantage of Canada’s bilingual identity in international relations.

Linguistic duality’s fragile status in foreign affairs flows directly from the lack of clear policy direction and commitment. Whereas Canada’s current international policy recognizes Canadian values and culture as a central pillar, or objective, linguistic duality’s intimate relationship to these values and our cultural diversity and its relevance to other objectives are left to be read between the lines. Therefore, global projection of the two-language dimension of our national character may wax and wane with each change in operational priorities and resources.

The lack of policy direction accounts for the weak links and missed opportunities identified in this study. Notably, there are gaps between positive departmental programs and their application at the mission level. Canada’s French fact has been largely untapped as a way to advance our interests in the United States. And we need better bridges between Canada’s linguistic communities to reinforce strategies such as La Francophonie.

Overarching these issues is the federal government’s responsibility to represent all of Canada and its linguistic communities in its relations with the rest of the world. The interests of Canada’s linguistic duality call for greater harmonization of national and provincial activities abroad as well as the involvement of more provinces in international programs beneficial to both English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. Constructive and coherent federal–provincial relations are essential to the full integration of linguistic duality in Canada’s foreign relations.

Many of the preceding recommendations reflect the fact that much is already being done to develop and build upon linguistic duality’s positive contribution to Canada’s identity and interests in the world. The recommendations are intended to strengthen these efforts. Other recommendations point to new opportunities. It is, however, the federal government’s international policy review under way at the time of the study that offers the greatest potential for fundamental change.

The public consultation exercise, Dialogue, appears to have led the federal government away from the three-pillar approach to international policy. Discussions with officials suggest that questions of integration are being given serious attention. This is encouraging, given the current policy’s shortcomings.

The government stated in its October 2004 Speech from the Throne that “it is no longer possible to separate domestic and international policies” and that these policies “must work in concert.” The forthcoming International Policy Statement provides the federal government with the opportunity to ensure that linguistic duality, a key domestic policy rooted in constitutional rights and social reality, truly works “in concert” with Canada’s international relations by clearly establishing linguistic duality among future government priorities in Canada’s international relations.

The Commissioner therefore recommends that:

25. the Department of Foreign Affairs, as the lead department in the international policy review under way at the time of the study, ensure that, in the development of a new international policy, projection of Canada’s linguistic duality is recognized as a government priority and effectively integrated in all other priorities.

The Government responded: “The [International Policy Review, or IPR] is now being developed, in accordance with the Prime Minister’s instructions, as an integrated and comprehensive international policy framework, underpinned by a whole-of-government, whole-of-Canada approach. The international policy goals it will outline will reflect the best of Canadian aspirations for ourselves as a nation and for the world. Respect for diversity, democracy, human rights and the promotion of equitable growth, sustainable development and social progress are among the themes that we anticipate will drive the IPR. Our international advantages or assets include our history and linguistic duality, which position us to play strongly in organizations like La Francophonie and the Commonwealth and to collaborate with members of those organizations on issues of mutual interest. A key strategic goal in the IPR is forging new partnerships with Canadians in international policy development and implementation. A greater emphasis on Canadian culture and on supporting Canadians living, working, performing, studying, investing and visiting abroad is intended to create larger windows to project Canada, including our linguistic duality, on the international stage.”

The Commissioner reiterates the need to clearly establish in the new policy’s priorities the contribution of linguistic duality to Canada’s international identity and interests.

Establishing clear policy priorities favouring Canada’s linguistic duality should go a long way to addressing many of the weaknesses identified in this report. It should in particular contribute to a greater alignment of Canada’s representation abroad by setting appropriate standards for mission activities. DFAIT must exercise its validation role to ensure that those standards are met, while continuing to encourage initiative and creativity. Our limited survey points to a particular need for validation and guidance at Canada’s missions in the United States, all the more so in light of the federal government’s increased attention to our relations with that country and the opening of seven additional missions within its borders in the next few months.

It is in Canada’s best interests that our new international policy firmly installs linguistic duality in our relations with other countries. Linguistic duality opens doors to Canada precisely because it ensures direct access to two international cultures, because it establishes Canada’s reputation in the world as a model of social harmony through effective management of differences, and because, in the dynamic and complex world of international relations, where nations compete for attention in promoting their interests, our linguistic duality makes Canada stand out.

Table of Contents

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The observations resulting from this study of linguistic duality in Canada’s international relations have led the Commissioner to recommend that:

1. The Department of Foreign Affairs ensure that its forthcoming audit of the Public Diplomacy Program include a comprehensive assessment of the program’s contribution to linguistic duality in Canada’s international relations.

2. While fully respecting the principle of academic freedom, the Department of Foreign Affairs include Canada’s linguistic duality as a topic of interest in the application forms for the Canadian Studies Faculty Research Program, and that it do so in time for the program’s 2004 applications.

3. The Department of Foreign Affairs take steps, by December 31, 2005, to ensure that all international Canadian studies programs apply to all parts of Canada and both Anglophone and Francophone populations.

4.The Department of Foreign Affairs, in partnership with Canadian Heritage, take the necessary steps by March 31, 2005, enabling the Government of Canada to seek membership in the Latin Union.

5. The Department of Foreign Affairs, in collaboration with Canadian Heritage, develop, by December 31, 2004, internal communication strategies to enhance understanding of linguistic duality’s pertinence to our cultural diversity and to related government initiatives.

6. The Department of Foreign Affairs revise, by December 31, 2004, eligibility criteria for its Francophonie Promotion Fund to include projects aimed at improving links with, and awareness within, Canada’s Anglophone population.

7. a) Canadian Heritage develop and implement, by December 31, 2004, a campaign aimed at promoting TV5 within Canada’s Anglophone community; and

7. b) Actively encourage the involvement and participation of more provinces and territories, notably Ontario, in the Canadian contribution to TV5 programming and financing.

8. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Canadian Heritage use the results of the current review of Canadian participation in Francophonie institutions to ensure that Canada’s Francophone community is fully reflected and represented.

9. a) As part of the federal government’s cultural diversity agenda, Canadian Heritage, in cooperation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and other responsible departments and provincial governments, pursue the implementation of all outstanding resolutions and recommendations on cultural diversity within the Organization of American States since the 2001 Quebec City Summit; and

9. b) Take the necessary steps by December 31, 2004, in collaboration with other member states of the OAS, to fully integrate linguistic diversity in the mandate of the Institute for Connectivity of the Americas.

