THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, November 6, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m. to examine and report on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Honourable senators, I am Claudette Tardif, a senator from Alberta. Before giving the floor to our witnesses, I invite the senators to please introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Cormier: Senator René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Maltais: Good evening, everyone. I am Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Tardif: The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is conducting the second part of its study on the views of the official language minority communities about modernizing the Official Languages Act.
We have two witnesses with us this evening. We welcome the Société Santé en français, represented by Mr. Michel Tremblay, Executive Director, and Mr. Alain-Michel Sékula, Director. We also have the Consortium national de formation en santé, or CNFS, represented by Mr. Raymond Théberge, Co-Chair of the CNFS and President and Vice-Chancellor of the Université de Moncton, and Ms. Lynn Brouillette, Director General. I would note that Ms. Brouillette recently appeared here as Director General of the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne.
Allow me to congratulate you on a successful Rendez-vous Santé en français, which drew more than 350 attendees, and on the unveiling of the Déclaration d’Ottawa, the Ottawa declaration, on behalf of a healthy francophone community. Bravo!
I invite our witnesses please to make their presentations, and then the senators will ask questions. We will begin with Mr. Sékula.
Alain-Michel Sékula, Director, Société Santé en français: Madam Chair, honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen and colleagues, my name is Alain-Michel Sékula, and I am a member of the board of directors of the Société Santé en français. I also have the pleasure of chairing the board of the Réseau des services de santé en français de l’Est de l’Ontario. I am privileged to act as Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel of the Canadian Forces Health Services Centre. I hope that you are duly impressed and that I can continue. On behalf of the board chair, Dr. Aurel Schofield, and all the members of the board, I thank you for inviting me to appear before you on their behalf.
Established in 2002, the Société Santé en français is an organization consisting of a national secretariat and 16 regional, provincial and territorial networks that work to increase access to French-language health services in the francophone minority communities across Canada. Together, the Société Santé en français and the networks have managed to establish and maintain ties with political decision makers, health professionals, health service managers, training institutions and the communities in the provinces and territories. As a result, the needs of our communities are now known across Canada.
In consultation sessions held in 2016 on the renewal of Action Plan for Official Languages, Canadians across the country declared that health was a priority for their communities. We understand that because the language of communication is an essential factor in providing high-quality health services. We have just completed the Rendez-vous Santé en français, the largest national conference on health services in French organized jointly with our CNFS colleagues.
The event was a remarkable success and ended with the presentation of the declaration for a healthy francophonie, which was endorsed by the event’s 350 attendees. A copy of the declaration appears in the documentation we have provided, and I invite you to read the commitments it contains. On behalf of all the organizers, I want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Cormier and his colleagues, who attended the gala. Your presence and inspiring speeches were much appreciated.
Now I will give the floor to my colleague, our director general, Mr. Michel Tremblay, who will provide you with more details.
Michel Tremblay, Director General, Société Santé en français: Language barriers often cause errors of understanding, misdiagnoses and complications. They increase the financial drain on the health system and exact a cost in people’s lives. Let us be honest: French-language health care is above all a service focused on individuals. These are people, like you and me, who need services in their language when they are sick and vulnerable.
Consider a few examples actually experienced on the job: a seven-year-old child who is about to receive chemotherapy treatments but does not understand English and cannot communicate directly with the clinical team; a teenage girl suffering from mental health disorders who must explain in her second language what is troubling her or find the words to express what she feels; and francophone seniors who have lived their entire lives in French and who, having lost the use of their second language, must resign themselves to living out their days in a health system that cannot communicate with them. We often say that, in Canada, you can be born in French and live in French, but you cannot die in French. The message is clear: when I am sick, I am not bilingual.
On the modernization of the Official Languages Act, the Société Santé en français, or SSF for short, would like to address the issues associated with Part VII of the act and the mechanisms that should be put in place to ensure compliance with that statute. Here are a few issues that we have identified and that directly affect the health of francophones. First, the act should be strengthened to enable the federal government to play its leadership role more effectively. Failing a clear message from the federal government on the importance of official languages and of considering them in decision-making, individual departments and agencies apply the act in a fragmented manner, in silos. For example, Health Canada depends on organizations such as the SSF and CNFS to discharge its obligations under the act.
Despite the successes we have had, our voice resonates less than that of the federal government. For example, we know that, to effect real change, we must have the evidence we need to measure results and advances. We can change only what we can measure. However, this kind of data is gathered at several levels. I am thinking, for example, of the provincial health ministries, Statistics Canada, Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Employment and Social Development Canada and others.
We know from our work that people’s understanding of the act and the responsibility that follows therefrom are often partial or incorrect. Individual responsibility and the fact that the act is being implemented in silos make it very difficult to introduce cross-cutting measures that will make it easy to achieve the act’s objectives. The act must therefore confer a clear role on the federal government so it can take all necessary measures to promote the act within the machinery of government.
Second, we think the Official Languages Act should have a cross-cutting role that affects the other federal statutes. Official languages in Canada have a constitutional status. The application of other acts and any other public policy should thus reflect the official languages and the act. That is unfortunately not the case. For example, the Canada Health Act states five program criteria, which are also called principles, and they include universality and accessibility. However, compliance with the Official Languages Act is not a program criterion. We recently saw this with the bilateral health agreements signed by the provinces. Several agreements do not take official languages into account.
We are fully aware that the management of health systems is a provincial jurisdiction. However, we believe the federal government can renew the leading role it plays with the provinces and territories in the health field through investments conditional on compliance with official languages legislation to encourage and support local health systems to implement French-language health services access plans.
Consequently, in recent negotiations on federal-provincial-territorial agreements on mental health and home care services, the CNFS and SSF jointly recommended that Health Canada include performance measures based on obligations to the official language minority communities because those two fields involve particularly sensitive communications and language issues.
Under the current legal framework, those services, which are made possible by federal government investments, will be provided in both official languages solely where the province so wishes. You know as well as we do that this does not happen in most cases.
Lastly, the act must be reinforced and provide accountability mechanisms. To enable the government to perform its leadership role in promoting greater access to services of equal quality in both official languages and to achieve genuine equality having regard to the specificity of the official languages minority communities, it must have a regulatory framework enabling it to compel all departments, agencies and organizations funded by those departments to apply the act. To ensure this accountability, the SSF recommends that the act be strengthened by creating a secretariat that would report to a central agency such as the Privy Council Office and ensure full implementation of and compliance with the act.
