Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 25 - Evidence - Meeting of June 4, 2018
OTTAWA, Monday, June 4, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met in public today at 4:30 p.m. to continue its study on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act; and in camera, for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators.
My name is René Cormier; I am a senator from New Brunswick, and it is my pleasure to chair today’s meeting.
[English]
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages today concludes the second part of its study on the views of the official language minority communities on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.
We are pleased to welcome today two regional organizations representing English-speaking communities of Quebec. We welcome Rachel Hunting, Executive Director of the Townshippers’ Association; as well as Linton Garner, Executive Director of the Regional Association of West Quebecers.
I would like to inform everyone that Voice of English-speaking Québec and the Committee for Anglophone Social Action were also invited but, unfortunately, had to decline.
Before I give the witnesses the floor, I invite senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick. Welcome.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec. Welcome.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba. Welcome.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Hunting, you have the floor.
Rachel Hunting, Executive Director, Townshippers’ Association: : Good afternoon, Senator Cormier, Senator Poirier and honourable members of the committee. I’m here today as the executive director of Townshippers’ Association, a regional organization based in the Eastern Townships of Quebec, which has been doing community development, advocacy and support of the English-speaking minority language community for just shy of 40 years.
Thank you for the opportunity for our organization to contribute to the dialogue around the modernization of the Official Languages Act. As the only piece of language rights legislation safeguarding the interests of Quebec’s English-speaking communities, its importance cannot be understated nor can its influence on vitality for those communities be underestimated.
The act frames and ensures funding for our institutions and community development networks, rights for English speakers regarding access to federal services in English, their representation in the federal public service, and their right to do those jobs in English.
The historical Eastern Townships is home to approximately 40,000 individuals who identify their first official language as English. Youth retention continues to challenge the renewal and vitality of our communities. The proportion of English speakers aged 45 and up outweighs the proportion of those 0 to 45.
Out-migration has left rural communities vulnerable, with high levels of unemployment and low levels of income, even for those who have higher levels of education. In 2016, just over half — 53.2 per cent — of English speakers in the historical Eastern Townships held a high school certificate or less. Their tendency to have a low income was elevated when compared to French speakers in the region. Levels of unemployment were also higher among English speakers in the historical townships when compared to their French-speaking counterparts.
Provincially in 2016, 38.5 per cent of English speakers found themselves in a low income bracket compared to 31.8 per cent of the majority community. Low income is higher among English speakers living in the historical Eastern Townships, with the percentage of English speakers earning more than $50,000 per year, also well below that of French speakers in the same region.
When contemplating the significance of the Official Languages Act for the minority language community that resides in Quebec’s historical Eastern Townships, one of its most pressing challenges, unemployment, underemployment, youth employment, employability, however you want to call the issue, that is what comes to mind.
How does a piece of legislation like the Official Languages Act impact something like employment issues in our region? How could changes to the act improve the employment scenario for English speakers in rural Quebec?
Our community faces several obstacles to gainful employment in the private sector due to the ways Bill 101 is interpreted and/or applied, as well as discrimination related to how accents are received.
Aside from federal public service opportunities, how would a modern Official Languages Act address barriers to employment for rural Quebec’s English speakers?
When measuring community vitality, a modern Official Languages Act should offer incentives to employers in Quebec who recognize the benefits of having a multilingual workforce with French first, of course, and who create opportunities that include and value Quebec’s English speakers.
Further to the issue of employment, federal institutions should lead by example and employ adequate numbers of minority language Canadians. Minority language Canadians are largely absent from the federal workforce in the regions. English speakers are chronically under-represented in federal positions outside of the National Capital Region. Extending language rights under the act to federally regulated workers in businesses across Canada as, mentioned by our colleagues at the QCGN, providing a right to work and a right to service in the minority language from federally regulated businesses and institutions benefits both of Canada’s official language minority communities.
The act must address the Internet and minority language populations more closely if it wants a truly modern act. While technology may very well displace geography in many ways, it has also proven to further marginalize the already marginalized.
Part V of the act could provide civil servants with the right to use either official language in their place of work, remote or in an office, as well as the right to learn a second language. As the standard for operations become increasingly digital and citizen interactions with the federal public service are driven to websites, we must not and cannot dismiss rural communities where the technologies required to conduct affairs online are inadequate, nor can we deny aging populations whose first reflex is not to do business digitally.
Part III of the act already provides several obligations for federal courts and tribunals. Current obligations regarding the administration of justice should remain and be enhanced to include the provision that judges of Canada’s Supreme Court be fluently bilingual so they do not need the expertise of an interpreter when receiving individuals in their official language.