10. By December 31, 2004, the Department of Foreign Affairs review the impact on Canada’s Francophone community of the English-only language policy of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and the effectiveness of existing communication efforts.

11. For each trade mission, the Department of Foreign Affairs remind participating departments and agencies of their responsibility to ensure that the linguistic rights of private sector participants are respected at all times.

12. The Department of International Trade review, by December 31, 2004, its priorities to ensure they fully incorporate and reflect linguistic duality, and that it modify programs accordingly, including those related to trade missions.

13. a) The Department of Foreign Affairs take steps, by December 31, 2004, to expand Canadian participation in annual celebrations of La Francophonie around the world; and

13. b) Review the enhanced representation initiative in the United States to ensure that linguistic duality is effectively integrated in the priorities and operations of new and upgraded missions in that country.

14. The Department of Foreign Affairs review, by December 31, 2004, existing monitoring mechanisms for Canadian studies activities at the mission level with a view to enhancing their effectiveness and encouraging, where needed, a proactive approach consistent with Canada’s linguistic duality.

15. The Department of Foreign Affairs, in cooperation with the Department of International Trade and Canadian Heritage, develop an action plan by December 31, 2004, designed to ensure closer integration of the cultural and commercial activities of our diplomatic missions.

16. a) The Department of Foreign Affairs take immediate steps to ensure bilingual capability and active offer within the consular affairs sections of all diplomatic missions; and

16. b) Establish, by December 31, 2004, an effective mechanism for regularly monitoring bilingual service availability and capacity within these sections.

17. The Department of Foreign Affairs revise, by December 31, 2004, provisions contained in its Official Languages Policy governing the language of publications with a view to ensuring that Canada’s bilingual image is fully reflected at all times, and ensure that Canada’s diplomatic missions are provided with adequate tools and financial resources to meet the requirements.

18. The Department of Foreign Affairs take steps, by December 31, 2004, to ensure that security services at all Canadian diplomatic missions are actively offered and immediately available in both official languages.

19. The Department of Foreign Affairs adopt, by December 31, 2004, a comprehensive program of support for ensuring adequate bilingual capacity among locally engaged employees at all diplomatic missions. This program should include appropriate guidelines, resources and direct assistance.

20. The Department of Foreign Affairs develop, by December 31, 2004, a strategy for assisting rotational staff in maintaining second-language skills.

21. The Privy Council Office and the departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade each take steps, within their respective areas of responsibility, to ensure that future appointments to Canada’s most senior representative positions abroad meet the “CBC” requirement, or a comparable level, for second-language skills.

22. The Department of Foreign Affairs take steps, by December 31, 2004, to better incorporate understanding of Canada’s linguistic duality in professional training programs for locally engaged staff.

23. The Department of Foreign Affairs review its network of official languages champions in diplomatic missions and establish, by December 31, 2004, means of enhancing their effectiveness in promoting linguistic duality, including the adoption of official languages objectives at each mission.

24. The Department of Foreign Affairs revise, by December 31, 2004, its audit and evaluation processes to include policy and program effectiveness in integrating linguistic duality at all levels of operations, including missions.

25. The Department of Foreign Affairs, as the lead department in the international policy review under way at the time of the study, ensure that, in the development of a new international policy, projection of Canada’s linguistic duality is recognized as a government priority and effectively integrated in all other priorities.

Table of Contents

APPENDIX

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE PRELIMINARY REPORT

The Commissioner of Official Languages has recommended that:

Recommendation 1

The Department of Foreign Affairs ensure that its forthcoming audit of the Public Diplomacy program include a comprehensive assessment of the program’s contribution to linguistic duality in Canada’s international relations.

The Government will ensure that the evaluation of Public Diplomacy will address all issues related to Public Diplomacy including its contribution to linguistic duality in Canada’s international relations.

Recommendation 2

While fully respecting the principle of academic freedom, the Department of Foreign Affairs include Canada’s linguistic duality as a topic of interest in the application forms for the Canadian Studies Faculty Research Program, and that it do so in time for the program’s 2004 applications.

As the Report points out, the Canadian Studies program has existed “for longer than present foreign policy,” and has been extremely successful, supporting 26 national and multinational Canadian studies associations, as well as some 250 Canadian studies centres around the world, and financing hundreds of research projects.

The theme of “linguistic duality” is integrated in many research projects on a wide variety of subjects and we are firmly convinced that this subject is already a growing source of interest to many scholars. We will continue to advocate this as an area of interest. Furthermore, the International Council for Canadian Studies (ICCS) has already been instructed to add it to the list of topics of interest of the Faculty Research Program.

Recommendation 3

The Department of Foreign Affairs take steps, by December 31, 2004, to ensure that all international Canadian studies programs apply to all parts of Canada and both Anglophone and Francophone populations.

As the Report indicates, the Bank of Missions which facilitates exchanges between Canada and other countries covers France, but does not include exchanges between France and Quebec, as the Province of Quebec has already established a parallel exchange program with France. In fact, this non-inclusion of Quebec has been specifically required by France at each “Commission culturelle mixte” meeting, and does not refer particularly to Canadian studies. In the past, the Canadian side has acceded to this French requirement. This position will be reviewed at the next meeting. However, no such meeting is planned before 2005; it would be difficult, therefore, to implement this recommendation by 31 December 2004.

Recommendation 4

The Department of Foreign Affairs, in partnership with Canadian Heritage, take the necessary steps by March 31, 2005, enabling the Government of Canada to seek membership in the Latin Union.

Canada maintains close bilateral relations with Latin Union member countries. Through its network of embassies in Europe, Africa and the Latin American/Caribbean region, Canada is able to maintain a close dialogue with these countries on promoting culture and cultural diversity.

Canada also has the privilege of sitting with Latin Union member countries on international or regional organizations such as UNESCO, the Organization of American States (OAS), and the International Organization of the Francophonie (OIF). The International Network on Cultural Policy (INCP) is also a discussion forum conducive to exchanges with Latin Union member countries. With respect to the Francophonie in particular, the organization has developed ties in recent years with other linguistic spaces, including the Organization of Ibero-American States, the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries (CPLP), and the Latin Union as well.