A great deal remains to be done, and there is a lot of catching up to do.
Mr. Sékula: In closing, last December, the Société Santé en français submitted proposals to the government for increasing access to French-language health services.
The needs of the communities are rising sharply as a result of the heavy influx of francophone immigrants, better screening for issues related to mental health and the aging of the population, which is comparatively greater among francophones than anglophones.
I would also remind you that the families of francophone military personnel who are regularly transferred across the country do not have access to military health care and must rely on the communities where they live. It is also difficult for them to access French-language services. I mention this because this situation is not well known in the community.
And yet funding for these issues has plateaued. The status quo is no longer acceptable. Our proposals would bring about lasting systemic changes and meet both the needs of the communities and the government’s priorities. Why is this so important? The answer is simple: better health enhances the vitality of all our communities.
Thank you for allowing me to present our views and recommendations on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.
Senator Tardif: Many thanks to the Société Santé en français.
Before we go to the period of questions, I now give the floor to the representatives of the Consortium national de formation en santé.
Raymond Théberge, Co-Chair of the Consortium national de formation en santé (CNFS) and President and Vice-Chancellor of the Université de Moncton: Honourable senators, first of all, we want to thank you sincerely for inviting us to appear before your committee to present the views of the Consortium national de formation en santé about modernizing the Official Languages Act as it pertains to health.
First, I will let Lynn Brouillette tell you briefly about the CNFS.
Lynn Brouillette, Director General, Consortium national de formation en santé: The Consortium national de formation en santé was established in 2003 and represents the francophone and bilingual colleges and universities outside Quebec that offer French-language training programs in various health disciplines.
The CNFS has operated under the aegis of the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie Canadienne, the ACUFC, since April 1, 2015, and 11 of the ACUFC’s 21 member post-secondary institutions belong to the consortium. The CNFS also has five regional partners that support promotion of the training programs offered by the member institutions and initiatives supported by the CNFS. Our partners are established in regions that have no post-secondary institutions.
The CNFS contributes to an increased offer of French-language health services in the francophone minority communities through the training of professionals. The consortium also promotes the development of knowledge of the health needs of those communities, research and knowledge mobilization.
In the past 15 years, with financial support from Health Canada under the first action plan and the two roadmaps for official languages, the CNFS has helped create 73 new post-secondary French-language health programs and improved some 30 existing programs. However, this corresponds to only 7 per cent of health programs offered in English. In addition, 7,500 professionals have graduated from those programs, 94 per cent of whom work and provide French-language health care services in the francophone minority communities.
Mr. Théberge: We are entirely in favour of modernizing the Official Languages Act. We feel that updating and completely applying the act are priorities since full compliance with that legislation is essential to the complete development of the broader francophone community. The status quo of federal funding for official languages over the past 10 years has contributed to the erosion of the French language. The resulting significant setback must be reversed, and we must now move forward in all fields, including health.
Last year, the ACUFC submitted a proposal to the federal government outlining the CNFS’s initiatives as part of the 2018-23 action plan for official languages. That proposal contains innovative solutions with structural effects to promote lasting systemic change that would meet the needs of the communities and the government’s priorities. By supporting and reinforcing the health training initiatives of the CNFS and ACUFC, our post-secondary institutions can better support the federal government in pursuing its vision and discharging its obligations respecting official languages and the vitality of the communities.
Even though education and health are provincial-territorial jurisdictions, federal funding is essential for these communities because it has a significant leveraging effect in the provinces.
Like the Société Santé en français, the CNFS is tangible proof that the federal government can indeed establish objectives for the development of the francophone minority communities. See Part VII of the Official Languages Act and paragraph 4(2)(g) of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, which provides that one of the areas under the minister’s jurisdiction is, and I quote:
(g) the advancement of the equality of status and use of English and French and the enhancement and development of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada….
The member post-secondary institutions of the CNFS are instruments enabling the federal government to meet its obligations since, by training a large number of health professionals, our colleges and universities contribute to an increased supply of French-language health care services and, consequently, to the vitality of the francophone minority communities.
Here are our thoughts on the main changes that could be made as part of the modernization of the Official Languages Act and that would help increase the supply of high-quality and safe French-language services in the country.
First of all, we suggest that the concept of the active offer of service be integrated into the act and that it should contain references to culturally appropriate services because genuine equality in the offer of service must reflect the specific characteristics of the minority. Services are not provided in French in the same way as they are in English. We feel the concept of the active offer of culturally appropriate services is an interesting idea that should be explored.
Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly defines what an education rights-holder is. A similar definition of those who are entitled to health services in the official language of their choice would be a highly appropriate addition to the Official Languages Act. That definition would help establish accountability guidelines in health agreements reached with the provinces and territories.
If the amended act included the active offer of French-language services to health rights-holders, that might result in the development of asymmetrical models for the provision of French-language health care services across the country. We believe that, in the health field, these models must be analyzed in light of the needs of Canadian francophones. We therefore suggest that effective, ongoing mechanisms for consultation with the francophone communities be included in the act.
As many have previously mentioned, the modernized act must clearly include a more flexible and broader definition of the francophone minority population. It must also go beyond the mere quantitative and a purely mathematical calculation and above all take into account the vitality of the communities, including the vitality of organizations such as the post-secondary educational institutions.
Lastly, we believe that we should relieve Canadian Heritage of full responsibility for official languages across the country and assign it to a central government agency that will oversee both the implementation of the federal action plan for official languages and full application of and compliance with the Official Languages Act.
As Ms. Lise Bourgeois and Ms. Lynn Brouillette noted in their appearance on behalf of the ACUFC on October 23, the most important change that we recommend is that a new public policy on French-language post-secondary education be adopted because French-language education is the key to respect for and the permanence of the official languages across the country. That public policy would be designed to increase the capacity of the member colleges and universities of the CNFS and ACUFC in carrying out their twofold mandate and to expand their ability to train more professionals capable of providing services in both official languages in health, justice, business, early childhood and other fields.
Ms. Brouillette: We are not lawyers. Today, we mainly want to present our views on modernizing the Official Languages Act to increase the offer of French-language services across the country. In the coming year, we will be submitting a brief on behalf of the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne that will outline the changes, measures and detailed amendments that we propose to that end. We hope the revised and modernized Official Languages Act will help encourage the federal government to invest more in post-secondary training in French, particularly in health. Thank you. Mr. Théberge and I will be pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for your excellent presentations.