When examining access to justice for English speakers in a region like Quebec’s Eastern Townships, Part III of the act could be further supported by a provision under Part VII that encourages and assists provincial governments in guaranteeing that access to justice in one’s official language includes more than just bilingual judges. Support staff with adequate language skills for those bilingual judges is essential.
Part VII of the act needs to be clarified: its definitions, its application, and the Minister of Heritage’s authority to implement its commitments. A modern act must clearly define what it means by “positive measures,”“enhancing the vitality,” and “assisting in the development of,” regarding official language minority communities.
Official language minority communities hold the expertise required to understand the most effective investments of federal monies to respond to their specific needs. A modern act should make space for official language minority communities to identify and develop federal investment priorities and support a direct contribution model that enhances OLMC networks and develops their capacity.
There must be transparency around federal investments from provincial and territorial government recipients. There must also be a more focused role for the Commissioner of Official Languages, along with an established mechanism that has the power to sanction transgressions against the act.
Finally, it is our sincere hope the equality of English and French in Canada comes through a modern Official Languages Act. The act must not be written in such a way that differentiates the approach for either language. There cannot be a separate status for English and French minority language speakers.
The English-speaking community in Quebec needs to be properly equipped by the act in order to participate in national-, regional- and municipal-level discussions. This means adequate resources for consultations, a formal mechanism for consultations at the national level and inclusion that is proportionate to the number of English speakers in Quebec.
Thank you once again for your time here today. I look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
It will be my pleasure to answer your questions in French, if you wish.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Hunting.
[English]
Linton Garner, Executive Director, Regional Association of West Quebecers: Thank you, honourable senators, for allowing us to be here today. I represent the Regional Association of West Quebecers.
It is a community organization that has been serving the English-speaking community in the Outaouais region since 1994. Our organization provides a variety of services to the community, including but not exclusive to: information and referral, a new resident program, employability programs, French second-language training, cultural activities and communications services, as well as representation on issues involving municipal, provincial and federal authorities.
Our community has grown considerably since the first settlers were brought here by Philemon Wright in 1800. Our community has 70,880 members and represents about 18.7 of per cent of the Outaouais region’s population. Our numbers vary in strength from around 35 per cent in the city of Aylmer to 60 per cent in the Pontiac, a rural area, which remains as one of the few census divisions where the official-language minority represents a local majority. The English-speaking community has grown between 1996 and 2016 by 32 per cent, which is a higher rate than for the francophones in the region, which is around 22 per cent, and of anglophones across Quebec, which is around 19 per cent. The Outaouais is now home to the fourth-largest English-speaking community in Quebec after Montreal, Laval and the Montérégie. Immigrants represent about 26 per cent of the English-speaking community in the region, of which 53 per cent are visible minorities.
The community perspective on the Official Languages Act is that it is good on paper but doesn’t substantively affect our daily lives. The perception of the legislation by Monsieur et Madame Tout le Monde in our communities is it is created to give access for francophones to the civil service. Most of the community doesn’t even know it exists or what it is supposed to accomplish. In fact, when it comes to language issues, the English-speaking community in Quebec feels abandoned by the federal government in many cases.
The average member of our community does not feel protected by the act, nor do they feel the legislation protects our institutions, culture, language or community vitality. The community sees a continual decline in enrolment in English schools, increased difficulty in accessing health and social services in our language and a total lack of concern on the part of the municipal authorities about rendering service to the English population in their language. As such, the people in our community are wondering just where the Canadian government is when it comes to the concerns of English linguistic minorities in Quebec.
The perception of the community is that the equality of the status of English and French is only in the text and not in its implementation. Our members feel that many years of consultation with the commission have resulted in very few meaningful changes or advances for our community on language issues. Our community organization feels the consultation process is merely used by the government to create the false impression the number of groups that it meets is commensurate to its commitment to the English linguistic minority in Quebec. In fact, the unfortunate incident that occurred in Sherbrooke, when the Prime Minister refused to respond in English to questions posed to him in English, or when some of our local MPs won’t address their constituents in English at public forums only serves to underscore the lack of confidence the community has in the act and bely the meaning of the words outlined in its principal tenets.
To that end, we wholeheartedly support the Quebec Community Groups Network calling upon the Government of Canada, in its review of the Official Languages Act, to effect the following changes to the existing legislation: As in the current act, the central guiding principle must be the equality of status of English and French. There can be no separate status or approach for each language. Further, the act must categorically guarantee this equality of status in all institutions subject to the act across Canada.
There are two additional key factors. The first is substantive inequality. In its implementation, the act must enable adaptation to the specific contexts and needs of the different official-language minority communities.
Second is capacity, consultation and representation. The act should provide for robust, mandatory and properly resourced consultation at all levels, including a formal mechanism for a consultation at the national level.