The OIF and the Latin Union have thus conducted a series of common initiatives in the area of cultural and linguistic diversity. For example, they have established a virtual forum on cultural pluralism to foster discussion on various issues raised by globalization. Canada vigorously supports these projects, which are right in line with the Canadian approach to cultural diversity.

Numerous Canadian experts, linguists, terminologists and other academics, as well as government organizations such as the federal Translation Bureau and Quebec’s Office of the French Language, participate in the Union’s activities.

In short, while Canada is not a member of the Latin Union, it supports its activities and maintains close relations both with the Union and its member countries. Accordingly, Canada is not, for the time being, considering joining the Latin Union. However, Canada will work to develop its ties with the Latin Union, notably through its membership in the International Organization of the Francophonie.

Recommendation 5

The Department of Foreign Affairs, in collaboration with Canadian Heritage, develop by September 30, 2004, internal communication strategies to enhance understanding of linguistic duality’s pertinence to our cultural diversity and to related government initiatives.

The Department of Foreign Affairs will develop, by September 30, 2004, an internal communication strategy in keeping with Recommendation 5 of the Report. The strategy will be designed to raise awareness among Canadian employees in missions abroad and locally recruited employees of the importance of linguistic duality as a foundation of our foreign and trade policies. This will enable us to promote Canadian identity (a product of cultural and linguistic diversity) more effectively with host countries, while working to promote our political and trade interests on the international scene.

Canadian Heritage has contributed to sessions of the Foreign Service Institute and Foreign Affairs Canada (FAC) briefings of outgoing Heads of Mission and cultural attachés with the purpose of educating officials about the international cultural diversity agenda, including specific policy and program objectives of Canadian Heritage related to supporting cultural and linguistic diversity. Consistent messaging both at home and abroad among government officials contributes to a reinforced message about the objectives and successes of the Canadian cultural policy model.

Recommendation 6

The Department of Foreign Affairs revise, by September 30, 2004, eligibility criteria for its Francophonie Promotion Fund to include projects aimed at improving links with, and awareness within, Canada’s Anglophone population.

The primary purpose of the Francophonie Promotion Fund is to enable Canadians and organizations to take part in activities of the international Francophonie, and to enable non-governmental organizations (NGOs) within the international Francophonie to raise awareness of their activities with communities. The Fund is barely sufficient to respond to the numerous applications from NGOs to participate in events of the international Francophonie.

All Canadians, Anglophones and Francophones alike, can apply for funding through this program. The key criterion is that projects submitted respect the objectives of the Fund, which are to promote the international Francophonie.

In addition, the provincial governments of provinces with substantial Francophone communities (Manitoba and Ontario) are usually associated with major events of international Francophonie. Provincial government representatives are encouraged to participate, within the Canadian delegation, at international meetings such as the Francophone Summit. Provincial governments are generally reluctant to commit human and financial resources in order to enhance their participation in activities of the international Francophonie.

The Department is committed to using the opportunity of the next Francophone Summit, in Fall 2004, to develop a strategy in conjunction with Canadian Heritage to encourage greater participation by provincial governments. The Department will continue to directly support projects designed to enhance the participation of Francophone communities in the international Francophonie.

Recommendation 7A

Canadian Heritage develop and implement, by December 31, 2004, a campaign aimed at promoting TV5 within Canada’s Anglophone community;

Canadian Heritage (PCH) supports the Commissioner’s recommendation. Indeed, it has already undertaken initiatives to raise awareness of TV5 within Canada’s Anglophone communities. Those initiatives are mainly implemented by the operator TV5 Québec Canada, which is best positioned to promote the channel to the Canadian public.

For example, in May 2003, Canadian Heritage collaborated with TV5 Québec Canada, TV5 Monde and Radio-Canada to broadcast “24 hours in Vancouver.” In connection with the broadcast, TV5 Québec Canada, with financial support from PCH, ran an advertising campaign among Anglophone and Francophone Canadians. The event was covered by a number of English-language dailies, including the Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Vancouver Sun, the Time Colonist, the Montreal Gazette, the Whitehorse Star and the Red Deer Advocate.

In addition, PCH, through its contribution agreement with TV5 Québec Canada, funds marketing initiatives by the channel to promote TV5 to Canadians.

PCH will continue to work closely with TV5 Québec Canada in response to the recommendation to raise awareness of TV5 within Canada’s Anglophone communities through an advertising campaign.

Recommendation 7B

Canadian Heritage actively encourage the involvement and participation of more provinces and territories, notably Ontario, in the Canadian contribution to TV5 programming and financing.

Canadian programming on TV5:

PCH ensures that Canadian programming, on both TV5 Québec Canada (which manages the signal in Canada) and TV5 Monde (which manages the seven other signals worldwide), is representative of the Canadian Francophonie in its entirety. It should be noted, however, that each operator chooses its own programming.

Canadian programming broadcast by TV5 Québec Canada comes mainly from independent producers from Quebec and the rest of Canada. PCH has previously funded initiatives to enhance the representation of producers outside Quebec. Finally, TV Ontario is a part of the administrative council of TV5 Quebec Canada.

For Canadian content broadcast on the signals managed by TV5 Monde, Radio-Canada is responsible for offering Canadian programming, though in collaboration with TV5 Québec Canada and Télé-Québec as part of a program committee. Radio-Canada is responsible for proposing a range of programming representative of the Canadian Francophonie in its entirety.

It is noteworthy, however, that TV5 Monde is ultimately responsible for selecting programming, on the basis of the Canadian offer. The final decision on Canadian programming by TV5 Monde therefore does not rest with the Canadian partners.

Financing of TV5:

TV5 Monde is financed by five donor governments, while TV5 Québec Canada is financed only by the governments of Canada and Quebec.

The decision to accept a new donor government for TV5 Monde rests with the Conference of Ministers responsible for TV5. In regard to TV5 Québec Canada, it rests with the governments of Canada and Quebec.

If another provincial or territorial government wanted to participate in financing TV5, the request would need to be made to the respective government authorities responsible for the decision.

Recommendation 8

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Canadian Heritage use the results of the current review of Canadian participation in Francophonie institutions to ensure that Canada’s Francophone community is fully reflected and represented.