Senator Poirier will ask the first question.
Senator Poirier: Welcome and thank you for your presentations. You drafted the Ottawa declaration at the 2017 Rendez-vous Santé en français. The second point concerns the full development of the francophone and Acadian communities to enable the members of those communities to take an active part in building a healthy Canadian society. Do you think the Official Languages Act could be amended to promote that full development and, if so, how?
Mr. Tremblay: I believe Part VII already contains provisions to that effect. However, there are no obligations or positive measures to bring it about. What was interesting at the 2017 Rendez-vous Santé en français was that we had invited guests from Wales. Wales has the Welsh Language Act 1993 and the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011. These are policies and measures designed to promote and facilitate the use of the Welsh language and to present measures and obligations aimed at organizations such as the health service providers by developing linguistic and other standards. Obligations should be set forth in the Official Languages Act for the communities, provincial and federal governments. This also means that the government will have to negotiate with every province and territory to ensure people are treated equally across the country.
Mr. Théberge: In discussing the vitality of the community, it is important to go back to basics and remember what that means. What is most important for a minority community is the number and quality of interactions in the minority language. We must expand francophone spaces. Health is one of the fields where people most interact with a system, the health system. It is important to ensure that interactions in an individual’s official language are maximized. This brings us to the matter of vitality and how to measure it. There are various ways of doing so. We may rely on objective vitality for institutions and subjective vitality based on the way individuals perceive themselves in relation to the majority or minority. This raises the whole issue of language-related status. The Official Languages Act is an extremely important tool to ensuring the development of the communities. It is an act that was drafted some 50 years ago in a particular set of circumstances. However, there has been an enormous change in those circumstances. If we want the act to continue to play this role, we must modernize it to reflect the social, demographic and cultural changes that have taken place. If the act is modernized, it can definitely help us ensure the vitality of the francophone minority communities.
Senator Poirier: Thank you. Several witnesses have suggested the possibility of expanding the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages to ensure the federal institutions, especially those that are the subject of the most complaints, apply and comply with the act to a greater degree. Do you think that assigning more power to the commissioner would result in a better application of the act? Should it be periodically revised? Do you think the six-month interim period, subject to review, for the Commissioner of Official Languages should be limited before a permanent commissioner is appointed?
Mr. Théberge: I will try to answer all three questions. First, I think the act should be periodically reviewed. I do not know the timetable, but every act must evolve in accordance with society, which has undergone considerable change in the past 50 years, and reflect those changes.
The other point is consultation. It is important to consult the communities to ascertain and identify their needs and expectations of the act.
We have recently heard a lot on the news about the idea of giving the commissioner more power. If the act has no teeth, we must ask ourselves what should be done with it. It is extremely frustrating to see that the act is regularly contravened but that there are no consequences. At some point, it becomes too easy to avoid complying with the act because there are no consequences. I do not want to talk about Air Canada, but that case constantly crops up again and again, and there are several others.
If we look at Part V of the act concerning language of work in the public service, we can see we have regressed in recent years on the language training that is provided to public servants. The number of complaints has risen sharply. This is a clear indicator that something is not right. I cannot remember the question about whether the act should have more teeth, but there should be consequences if an act is not complied with.
Senator Poirier: What do you think the consequences should be?
Mr. Théberge: What we are talking about today is the power to impose fines. I do not know if it is that or not. As regards language of work, deputy ministers must clearly pursue and achieve official language objectives in the course of their duties. Theoretically, if certain standards are not met, that is deemed to constitute unacceptable performance. Can we provide the same kind of criteria? I think that fines may be an interesting issue, but I have not considered whether that is the solution. There must be consequences: either we withdraw something, such as funding, for example, or we demand accountability. The lack of accountability is a problem. If there were accountability, we would have a better idea of what is being done with the funding.
Mr. Tremblay: That is done jointly with the federal government, which should be more assertive with the departments and agencies since it is the source of funding.
The Commissioner of Official Languages should have expanded power. What we are trying to say is that this is the carrot-and-stick principle. What we heard from one of the speakers at the Rendez-vous is that the carrot frequently offers more advantages. That is why incentives must derive from people’s own motivation. We must be able to make positive changes while keeping the stick in reserve if necessary in extreme cases.
We are also talking about the review of the act. Nearly 50 years ago, when the act was passed, there was the Hospitals Act. The Health Insurance Act was starting to be implemented in certain provinces. Later on, in the 1980s, the Canada Health Act and an act designed to grant health funding to the provinces and territories came into force. The Official Languages Act was on the books at the time, but it had never been associated with other statutes. Health has since become a priority for Canadians. I do not believe that was the case in 1969, but it is a major issue in all provinces and territories today.
We know that, to provide good health care services, adequate personnel and a functional health system prepared to offer those services are necessary. Everything has changed since those years, and modernization has become necessary. There should be a regular review of the act every 5 or 10 years; that would make it possible to adjust to changes.
Ms. Brouillette: I would like to add a specific example concerning the work that the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages did four or five years ago.
We filed a complaint with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages concerning the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the CIHR. It was clear to us that researchers from the francophone minority communities were not receiving their fair share of the funding allocated to the Institutes of Health Research. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages agreed with us.
We received the report from the Office of the Commissioner two years ago now and have since been working in co-operation with the CIHR. We were already four or five years behind and had tried to negotiate with the CIHR but ultimately filed a complaint with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Two years were thus added to the long period spent waiting for results. The years come and go, and we are increasingly falling behind to the detriment of the francophone minority communities.
When people talk about enhanced powers and increased penalties, I do not know what they might be, but the challenge is still very real.
Mr. Sékula: I would like to talk about monetary consequences. I am a career banker, and, after analyzing certain organizations subject to the act, I can tell you they would often prefer to pay a fine for the simple reason that fines are insignificant compared to the economies of scale they can achieve while complying with the act.
I think you should look beyond monetary penalties and impose operational penalties, which would mean that, if you do not comply with the act, you will not be able to operate. I think those are valid consequences, and I can assure you that would have much greater impact than imposing a fine of $50,000 to $100,000 on Air Canada or another organization that does not play by the rules.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for your presentations, and congratulations on the Rendez-vous, the strength of your network and your ability to work in a co-operative manner. You have proven you are able to work toward common objectives; that was clear at the Rendez-vous.