Although the Quebec and New Brunswick governments participate as members in the International Organization of the Francophonie, the federal government authorities who sit on various bodies of the international multilateral Francophonie represent all Canadians, regardless of their language of use or mother tongue. The marquee event of the Francophonie is the Francophone Summit, which is held every two years and is attended by the Prime Minister of Canada, representing the Canadian population. Canadians are thus already represented within the International Organization of the Francophonie and the Intergovernmental Agency of the Francophonie.

The operators of the Francophonie include the Agence universitaire de la Francophonie, whose membership comprises almost all Francophone universities outside Quebec; the Assemblée des parlementaires de la Francophonie (APF), which will meet in Prince Edward Island next July and whose membership includes parliamentarians from all provinces, and the Association des maires (AIMF), which is accessible to Canadian municipalities.

With regard to Canadian participation in TV5 and the Jeux de la Francophonie, please refer to response 7b and 9.

Recommendation 9

Noting that Quebec and New Brunswick are already active within La Francophonie, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Canadian Heritage develop a strategy, by December 31, 2004, to increase the involvement of all other provincial and territorial governments in La Francophonie institutions, projects and events.

As a member state of the International Organization of the Francophonie, Canada represents all Canadians within institutions and bodies of the Francophonie. Quebec and New Brunswick obtained the status of “participating government” within the Francophonie in 1971 and 1977, respectively. The other provinces are included in numerous events of the Francophonie. Following an invitation by the Prime Minister to the premiers of the provinces with a substantial Francophone population and which expressed an interest, provinces such as Ontario, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island designated representatives to join the Canadian delegation attending Summits of Heads of State and Government of the Francophonie.

The Francophone Games are another excellent example. In accordance with the terms and conditions for its participation in the international Francophonie, Canada registers a single delegation to the Francophone Games, made up of three different teams: Canada, Canada-Quebec and Canada-New Brunswick.

The Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for organizing and coordinating all activities connected with the participation of the athletes and artists who represent Team Canada at the Francophone Games. The pan-Canadian dimension is a constant concern throughout the process leading to the selection of Team Canada.

The Government of Canada is in no way directly involved in the selection of athletes and artists participating in the Francophone Games. That duty falls to national sports organizations, in conjunction with the sports federations of Quebec and New Brunswick, for athletes, and to a non-governmental organization for artists.

Team Canada selects its members from throughout the country. Team Canada can include members from all provinces and territories. Artists and athletes are selected on the basis of the excellence principle, and to ensure equal treatment of participants. The language of the participant is not a selection criterion in that connection.

Recruitment, selection and training of artists on Team Canada are assigned to a contractor following a tender call on the government’s official electronic tendering service. The contractor is required to have in-depth knowledge of communities and the different artistic and cultural contexts of Canada as a whole.

The promotion of cultural competitions to select artists covers the entire country. Public notices cover both English- and French-language media. Artists are chosen through a national selection process using peer juries made up of artists and cultural stakeholders that are equitably representative of Western, Eastern and Central Canada.

Recommendation 10

a) As part of the federal government’s cultural diversity agenda, Canadian Heritage, in cooperation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and other responsible departments and provincial governments, pursue the implementation of all outstanding resolutions and recommendations on cultural diversity within the Organization of American States since the 2001 Quebec City Summit;

b) Canadian Heritage, working with other member-states of the OAS, take the necessary steps by December 31, 2004, to fully integrate linguistic diversity in the mandate of the Institute for Connectivity of the Americas.

PCH has been a champion of cultural and linguistic diversity in the OAS and Summit of the Americas process, and will continue to pursue cultural diversity objectives articulated in the Summit Action Plan. Specifically:

Canadian Heritage was instrumental in ensuring that the first Meeting of Ministers and Highest Authorities Responsible for Culture, held in Cartagena, Colombia, July 12-13, 2002, was a success. The Cartagena Declaration and Action Plan reaffirmed the need to promote greater awareness and understanding of the importance of cultural and linguistic diversity in the Americas.
Canada, as Vice-Chair of the Inter-American Committee on Culture, is also supporting intergovernmental negotiations in the lead-up to the Second Meeting of Ministers and Highest Authorities Responsible for Culture that will take place in Mexico City, August 23-24, 2004.
Canadian Heritage, particularly the Canadian Cultural Observatory, has funded a feasibility study on an Inter-American Cultural Policy Observatory that would facilitate the exchange of information on cultural policies and cultural diversity in the member states and promote the dissemination of cultural information on the Americas throughout the hemisphere and world.
Canadian Heritage organized a Knowledge Sharing Workshop - in conjunction with the OAS - on Cultural Diversity, Youth Employment and Youth Exchanges in October 2003. The importance of Canada’s linguistic diversity was one of the themes communicated to participants from the ten participating OAS member states.

The participation of provincial delegations, most notably the Government of Quebec, at the ministerial and officials level has contributed to a better understanding of Canada’s linguistic diversity.

Canadian Heritage has actively promoted and supported the translation of OAS documents into English and French.

As a champion of linguistic and cultural diversity in the OAS and Summit of the Americas process, the Government of Canada will work to more fully integrate linguistic diversity in the mandate of the Institute for Connectivity of the Americas.

Note: The OAS should not be included under the heading of “trade liberalization’’ since it is not a trade body such as the WTO.

Recommendation 11

By December 31, 2004, the Department of Foreign Affairs review the impact on Canada’s Francophone community of the English-only language policy of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and the effectiveness of existing communication efforts.

The report tries to link Canada’s policies within the OAS and APEC, and indirectly criticizes the Government of Canada for not succeeding in having French adopted as an official language of APEC, as it did within the OAS and the Summit of the Americas process. We feel that criticism is unjustified. The OAS comprises countries where a majority of the population speak only four languages: Spanish, Portuguese, English and French. It was therefore relatively easy for member countries to reach agreement on a multilingual organization that would use four languages. Within APEC, there are not four languages, but rather 14 (English, French, Chinese Mandarin, Taiwanese Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Japanese, Thai, Bahasha Indonesia, Bahasha Malaysia, Tagalog, Spanish, Motu (the most widespread of the 700 languages spoken in Papua New Guinea), and Vietnamese). As French is the 14th most widely spoken language in the APEC region, it would be extremely difficult to have it adopted as an official language without giving equal status to the 13 other languages. Moreover, it would be impossible for an organization the size of APEC to function in 14 languages (its secretariat comprises only 40 people and its annual budget is under $5 million).

That being said, the Government of Canada is doing everything it can to ensure that APEC’s initiatives and services are accessible to Canadians in both official languages. To that end, we have set up a Web site providing a host of information on APEC in English and French, and we answer all enquiries on APEC in the official language of the originator. We also organize information sessions on APEC for business people and non-governmental organizations. The information sessions are bilingual – or in French in Francophone regions.

Moreover, Canada is recognized as one of the strongest defenders of the concept of cultural diversity within APEC, which we take pains to ensure that it does not adopt common positions advocating the use of one language rather than another by citizens of member economies. There is also a large number of Francophones in Canadian delegations attending APEC meetings, and it is very clear to all the other delegations that Canada is a bilingual country. Delegation meetings are bilingual, and Canadian delegates very frequently communicate with one another in French. As well, the current chair of the largest APEC committee is French-Canadian.

Recommendation 12

For each trade mission, the Department of Foreign Affairs remind participating
departments and agencies of their responsibility to ensure that the linguistic rights of private sector participants are respected at all times.

The report refers specifically to the Trade mission to Santiago, Chile which took place in December 2003. The Department recognizes the importance of Recommendation 12 but feels it satisfied this requirement in the planning and delivery stages of the mission. The Department had taken all necessary precautions by advising participating federal partners, verbally and in writing, of their obligation to present information in both official languages out of respect for mission participants.

When a Trade Canada mission is identified, with a cultural component, Trade Routes invites all businesses to participate through Trade Team Canada-Cultural Goods and Services (TTC CGS), which is the cultural sector’s vehicle for working with the Department of Canadian Heritage and the rest of the Government of Canada on export preparedness and international business development issues. Participation in TTC CGS (an industry advisory board) is open to all Canadian arts and cultural organizations and membership includes representation from both linguistic groups.

Recommendation 13

The Department of International Trade review, by September 30, 2004, its priorities to ensure they fully incorporate and reflect linguistic duality, and that it modify programs accordingly, including those related to trade missions.

From the Trade Commissioner Service perspective, priorities and results are driven by the priorities of International Trade Canada. These tend not to be on a sector-specific basis but are more general, for example, “expanded base of Canadian businesses active in world markets.” Each of our trade posts abroad use these priorities to develop their plans on a post-by-post basis. Priority sectors for each of these posts are determined by the business environment they are facing locally and the interest of Canadian companies in that particular market. In the report, a specific example is cited related to the Chilean government’s goal of promoting second-language training. Our post in Santiago recognized this opportunity and identified this as a priority sector for Canadian companies. This priority would not be shared by all of our posts abroad.

Our posts abroad are constantly reviewing the business environment in which they are operating and these are reflected in the individual annual business plans developed by each post. Trade missions and other elements in individual post strategies flow from the results that a post hopes to achieve in particular sectors. If language-related opportunities exist based on their analysis of the business environment, these will be reflected in their business plans.

Recommendation 14A

The Department of Foreign Affairs take steps, by September 30, 2004, to expand Canadian participation in annual celebrations of La Francophonie around the world;

In recent years, the Department of Foreign Affairs has launched a support program to enable our embassies to celebrate the Journée internationale de la Francophonie. More and more missions are using the program each year. Over 60 missions in 2003, and over 80 missions in 2004, organized activities to celebrate the Journée internationale de la Francophonie.

This support takes the form of funding to enable our embassies to develop their own initiatives (performances, symposia, literary contests, film festivals and spelling bees) or to join in similar initiatives by a group of representatives of Francophonie countries; awarding books by Francophone Canadian authors to contest winners; providing French-language CDs to radio stations and videocassettes to television stations and/or cinemas; and providing flags and other promotional material.

Recommendation 14B

The Department of Foreign Affairs review the enhanced representative initiative in the United States to ensure that linguistic duality is effectively integrated in the priorities and operations of new and upgraded missions in that country.

All Canada based positions in the new offices in the U.S. respect the official-language requirements established by the Department. Services will be offered in both official languages.

Recommendation 15

The Department of Foreign Affairs develop and implement, by December 31, 2004, a strategy to identify and address weaknesses in the integration of linguistic duality in cultural programs of all diplomatic missions.

We unreservedly support the principle of linguistic duality. That being said, we feel this
recommendation is inappropriate, as it ignores the necessarily very diverse nature and very real constraints of our network abroad. The Report suggests that because of the changing nature of staffing many missions abroad, our missions are poorly positioned to integrate linguistic duality consistently and uniformly into cultural promotion. We feel this misses the nub of the problem. Our representation abroad is varied by its very nature, in terms of both our motivation to open a particular mission and the priorities of each one, and the funding and staff available to them. (In this regard, Paris is a very telling example: the mission obtained very substantial funding to implement the Canada-France 2004 Initiative. Such resources are exceptional, and it would be unrealistic to think that all missions can implement such exhaustive programming with their existing resources.) In a network like ours, absolute uniformity is difficult to achieve. We can only endeavour to stay in line with departmental priorities, which we do very successfully on a number of different fronts, including linguistic duality.

Recommendation 16

The Department of Foreign Affairs establish, by September 30, 2004, a monitoring mechanism for Canadian studies activities at the mission level and encourage where needed a proactive approach consistent with Canada’s linguistic duality.

The Report highlights the effective and influential role of Canadian missions abroad in ensuring the inclusion of linguistic duality in the many highly successful Canadian Studies activities undertaken. These activities are already monitored regularly, as indicated in the Consular Affairs Bureau’s Risk Management Accountability Framework and Results Based Accountability Framework, and we will continue the existing proactive approach to this subject. We do not feel that a further formal monitoring mechanism is necessary.

Note: One of Trade Routes’ goals is to ensure stronger international positioning for Canada’s English- and French-language cultural products and services. By the very nature of the program, linguistic duality is promoted. Trade Routes’ five officers have, at minimum, a linguistic profile of “CBC”. These officers all have responsibilities on the investment side, but it is important to note that Canadian Heritage must respect the Canadian Investment Act (which limits attracting investments through foreign ownership).