And that incidentally brings me to co-operation mechanisms. You have strong co-operation mechanisms in the health field. Do you think they should be provided for in the act? Should the strength of those co-operative mechanisms be acknowledged in the act? If so, how?
My second question concerns the concept of active offer of culturally appropriate services and positive measures. I would like to know how we could include active offer in the act. For example, should we define the concept of positive measures and include it in the act?
Ms. Brouillette: I do not yet know the wording on active offer, but the idea of actively offering linguistically and culturally appropriate services in French is an original Canadian innovation. Earlier we talked about the Rendez-vous, and our colleagues from other countries find the work being done on active offer very interesting.
Entrenching active offer in the act would strengthen it. I think that would be the equivalent of a positive measure that would show that, when you work with systems designed for the majority, you must do things differently. Entrenching it in the act would give us strength.
We work extensively with professionals. In the 100 or so programs offered, which are supported by CNFS, we train them to offer services actively, but how can we bring together all this technical know-how, soft skills and knowledge? How do we integrate all that into the system?
I hope that answers your question about co-operative mechanisms. The idea is to determine how to work with the systems of the majority to include this aspect, which would ultimately provide much more appropriate services to the francophone minority communities.
Mr. Sékula: It is my pleasure to chair the Hôpital Montfort’s board of directors, and I think there is nothing more miserable than to see a francophone speaking to another francophone at that hospital in English.
Active offer is a beautiful concept. If we could entrench it in the act in a positive way so it becomes what I call a “soft” obligation, that would make a distinct improvement to the French-language health care services system in Canada.
Call it a francophone complex, but we tend to fall quickly into the easiest language. Going back to what Michel said earlier, when you are sick, you speak the language you have to speak to obtain care. If I am suffering and someone initially addresses me in English, I will respond in English, particularly if care is provided more promptly and is better and more accessible. I will adapt because I am in a state of suffering.
You would have my blessing if you wanted to entrench active offer in the act.
Mr. Tremblay: French-language services legislation has always contained active offer provisions in certain provinces. Ontario, one of the first provinces to pass a French-language services act, is considering modernizing it. Commissioner Boileau recently conducted some studies on active offer with the support of our organizations and others.
Active offer also exists in other fields such as government services, for example. The idea is not unique or exclusive to the health system. However, we are always pleased to inform others of active offer since we have previously done work on the subject.
I think that, when it comes to the minority official language, we do not have the choice to work co-operatively. That should be encouraged by the act, on the one hand, but it should also be done with the national organizations we work with. Whether it is in the arts, justice, health or education, we must work together because, in some instances, the small communities benefit from having a community centre that houses health services, early childhood centres and arts and culture organizations. We see this in certain provinces that have created community school centres, in New Brunswick, for example, and community centres offering a range of services. Those possibilities must not be overlooked.
Senator McIntyre: I agree with Senator Cormier. It is true that the federal government, provinces, territories and community organizations such as yours co-operate to such a degree that health is often said to be a co-operative success. Co-operative mechanisms in the health sector should be reproduced in other sectors.
Your organizations have enjoyed federal government financial support in carrying out their activities since 2003. If I correctly understood your presentation, the funding you receive from the federal government should be increased. Is that correct, Mr. Théberge?
Mr. Théberge: Yes, because we have received appreciably the same resources for the past 10 years. In health, in particular, there are needs in the remote regions that are not currently being met.
As Ms. Brouillette mentioned, if you compare the number of programs available in French with those offered in English, you will observe an extraordinary imbalance. We think programs should still be improved and new programs developed to provide better service to francophones where they live. Whether it be in Nunavut, Dieppe or elsewhere, those people must be served. An increase in resources would indeed be appropriate because support has not been indexed to inflation in the past 10 years. As you know, costs have risen during that time.
We have shown, as organizations, both the Société Santé en français and the Consortium national de formation en santé, that the funding granted produces results. We must rely on results in making a decision. In the past 10 years, we have trained many professionals across the country precisely so we can offer French-language health care services, services that would not be offered without those professionals.
I would like to make a brief comment. Active offer should apply to all fields, and that does not mean just saying “Bonjour”, distributing flyers and providing bilingual signage.
Going back to your question, I would say that, with increased resources, we will be able to improve our programs and provide more programs because there is still a critical shortage of resources.
Ms. Brouillette: The funding received over the past few years has been very useful. The funding came directly from the federal government and, in the case of CNFS, was paid directly to the colleges and universities. That is what made it a success story because 100 per cent of the funding was allocated to program creation. This is the formula we would like to see repeated. Even though post-secondary education is a provincial jurisdiction, to achieve its objectives, the federal government can also use the formula to provide direct support to educational institutions. That funding is well used, and 100 per cent of it is used to achieve objectives.
Senator McIntyre: The Consortium national de formation en santé is the main recipient of funding for labour market initiatives.
Ms. Brouillette: Yes.
Senator McIntyre: The Société Santé en français is the main recipient of support for French-language health networks and service-based projects.
I understand that, in March 2016, your two organizations signed a memorandum of understanding on the common strategy to advance files associated with access to French-language health services. I am thinking, for example, of mental health, research, the active offer of French-language services, reception, retention of human resources and the adoption of language standards. Those are only some of the priorities you have worked on in recent years. Could you tell us a little more about that memorandum of understanding?
Mr. Tremblay: I would like to add a point in response to your previous question, and then I will answer your last question. For several years now, we have financed French-language health-services networks across Canada. We expect small organizations with one, two, three or five employees to negotiate with the provincial and territorial governments, which have enormous health care systems and for which French-language services are often a lower priority. Those people, who have little in the way of resources, are asked to be able to speak to their government and to health system stakeholders to help change the situation. That is a very complex task.
We work with 12 provincial and territorial jurisdictions. I am going to cite Quebec as an example. We have an organization that works with the government to change the situation. An act already in force is designed to serve Quebec anglophones in the health care system.
This is a major issue. With very little in the way of resources, our networks are virtually working miracles in some places. We are trying to maximize resources for projects such as those you mentioned. We have worked in recent years to create “leverage files”, structural files. For example, we have signed an agreement with Accreditation Canada and the Health Standards Organization for the development of a language standard. An international technical committee is considering the possibility of creating a standard for minority communities. The problem will be to implement that standard in the health system. To do so, the few thousands of health organizations across the country will have to be convinced they should implement the language standards. Incentives will have to be found to encourage them to do so. I do not know whether we will have binding measures at our disposal. I do not believe so, but we will have to find the resources. This is a colossal task, and we have very little in the way of resources to carry it out.
We work together by forming partnerships. Accreditation Canada supports us and is working with us to that end. We have a partnership with the Mental Health Commission of Canada, and together we are trying to find solutions. We would like to form a partnership with the Canadian Patient Safety Institute in the next few years to make language a safety issue. Someone previously said it is just as important to have an infection control program in a hospital, requiring people to wash their hands, as it is to be able to communicate properly with one’s patient. However, if you compare the two issues, washing one’s hands should be optional. That logic is unacceptable because both issues are important.
We are trying to advance common files. We are working to increase access, recruitment, retention and the development of francophone human resources. We have projects for all these purposes across Canada.
Senator Moncion: I found the presentations you made interesting. You mentioned a number of things, including cross-cutting measures and their role. I would like you to tell us a little more about it.
You also mentioned universality and accessibility. That is often easy to say but difficult to put in place. I would also like to hear what you have to say on that subject.
You discussed renewed leadership, and I found that point interesting. You associated the concept with a federal agency. I would like to draw a parallel. In 1969, when the Official Languages Act came into force in Canada, the needs of the francophone community were quite different from those of today, and you acknowledge that. Measures were put in place at that time, particularly in the provinces, for example, to promote French-language education. Specific budgets were allocated to the francophone school boards so they could manage their schools.
I would like to know in what context you foresee this federal agency being established and your views on the work that group could do because you also associated it with accountability. I find that interesting. You gave us a number of ideas. How can we combine them to add something even more concrete to the solutions? This is a long speech, but the provincial government is given a lot of money, and it is the provincial government that decides to whom that money will be granted. Sometimes we have doubts about how it is used, particularly the envelopes allocated to official languages and services in French, or in English in certain provinces. We know that money may not get there. I would like you to be more specific on those various points.
Mr. Tremblay: I will start with accessibility and universality, which are two of the five criteria set forth in the Canada Health Act. They are accessibility, universality, public administration, comprehensiveness, and I have forgotten the fifth. Accessibility means that all citizens should have access to health services. Universality means that all services should be offered equally to citizens. These two principles are found in the Canada Health Act. The cross-cutting nature of the Official Languages Act has been included as being related because it should not be applied on its own, but should be linked to all other federal government statutes, somewhat like a constitutional statute.
In the Montfort affair, for example, the Montfort judgment stated that Ontario’s French Language Services Act played a quasi-constitutional role. Consequently, as part of other subsequent acts, such as the act instituting the Local Health Integration Networks, the LHINs, the Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007 and various statutes, the French Language Services Act cited in the preamble, and the entire act was to be consistent with the French Language Services Act. That is the example I am citing, and it is somewhat for that reason that it is said the act should apply to all departments and to the actions of the departments.
As regards renewed leadership, we made a request with several organizations and co-signed a letter to the Prime Minister asking him to make a commitment. Thirty-three organizations signed a letter last summer asking the Prime Minister to reaffirm that official languages are a federal government responsibility, that the federal government wishes to see vitality and that that applies to the communities. That is what we wish, that the government renew its leadership in this area.
Lastly, as regards the central agency, action must be taken to allow for this accountability. The departments should report to a central agency rather than a department on progress made under the Official Languages Act. That would also apply to the Action Plan for Official Languages. That is the gist of what we recommended.
Mr. Théberge: On the question of renewed leadership, if we look at the present situation, where does the official languages file stand among Canada’s priorities? I would say we do not hold the position we occupied in the past. I think that has led to a certain complacency across the country that has had somewhat negative effects on the communities. It is important to reposition the official languages file among political priorities. All the surveys show very strong support for bilingualism in Canada. People talk a lot about social licence, and 80 per cent or more Canadians support bilingualism, regardless of the region they live in. It is extremely important that the file return to its position on the national scene.
As regards the central agency, I think Mr. Tremblay mentioned that, and I think someone should be responsible for implementing the action plan in the various departments. All departments have a duty and responsibility in the official languages field, and someone must be accountable for who does what and when. I do not think Canadian Heritage is the right department. Canadian Heritage is another type of department; it promotes official languages for the communities and so on, but that is very specific. It is important for the entire machinery of government that there be a central agency that can actually ensure that every department responsible for providing services across the country complies with the Official Languages Act.
As regards accountability, honestly, the largest amounts paid to the provinces are for education and, particularly French mother tongue and second-language education. The question we must always ask ourselves is this: does that money wind up in the classroom, where it should go? It is important for us to have a mechanism in place to ensure that federal government investments in education reach the classroom.
Mr. Sékula: I would like to add a provincial perspective, since Senator Moncion briefly mentioned it. In addition to the Société Santé en français, I also chair the Réseau des services de santé en français de l’Est de l’Ontario, which has two mandates: the first is a networking mandate, and that is the same objective as that of the Société Santé en français; it is also a corporation that grants designations within the Ontario health care system, in other words to hospitals that wish to be designated as able to provide services. We grant this licence following a fairly long and complex designation process. The challenge we often face is that, in funding access to health care services in French, the Ontario government -- and I am not criticizing here because it has been very generous -- adjusts its contributions to what the federal government grants for the networking of French-language health care services in Canada. I have often heard Ontarian stakeholders say the Ontario government makes its contribution but that they do not think the federal government does as much with the contributions the SSF receives. Consequently, some provinces view the federal government as an example when they set the barometer for the funding it grants to meet its linguistic obligations in Ontario.
I would add a semi-social comment. The more networking success our organizations enjoy in health and health training, the more we become, in a way, victims of our own popularity, and the more the demands increase. Mr. Théberge mentioned this a little earlier. We have been working with the same budgets for 10 years, and that does not include inflation. If our budgets were adjusted for inflation, we would have been forced to reduce our services by 20 per cent to 25 per cent over the years. We have to do more with far less, and it is difficult for us to carry out our mandates. The provinces look at us and think that, if we are receiving this funding from the federal government, they cannot understand why they should give us more. This is simplistic but more or less how it works on the ground, at any event in Ontario.
Senator Gagné: I too would like to congratulate you on the remarkable success of your forum. I am pleased to see how the co-operation between the two organizations has evolved in the past two years. I think this is the way of the future. That is obvious. Bravo and congratulations!