Recommendation 17

The Department of International Trade identify, by September 30, 2004, and put into place means of effectively enhancing the responsiveness of all other levels of government in Canada to foreign investment opportunities.

Although PCH is not implicated directly in the recommendation, it should be noted that this recommendation has a mix of trade, investment and provincial participation. As an example, the “major trade show in Paris” was not specifically focussed on investment (what we would call partnerships/strategic alliances), but rather market opportunities and therefore the recommendation must be clearly framed as “trade and investment” or reworded to focus on investment.

The Department encourages the participation of all other levels of government in the investment file. In fact, the recommendation is not clear: it is not a question of “enhancing the responsiveness of all other levels of government in Canada to foreign investment opportunities.” The responsiveness is there, the challenge is in coordinating our efforts to deal with it. We actually have a fair bit of activity under way already, for example:

Posts are in direct and constant contact with provinces/territories/municipalities concerning investment interests and helping them to pursue opportunities.
International Trade Canada (ITCan) meets individually, and annually, with each province/territory to discuss their, and our, investment priorities and plans and how best to coordinate efforts.
ITCan has monthly contact with provinces/territories to coordinate marketing plans.
ITCan has a division dedicated to partnerships, including those with provinces/territories/municipalities.
ITCan sits on the board of the Economic Developers Association of Canada which has investment as a principal focus.
ITCan is hosting (April 20-21) an Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) level federal/provincial/territorial meeting to discuss the full range of investment activities dealing with attraction and retention/expansion and how we can best coordinate our efforts and leverage our resources.
ITCan regularly works with provinces/territories for joint funding of major events, e.g., surrounding major trade/investment fairs.
Eight provinces and some 20 municipalities were involved in the KPMG global cost competitiveness study that was recently released; ITCan coordinated all of that activity.
ITCan now shares its action plans for priority markets with the provinces/territories.
ITCan meets with regional development agencies and major municipalities as part of our annual, continual consultation programs.
ITCan is now working with provinces/municipalities to define coordinated programs for aftercare, retention and expansion of investment, to define roles of responsibilities of all players, to share information more widely, exchange best practices, etc.
ITCan is launching an internet-based Knowledge Management system dedicated to providing the provinces/territories and municipalities with the ability to have two-way discussions on policy issues and development.
ITCan manages the Community Investment Support Program, the only federal program aimed at assisting communities in developing their investment profiles and attractiveness.
ITCan provides information to partners on targets that we consider most likely to respond positively to an approach on investment.
ITCan manages a program called Community Profiles which provides Web-based information on a large number of Canadian communities.
The overall ITCan strategy for investment attraction/retention has four main elements to it, one of which is partnering which in fact is critical to the way we work in all respects, and the provinces/territories/municipalities are key to this work.

Recommendation 18

The Department of Foreign Affairs, in cooperation with the Department of International Trade and Canadian Heritage, develop an action plan by December 31, 2004, designed to ensure closer integration of the cultural and commercial activities of our diplomatic missions.

The Government supports the goal of ensuring closer integration of the cultural and commercial activities of our diplomatic missions. Canada’s arts and cultural products and services help to express our diversity, values and identity, but also are an important element of Canada’s new economy and an essential part of our export story.

Because of extreme variations in the staff and funding available to each mission, FAC’s network for promoting cultural and commercial activities is necessarily hybrid. The same holds true for promoting education services. Some missions are fortunate enough to have employees assigned to those duties in separate divisions. Others have to incorporate those activities into the same division, be it a general relations division, a cultural or academic affairs division, a public affairs division, or a communications or trade division. Activities are already seamlessly integrated on several levels, and affected employees in missions and the Arts and Cultural Industries Promotion Division and the International Academic Relations Division work in close consultation. The exceptions highlighted in the report are not representative, and the means to remedy problems that arise are already at hand. With respect to relations between FAC and ITCan in terms of promoting arts and cultural industries, the possibility of a memorandum of understanding was already being examined before the report was received. The MOU would be designed to strengthen and continue that integration process.

We suggest that the first paragraph of p. 25, which currently reads: “One of the most recent initiatives was a major trade show organized by Canadian Heritage in Paris specifically oriented to Canada’s French-language cultural industries” be modified. This statement could be replaced with:

“One of the most recent initiatives was a major international Cultural Trade Forum organized by Canadian Heritage in Paris specifically targeted at francophone markets in Europe and Africa, and open to Canadian cultural entrepreneurs from across the country in an effort to expose them to and facilitate contact with francophone markets and increase partnerships with francophone counterparts.”

Please also note that the cultural trade forum was not a “trade show” and was not focussed only on French-language cultural industries.

Recommendation 19

a) The Department of Foreign Affairs take immediate steps to ensure bilingual capability and active offer within the consular affairs sections of all diplomatic missions; and

b) that it establish, by September 30, 2004, an effective mechanism for regularly monitoring bilingual service availability and capacity within these sections.

The Report clearly reflects the situation when it states, “At most locations visited, we found a high degree of sensitivity among front-line consular officials to the linguistic needs and rights of their clients. Excellent bilingual capacity among consular staff was the norm.” The recommendations referred to in this report appear to be based on a couple of isolated situations, rather than the norm within Consular Sections abroad.

We can respond to the recommendations by underlining what the report already states: “All of Canada’s diplomatic missions and consular posts are designated bilingual for purposes of service to the public under sub-section 10(a) of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations.” Management of missions abroad, including adherence to departmental and government-wide policies, is the responsibility of Heads of Mission. They are held responsible for their implementation through the Performance Management Agreement (PMA) process and audit and evaluations carried out by the Office of the Inspector General.

Recommendations, and deadlines attached to them, will be monitored by audits of the Inspector General to ensure they are implemented. It should be noted that the Human Resource Audit Guide for Missions has recently been updated to ensure a more thorough review of the administration of Official Languages at missions. The audit guide includes steps to ensure that the Consular Program has the capacity to meet its obligation to provide services in both official languages, that active offers are made, appropriate signage and availability of forms/hand-outs in public areas and language training is provided to locally-engaged (LES) staff as required.