We can easily track the funding that goes to the Consortium national de formation en santé through the secretariat. There are the agreements between Health Canada and the secretariat and the bilateral agreements between Health Canada and the institutions, that is to say, the colleges and universities. There is also -- and this is easy to trace -- the funding of Health Canada, the Société Santé en français and thus the networks.
The fact nevertheless remains that significant sums are transferred to the provinces. In your presentations, you touched on the funding that is paid to the provinces and the way of ensuring the active offer of service and access to health care in French in our communities. The question that arises is how can the Official Languages Act be adjusted or expanded so that the money transferred to the provinces reaches the institutions and clinics to promote access to health care services in French. What adjustments should be made to the act to achieve that objective?
Mr. Tremblay: As I said earlier in my presentation, we must always remember that health is a jealously guarded provincial jurisdiction. Unless bilateral agreements are in place between the provinces and the federal government, I do not believe this will happen that way. Even in the negotiations on mental health and home care services, some provinces took the time to sign the agreement. The deputy minister told us those agreements were to be multilateral from the outset and subsequently became bilateral. The situation is thus somewhat complex.
Can the Official Languages Act help in that respect? I think the federal government should amend the Canada Health Act to put measures in place to require a provision respecting funding to the provinces and performance measures concerning services provided in French.
Senator Gagné: Should we expand Part VII, which is the only part that deals with the community? I think all the other parts have a more parliamentary or governmental approach. Part VII concerns the vitality and development of the communities. Should we expand that part to include sectors important to the development of the communities?
Mr. Tremblay: My first thought would be to say yes. Health is part of it now. The issue would be linked to the application of the act and the way that will be done.
In provinces that have French-language services legislation, we increasingly see measures that show the provinces want to work with the networks, colleges and universities to implement services and projects.
Consider the Yukon, for example. At the time its new premier was elected, there was a project that had been shelved for a long time to establish a bilingual clinic in Whitehorse serving the francophone community and others. There were also designated positions for that clinic. A feasibility study is under way. The project has been on the shelf for a long time, even though there is a desire to carry it out.
Consequently, in provinces that only have policies but not acts, French is, in many instances, not viewed as a priority for the communities. In some cases, such as British Columbia, funding has been invested to provide bilingual reception at a clinic that mainly serves the homeless. This measure was perceived as a privilege for francophones because the people next door, who spoke Chinese or another language, could have received the same service. When the funding stopped, the service did as well. The provinces must show some good will.
Senator Tardif: Further to Senator Gagné’s question, have all the provinces signed bilateral agreements on mental health and home care services in French?
Mr. Tremblay: Manitoba was the last province to sign.
Senator Tardif: So all the provinces have signed. Was that under an existing language provision?
Mr. Tremblay: No.
Senator Tardif: What guarantee do you have?
Mr. Tremblay: None.
Senator Tardif: That is what I thought.
Ms. Brouillette: To follow up on this matter, we met the deputy minister of Health, Mr. Simon Kennedy, who negotiated the final agreements. Specifically pursuant to mental health, home care and palliative care initiatives, we proposed that provisions be included on French-language services, together with their associated budget. However, he said at the time that it had already been a complicated matter to negotiate the agreements and that adding a language provision would further complicate matters. He therefore asked us to do the work. As we do not have a budget for this item, that is not easy, but we are still doing it. That is where we stand; that is the situation.
Mr. Théberge: Since this is not defined, we could see how far we could expand the concept of positive measures. We could spend some time defining them more clearly and expanding the definition of “positive measures”.
What bothers me about bilateral agreements is that this is in fact the ideal time to include provisions. The federal government should automatically say that a language provision should be included in these agreements, but that impulse has been lacking for 50 years. We must therefore find a way to develop it.
Positive measures are one way of doing it, but I think that, when you sign agreements, regardless of the department, there is a language aspect that must be addressed in the agreement. If a central agency were responsible for ensuring official languages compliance, we might be able to move forward. However, we have to make an effort upstream. When the government tells Ms. Brouillette that it is complicated, well, life is complicated. I think what is important is to seize the opportunities when they arise. On the other hand, if we do not have a carrot, a stick or a mechanism, we will miss them all. That is an ideal example. This is the moment when we should have requested a language provision.
Senator Gagné: Regulations have been made under Part IV. Do you think Part VII should include a regulatory framework that would enable us to do what you propose, which is to more clearly define positive measures and describe priority sectors for the development and vitality of the communities?
Mr. Théberge: I think the time has come. If there are no regulations, the decision is left to individuals. The situation is somewhat random. Regulations are a way of providing a better framework for Part VII, as is the case for Part IV, to ensure there are guidelines and rules to follow. That would be more directive than is now the case.
Mr. Tremblay: Continuing on the subject of the impulse, we had a meeting in the spring as part of the conference of assistant deputy ministers responsible for official languages. One of the topics discussed was senior officials who have responsibilities but who, in many cases, do not understand their role or mandate. During one discussion, it was suggested that this should be part of the training of the governments senior executives. We are told that is already the case. When we speak to government executives who tell us that people are complying with the act, translating their websites and translating all documents, that all services are provided in both languages and that when Part VII of the act, which concerns the official language communities, is mentioned to them, it comes as a surprise.
The Treasury Board has issued guidelines. At one point, I came up with guidelines developed by Health Canada on how to apply the Official Languages Act in the contribution agreements between the department and its agencies. We speak to officials. They know there is no reinforcement capacity and therefore sign agreements requiring that the Official Languages Act be complied with, but without verifying how this provision is applied in their organization. At that point, we are then responsible for communicating with each organization to inform them that they are not complying with Part VII of the Official Languages Act and that our communities thus are not receiving their services, even though they are provided in both official languages.
Consider, for example, the Public Health Agency of Canada, with which we are currently working. As is the case with the CIHR, virtually all its programs are not accessible to the official language minority communities. There are too many obstacles preventing the communities from receiving them. The assistant deputy minister very recently acknowledged the importance of official languages, but it will take a long time for that to change. Consequently, our communities do not have access to the funding associated with the agency’s programs, and yet this is an area where they are still in great need of them in certain cases.
Ms. Brouillette: To answer Senator Gagné’s question on funding, I believe we may be referring to the Official Languages in Education Program, or OLEP. There are already some best practices. This can go directly to the institutions or organizations that do the work. We already have some good examples of accountability successes, and they are models that should be imitated.
It would also be worthwhile to consider the “by and for” concept. This is a well-known concept that has served the communities well. There is already a parallel system in education, but I believe this principle can be applied in health. However, the “by and for” model, which is more effective in adequately offering services to the francophone communities, could be used in primary health care services of a certain level.
Senator Maltais: We are of course talking about health services here. Health is essential for human beings. Health is not language. You are either sick or not sick. If you are not sick, you do not go to see the doctor. If you go to see the doctor, it is because something in your system is not right. In a country that purports to be officially bilingual, it is virtually incomprehensible that French-speaking citizens should not be able to receive care in their language.
We went to Prince Edward Island, where we visited a college, whose name I forget, that trains people in primary care. These students found it very difficult to find work. They had to go to New Brunswick to find jobs, as surprising as that may be.
You mentioned Whitehorse, and I have been to Whitehorse. I went to see the school and medical centre they want to establish there. Those people are not out of the woods yet. Remember what happened to the school board in court; it was a disaster. They have all my sympathies because Whitehorse is not exactly next door.
I have a few questions. We talked a lot about accountability. Last year, we heard from Minister Brison, and I asked him when he thought he could bring in accountability legislation. As we know, the money goes to the Treasury Board. Senator Tardif and Senator McIntyre could attest to this: he told us he would get back to us with an answer this year. He will be here Wednesday evening, and we will definitely ask him a question. He had good intentions, and I still believe his intentions were sincere. This is a major problem because we do not know where the money goes once it is sent to the provinces, particularly in regions where French is the minority language. Is that funding earmarked for French or research? We do not know. That is a problem.
You talked about an agency that could distribute funding to education, research and the application of the act in places where French is the minority language. Other witnesses before you have told us it should report to the Privy Council. What would your choice be?
Second, the chair of the House of Commons Official Languages Committee said last week that the new Official Languages Act should include a system of penalties. I agree with him, but 99.9 per cent of clients will be from government. How do you punish the Department of Transport or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? We could impose a minor $200 penalty, but that will not solve the problem. They will have to find another solution because I do not really see the government imposing penalties on itself.
You may have found a way earlier when you said we should set the department aside because that is where the problem lies. What do you think about that, Mr. Sékula?
Mr. Sékula: First, my point is that, even if the government could impose a penalty on itself, I am not sure it could pay it.
Senator Maltais: You are right, considering its pay system.
Mr. Sékula: You are the one who said it. I think that the word “punitive” is outmoded and no longer in vogue. It is more effective to tell people their funding will be cut off or their board of directors or president put under trusteeship if they fail to comply with the act.
Now I completely agree with you. Can a government punish itself? I am not sure, but I am certain it would consider this measure for private and para-public sector and other organizations. The idea of being punitive is not important. The idea is that the consequence of failure to act will determine the future of an organization that fails to comply with the act. It is no more complicated than that. I am being logical in saying that, but those are my intentions.
Senator Maltais: Mr. Théberge, you are the rector of the Université de Moncton. You receive federal government grants to maintain the university and research grants from the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. What percentage of that money is allocated to francophone research?
Mr. Théberge: All the money is paid to our researchers. If they work in bioscience, they conduct research in bioscience; if they are in physics, they do research in physics. There is a connection with language solely in the social sciences, where our researchers work with the communities.
Senator Maltais: I am talking about medical science, which includes francophone nurses and physicians. What percentage is allocated to francophone research?
Mr. Théberge: One hundred per cent. We are a francophone university, not a bilingual university.
Senator Maltais: It is entirely francophone?
Mr. Théberge: The Université de Moncton is entirely francophone.
Senator Maltais: So you do not have a problem.
Senator Mégie: Thank you for your presentations. I arrived late and I apologize for that.
My question concerns research. Ms. Brouillette, earlier you said that researchers were not receiving their fair share. Is that a consequence of competition between researchers and specialties, or is it due to a language factor? As you know, most medical research is published in English. If we address the language issue of French, is that the obstacle or is it something else?
Ms. Brouillette: There are several aspects to the obstacle. To access funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, researchers must have extensive experience and the opportunity to publish in several scientific journals. The capacity of our researchers remains to be established. Some have the ability, but much more remains to be established in our network. Positive measures must be put in place to help our researchers distinguish themselves and promote their publications. It is often the type of publication and the number of publications that distinguish a researcher and enable him or her to obtain larger grants from the CIHR. A lot of work will have to be done to increase that capacity. Everything in research is done in English, as is the case in many fields. When our researchers publish in French, their work is not widely read or known, whereas English is a completely different sphere.
Mr. Théberge: I would like to draw a parallel by talking about researchers in Canada. Minister Duncan said there must be more diversity in chair appointments. It is up to the universities to submit candidates. This time, the universities presented several candidates from certain minority groups. The pool of potential candidates was thus diversified in accordance with the minister’s directives.
In many instances, a systemic culture is in place at granting councils, and everything is done on merit. The concept of merit may be vague in some instances, depending on the members sitting on the committee. What is important is to ensure that our researchers are sitting on the committees, as is now the case. Otherwise we will not obtain grants. We are currently sitting on the committees. I make sure our researchers sit on the committees, and some of them even chair the committees. We must take our place.
When the culture is systemic, things are done unconsciously. People do not realize they are unconsciously making biased decisions. A great deal of work remains to be done in this area. We filed a complaint with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, which compelled him to do some work in this area, but we did not make much headway. If the will is expressed, the universities will react.
Senator Poirier: I have another question. The current roadmap will expire on March 31, 2018. Minister Joly will propose a new action plan to succeed it. What are your expectations of the minister’s action plan?
Ms. Brouillette: Earlier we referred to the fact that we, both the Consortium national de formation en santé and the Société Santé en français, have been receiving the same funding for 10 years.
At the Consortium national de formation en santé, even though we have introduced 73 new programs in the past 15 years, that represents only 7 per cent of the programs offered in English. The needs are still significant. To establish services, we need professionals to provide them. Last fall, the Société Santé en français and we submitted a very specific request, including innovative and structural initiatives, to introduce more programs in regions with significant needs. I am thinking of northern Ontario, northern New Brunswick and Western Canada. No French-language programs are offered in some regions. Our expectations are consistent with the needs, which are still pressing.