The services provided by the Consular Affairs Bureau in Ottawa are always offered in both official languages.

Recommendation 20

The Department of Foreign Affairs revise, by December 31, 2004, provisions contained in its Official Languages Policy governing the language of publications with a view to ensuring that Canada’s bilingual image is fully reflected at all times, and ensure that Canada’s diplomatic missions are provided with adequate tools and financial resources to meet the requirements.

While requiring that all communications for the Canadian public be available in both official languages, the Official Languages Policy document of the two departments includes provision for a limited number of documents to be available to non-Canadians in their preferred language.

To this end, the Web sites of Canadian diplomatic missions abroad aimed at members of the local public can be available exclusively in the language(s) of the local public. Each site available for the local public must be identified as such in both English and French as well as the local language.

Recommendation 21

The Department of Foreign Affairs take steps, by September 30, 2004, to ensure that security services at all Canadian diplomatic missions are actively offered and immediately available in both official languages.

Security services at missions are normally provided by a third party. As such, requirements for the security clearance of individuals providing those services will often take precedence over the official languages competence. The Department will undertake a review of processes and systems to ensure that security services are actively offered and immediately available in both official languages.

Recommendation 22

The Department of Foreign Affairs adopt, by December 31, 2004, a comprehensive program of support for ensuring adequate bilingual capacity among locally engaged employees at all diplomatic missions. This program should include appropriate guidelines, resources and direct assistance.

The Report is a fair reflection of the situation. It is important to note that not all locally engaged staff need to be bilingual. Mission management judged that there was enough bilingual capacity in the unit or section to not make bilingualism a requirement of a particular position. Should the occasion arise, it is incumbent on the non-bilingual employee to seek the expertise of his/her colleagues when dealing with Canadian clients in the other language. It is practical to operate in such a way in countries where the knowledge of both our official languages is very uncommon. This makes it unrealistic to request that all employees in such positions be bilingual. With respect to the observation that: “In all cases, second-language skills were assessed on an informal basis during interviews.” LES are not subject to the same standards set by the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission for Public Service employees. Language requirements are considered as a technical competency or as an ability and assessed during the interview process or through a written test, as determined by the mission.

FAC will review the current support program for LES in order to identify appropriate improvements to guidelines, resources and direct assistance.

Recommendation 23

The Department of Foreign Affairs develop, by September 30, 2004, a strategy for assisting rotational staff in maintaining second-language skills.

DFAIT has provided all staff, not just rotational staff, with opportunities to maintain their second language skills. Programs include Maintenance Training at HQ that provides two hours of training per week between October and June. In addition distance programs are offered to all employees interested in maintaining their reading, writing and comprehension skills. These programs provide three eight-week sessions per year. Once technical issues are resolved there is every intention to offer distance programs that target speaking skills. Employees have access to Web-based official languages programs that can also be used to maintain proficiency. Finally, all employees have access to a program that reimburses them for private sector language training programs that they wish to pursue outside of the workplace.

Recommendation 24

The Clerk of the Privy Council and the departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade each take the necessary steps, within their respective areas of responsibility, to ensure that all future appointments to Canada’s most senior representative positions abroad meet the “CBC” requirement for second-language skills.

This is not a recommendation that can be addressed to the Clerk. Governor-in-Council appointments of senior representatives abroad are the prerogative of the government of the day.

With regard to appointment within the Public Service, the Department of Foreign Affairs has taken the necessary steps to meet this requirement with respect to Ambassadors, High Commissioners and Consuls General (Heads of Mission). For the past three years, candidates for Head of Mission positions who are employees of the Department have been expected to meet the CBC official language requirement before leaving Ottawa to take up their assignment. This has been extended to public servants from other government departments, effective this year. In addition, officers who have not met the CBC requirement are no longer considered for cross-posting from one Head of Mission assignment to another, but rather are required to return to headquarters for the necessary official-language training before taking up another assignment.

Recommendation 25

The Department of Foreign Affairs take steps, by December 31, 2004, to better incorporate understanding of Canada’s linguistic duality in professional training programs for locally engaged staff.

The Department currently offers English- and French-language distance learning programs which are very well patronized by our locally engaged (LE) employees. One of the courses addresses the issue of linguistic duality through its review of La Francophonie as found in Canada and other countries.

Several professional courses are offered in Canada each year to LE staff. These are designed to give staff, whose job is to explain and promote Canadian interests, deeper understanding of the socio-economic Canadian context and so to inform their work. In that setting, discussion of how Canada’s linguistic duality expresses itself in work-related challenges and opportunities frequently arises. We will increase our efforts to mainstream linguistic duality in our course offerings by asking presenters to address this theme and its consequences to the work of our staff.

Recommendation 26

The Department of Foreign Affairs review its network of official languages champions in diplomatic missions and establish, by September 30, 2004, means of enhancing their effectiveness in promoting linguistic duality, including the adoption of official languages objectives at each mission.

Since the 1980s each Head of Mission has been requested to name a champion to be responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Official Languages Program at the mission. The Head of Mission retains ultimate responsibility for program delivery at the mission. All employees at missions, as well as at headquarters have access to the Official Languages Site of the Human Resources Branch on the Intranet. This site contains all salient information on the Official Languages Program and summarizes the directives applicable with respect to serving the public and questions concerning language of work.

As a general rule, whenever the Official Languages Section of the two departments is apprised of the name of a newly appointed champion, an electronic information kit is sent to the individual. This kit summarizes the major responsibilities of the champion and provides links to all relevant official languages sites. To this end, the champion can acquire the necessary competencies to perform his or her tasks.

Recommendation 27

The Department of Foreign Affairs revise, by December 31, 2004, its audit and evaluation processes with a view to including policy and program effectiveness in integrating linguistic duality at all levels of operations, including missions.

It should be noted that, for brevity purposes, mission audits are usually reported on an exception basis. This method of reporting is necessary due to the large number of policies and programs administered at missions abroad. Consequently, where linguistic requirements are fully satisfied the results are reported orally to management and the details are not included in the audit report. In the future, audit reports will be expanded to include pertinent comments regarding linguistic duality. Audits of policies and programs will include a review of the integration of linguistic duality as appropriate, that is, where programs and/or missions have been effectively mandated.