Mr. Sékula: I want to make a very interesting comment. We at the Société Santé en français have been unable to schedule a meeting with the minister. We have submitted our requests and proposals, and it is frustrating not to be able to meet with the minister responsible for our five-year funding, at least to discuss and get a clearer understanding of the issues. Am I the only one complaining about this? No. I think the Société Santé en français shares it. I would like to be clear in saying that it is difficult to submit these proposals, to get reactions and to know what to expect if it is impossible to schedule a meeting.
Mr. Tremblay: We know it will be the status quo for Health Canada. Funding will not change, and it will be transferred next year on April 1. The funding amount covers only the current basics. If you include inflation, it represents a reduction.
Last December, we sent our requests to Health Canada and Canadian Heritage at the same time as the CNFS to expand access and network capacity and to increase work in order to accommodate human resources. This is a bit of a game of cat and mouse, or the question of the chicken and the egg. We need positions everywhere that will enable the organizations to provide services in French. We can create positions without having applicants. That is the case in one province in particular, where positions are designated, but where there are no personnel to fill them. We therefore have major training needs. Trained people must also be able to return home and have access to work in their language or else they will go and work in English, which does not help us. There are needs everywhere and we must continue expanding access to French-language health care services.
Senator Cormier: Mr. Tremblay, you referred to the Official Languages Act as a quasi-constitutional statute, at least in spirit.
You also mentioned the importance of repositioning the official languages. Without stating that it is a constitutional statute, should we include in the preamble to the act a notion or information underscoring the importance of official languages and the Official Languages Act in the context of the social contract that Canada established at its founding? In other words, could we include something in the preamble to further raise the profile of this act?
In the same context, we talked a lot about giving the act teeth. We talked about establishing a secretariat, a central agency within the Privy Council, to reinforce application of the act. Do you think that agency should be described more precisely in the act, particularly as it relates to the main departments concerned? We do understand that all departments are concerned. In our case, however, should they be named in the same way as there may be priority sectors, departments and agencies?
Mr. Tremblay: I will start with your second question and go back to incentives. This agency should be named in the act. I think the first way to ensure accountability is to proceed as the Treasury Board does. It submits a report once a year. Now it is Canadian Heritage that does it, but the Treasury Board makes it public. That report concerns the way the departments have applied the Official Languages Act. It is quite discreet. You have to know it exists.
An annual public report should be issued on the way the departments have implemented the Official Languages Act in the official language minority communities. Mr. Robichaud from New Brunswick attended the Rendez-vous and compared the various regions of his province. That information is available on the website, and you can go and see which are the good regions, the not-so-good regions and the best regions. Everyone obviously wants to be the best.
If a dashboard or report card were published indicating how the departments and agencies respond to the Official Languages Act, that would be more of an incentive. Managers are often motivated to do better, to be the best or to go further.
Recognition awards could also be established for that purpose and offered in the health field. I think one of the agency’s roles could be to publish the annual report cards of the departments and agencies. We talked about mentioning the cross-cutting nature of the act in its preamble. That may be the best place to explain it clearly.
Mr. Sékula: As my former colleague Mauril Bélanger used to say, the more precise and sound statutes are, the less oversight and regulation they need. If I had a choice, it would be to make laws in the fields that concern us that are clear, clear-cut and precise. There would be less need to oversee and regulate them. When they are vague, they wind up in a framework that is hard to manage, and that does not help us achieve our objectives.
Ms. Brouillette: We could consider having measurable and very precise objectives over time periods, and that is where there could be a review. Those measurable objectives could coincide with the action plan over periods of five or 10 years.
Senator McIntyre: Just as Senator Tardif mentioned at the start of the meeting, I understand that your organizations took part in the Rendez-vous Santé en français last week, from November 1 to 3. The Rendez-vous was attended by more than 350 stakeholders and decision-makers from across Canada to discuss health-related issues affecting the francophone minority communities. Were only positive points discussed? Were there also negative points? Or were there both?
Mr. Tremblay: There were interesting issues. Some people provoked us. One of the issues that was repeatedly brought up in several ways was language data. The major issue is to determine how to collect language data in order to measure the health of the francophone communities, data on the system’s capacity, human resources and data for research purposes. We can change what we can measure.
We are finding it harder to determine where we stand with health services in French across the country. We do not have the data to measure it. That is not negative because we had good discussions, but it is one of the major issues that emerged.
Mr. Sékula: Data are my specialty. I call that a major problem rather than an issue. Request the health insurance cards of every province and territory in Canada. That is an interesting experience. First, there is no homogeneity among the health insurance cards across the provinces. I acknowledge the provinces’ jurisdiction over health, but that does not mean it would be impossible to reach agreements. What those cards can measure or not measure is interesting.
Getting back to the problem, Ontario will be signing an agreement with my organization that will be similar to that of Prince Edward Island. In Prince Edward Island, when you arrive at the hospital, they scan your health insurance card, and you are immediately identified as a person who wishes to receive services in English or in French. Ontario will be heading in the same direction. With regard to the data problem, if we had that kind of health insurance card system across the country, it would facilitate a lot of things. Funding is granted based on the number of people who request services in French. No funding will be available to provide services in French if francophones request services in English. That is a major problem, and that was probably a priority discussion topic among people. Why? Because all the provincial governments currently rely on data. If you do not have data, you will not get funding. That is clear.
Senator Gagné: Mr. Tremblay, you mentioned the Welsh Act. Should the government draw on the Welsh Language Act in modernizing its Official Languages Act?
Mr. Tremblay: It should do so because the United Kingdom also has a commissioner who has powers. The Welsh commissioner is entitled -- and I know this would be a provincial jurisdiction in our case -- to impose fines on people who do not offer services in Welsh or who cannot refer a person to the appropriate place. Positive measures under that act to promote Welsh are an issue since the language was neither tolerated nor accepted for a long period of time.
The same thing is happening in Spain’s Basque Country, where the Basque language is reviving communities. This is the idea of the Official Languages Act. Part VII concerns the francophones in our communities so they can be proud of their language and use it and so they can access services that enable them to live in their language, particularly when they welcome francophones from other countries. Spain’s Basque Country draws on certain aspects such as the active offer that we have in Canada. It also draws inspiration from our human resource framework, and we can also learn from that country.
Senator Gagné: Thank you, Mr. Tremblay.
Senator Tardif: On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, I want to thank you for your dedication, your leadership and the work you are doing to improve access to health care services in French and to provide French-language training for the professionals who contribute to the well-being of all francophone communities in Canada.
(The committee continued in camera.)