Evaluation processes do integrate linguistic duality when a such component is present in the policy or program evaluated. In the future, evaluation reports will reflect any findings related to official languages.

Recommendation 28

The Department of Foreign Affairs, as the lead department in the foreign policy review exercise under way at the time of the study, ensure that, in the development of a new foreign policy, projection of Canada’s linguistic duality is recognized as a government priority and effectively integrated in all other priorities.

This recommendation should refer to the “International Policy Review (IPR)”, not the foreign policy review, and references to “foreign policy” should be “international policy”.

The IPR is now being developed, in accordance with the Prime Minister’s instructions, as an integrated and comprehensive international policy framework, underpinned by a whole-of- government, whole-of-Canada approach. The international policy goals it will outline will reflect the best of Canadian aspirations for ourselves as a nation and for the world. Respect for diversity, democracy and human rights and the promotion of equitable growth, sustainable development and social progress are among the themes that we anticipate will drive the IPR. Our international advantages or assets include our history and linguistic duality, which position us to play strongly in organizations like La Francophonie and the Commonwealth and to collaborate with members of those organizations on issues of mutual interest. A key strategic goal in the IPR is forging new partnerships with Canadians in international policy development and implementation. A greater emphasis on Canadian culture and on supporting Canadians living, working, performing, studying, investing and visiting abroad is intended to create larger windows to project Canada, including our linguistic duality, on the international stage.

Table of Contents

NOTES

1. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade was divided into two departments at the end of our study: Foreign Affairs Canada and International Trade Canada. For the purposes of this report, all observations refer to the structure in place at the time of the study whereas the recommendations reflect the new structure.

2. In taking into account the Government of Canada’s response, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages has revised or deleted some of the recommendations contained in the preliminary report.

3. “Linguistic duality” refers to the national character of Canada’s English and French language communities, their constitutional status and their legal recognition.

4. The important contribution of language management to regional if not global stability was exemplified most recently in Afghanistan’s new constitution, the adoption of which was reported to hinge in the final stages on the recognition of linguistic rights.

5. A Dialogue on Foreign Policy. Report to Canadians. Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada. June 2003.

6. Task Force on the International Policy Framework. Government of Canada. 2003.

7. Public diplomacy holds that a country can promote its interests abroad by bringing about greater understanding of its society. Such efforts have been around for a long time, but they have taken on increased significance in recent years. Sources include Dr. Evan H. Potter’s Canada and the New Public Diplomacy from Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, published by the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘’Clingendael ‘’

8. 2003-2004 Report on Plans and Priorities, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada, 2004, page 50.

9. Ibid., page 54.

10.This message was reinforced in a recent United Nations report Human Development Report 2004. Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World. United Nations Development Programme. New York. 2004. The report cites Canada’s leadership in recognizing the value of diversity through a policy of multiculturalism, asymmetric federalism and measures to ensure political representation for various groups. It also noted Canada’s support of domestic cultural industries.

11. The relationship between linguistic duality and Canada’s multiculturalism is widely recognized within Canada’s immigrant population, according to a December 2003 survey by the Centre for Research and Information Canada. The survey found that 75% of immigrants thought that Canada’s bilingualism makes it more welcoming to immigrants with different cultural and ethnic backgrounds.

12. These celebrations revolve around the Journée internationale de La Francophonie every March. Celebrations include a series of activities and events promoting the French language and culture in cities around the world. Programs are usually developed jointly by missions representing French-speaking countries and local Francophone agencies and associations.

13. The only other French-speaking member country is Haiti. However, France and Belgium are among several countries with observer status within the OAS.

14. For purposes of our study, the term “trade mission” refers to missions organized by headquarters. It includes Team Canada missions, which are led by the Prime Minister, and Canada Trade missions, led by the Minister of International Trade and/or other government officials.

15. According to DFAIT’s 2003 study of Canada’s bilingual image in the United States, 12 million Americans are of French heritage and almost two million speak French at home, including more than 200,000 in New York alone. French is the third most spoken language in the United States, after English and Spanish.

16. The use of electronic communications in this sector may sometimes be a factor in language choice. TCS clients often initiate communications by completing electronic forms in an interactive database known as the Virtual Trade Commissioner Service. The Internet site and the forms are available in both English and French and the site indicates the language or languages spoken by TCS officers at each mission. Despite these measures, at least two officials recalled instances where clients realized that they could truly deal with the mission in French only after making direct contact with a TCS officer, either by phone or in person.

17. All of Canada’s diplomatic missions and consular posts are designated bilingual for purposes of service to the public under sub-section 10(a) of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations.

18. At the time of our study, we were told the situation would be addressed by hiring a bilingual assistant.

19. The policy also contains provisions for scientific, professional and technical publications.

20. Both sites identify English-only documents with the symbol of the American flag.

21. DFAIT does offer online language courses, and employees can be reimbursed for 75% of the cost of language training taken privately. However, we found limited awareness of these options among managers and staff in a number of missions. It was also pointed out that online courses are oriented to improving written and reading skills rather than developing oral interaction skills.

22. The federal government’s Directive on Language Training and Learning Retention, which came into effect on April 1, 2004, recognizes that responsibility for retaining acquired second-language skills is shared between the institution and the employee.

23. As documented in our previous report, A Senior Public Service that Reflects Canada’s Linguistic Duality (June 2002), the Privy Council Office advises on and supports the selection, appointment and performance review of persons appointed by order-in-council.

Table of Contents

Top of page

Home \| Français \| Contact Us \| Help \| Search \| Canada Site \| 1 800 O-Canada Site Map \| FAQ \| Links \| What's New?

Last update: 2004-11-09	Important Notices

Special Study

Doorway to the world: Linguistic duality in Canada's international relations

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

I. LINGUISTIC DUALITY IN INTERNATIONAL POLICY

II. LINGUISTIC DUALITY IN KEY PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES

III. LINGUISTIC DUALITY IN MISSION ACTIVITIES

IV. LINGUISTIC DUALITY ON THE FRONT LINE: LANGUAGE OF SERVICE ISSUES

V. INTERNAL SUPPORT FOR LINGUISTIC DUALITY

CONCLUSION: INTERNATIONAL POLICY REVISITED

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX

Doorway to the world:
Linguistic duality in Canada's international relations