Our community in the Outaouais is unique in Quebec and Canada in that the francophone community is one of the most bilingual of official language majorities in the country, which could have important implications for the vitality of the English-speaking community in our region. However, a paper prepared for us by a senior researcher for the Official Languages Branch of Canadian Heritage stated:
Further analysis may show some important differences between the urban and rural English-speaking populations, which would indicate that differential development strategies are required to support community vitality in the region. In a major study of the Department of Canadian Heritage, which considered more than 150 statistical and institutional measures of official language minority communities across the country, the English speakers of the Outaouais region showed high or very high vitality, ranking in the highest quintile for most composite indicators.
The dimension that differs importantly from these generally healthy observations was that in the socio-economic sphere, where the English speakers in the Outaouais region displayed very low socio-economic vitality when compared to other official language minorities across the country, ranking in the lowest quintile.
We also support the QCGN’s call for the following measures to be included in the legislation to enhance the vitality of minority language communities: Include clear definitions of positive measures enhancing the vitality and assisting in the development of official-language minority communities. Provide clearer lines of accountability for the obligations set out in Part IV. Require regulations to implement Part VII. Place strict transparency mechanisms in the act to account for official-language investments. Create official-language obligations attached to all activities funded by federal resources, and require all federal-provincial-territorial agreements be made in both official languages and be equally authoritative.
The 2016 census data demonstrated the English-speaking community is faring less well than its French-speaking counterparts outside of Quebec and has a lower median income than the francophone majority, which is unique in Canada aside from New Brunswick. A recent study done by the Association for Canadian Studies noted that English speakers faced greater barriers to employment, as francophones were 60 per cent more likely to be called for interviews than those with anglophone-sounding names. Allophones and visible minorities, many of whose first official language learned is English, fared even less well, as their unemployment rate hovers under 13 per cent, compared to 5 per cent for francophones and 7.5 per cent for the English-speaking community.
Clearly, different, adaptive and positive measures must be inscribed in the act to address these inequalities, particularly when it comes to the employment in the federal service. Our community has made tremendous strides in acquiring French-language skills over the last 40 years since Bill 101. Now, 72 per cent of our community is functionally bilingual and over 85 per cent of those under 54 years of age can converse quite nicely in French. Despite this fact, the employment rate of our community in federal agencies and federally managed enterprises remains lower than it should be, given the capacity of the community to serve the majority in their language. Bilingual anglophones fare less well than their bilingual counterparts in other territories of the country as well.
In closing, I would like to point out that I know you’ve heard from the CHSSN. We like the CHSSN model, where the resources are controlled by the community and the community is involved in developing services offered by the institutions to our community. We believe Parts IV through VII cannot be viewed or implemented in silos. They are all inextricably connected to the protection of our minority linguistic rights and the continued vitality of our culture and our communities.
We firmly believe the act requires an oversight mechanism, like a national advisory committee, accompanied by a tribunal, perhaps situated in the Privy Council, with the power to implement sanctions. We also believe consultation with linguistic minorities should be a mandatory, clearly defined process, accompanied by appropriate financial resources to increase their respective capacities to interact and collaborate with the federal government on all elements of the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
I can answer your questions in French.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Garner and Ms. Hunting. We will now proceed to our question period.
[English]
Senator Poirier: Thank you both for the presentation. Ms. Hunting, to go back, I want to clarify a couple of items you talked about.
I know you talked about the number of English-speaking people in Quebec, the population and the different age groups. Then you went on to talk about how unemployment was higher in the English sector and also the rate of people earning over $50,000 a year as salary was a lot less in the anglophone than in the francophone community.
Then you also talked about the federal government having a role to play, if I understood right, beyond just the federal institution of working in bilingualism. I understood you were thinking the Official Languages Act and the federal government should have more implication in the employment status of the private sector. Is that where you were going?
Ms. Hunting: Federally regulated businesses and institutions.
Senator Poirier: I was wondering how you saw in the act we could do it in the private sector if they were not a federal institution. That’s why I was questioning that. Okay. I understood that.
Both of you mentioned, and we talked about, positive measures. We heard that from other witnesses who say we should better define “positive measures” in the act. Could you give us some examples, in your opinion, of what these positive measures should be that would help you as anglophones in a province like Quebec or across the country?
Mr. Garner: Thank you for that question. If we look at what has happened with the CHSSN and their model where the federal government is providing funding through Health Canada to help instruct or help employees within the health and social services system to access English second-language training. This is one of the ways the institutions can respond to the needs of the community right before them, putting together a positive measure like that and being able to afford institutions the resources to train people in the language of the communities they serve. This would improve access to services at the federal and other levels within the province of Quebec.
Senator Poirier: Do you feel the francophones have more access to learning the anglophone language in your province than the anglophones have of learning the francophone language? Do you feel there are more resources?
Mr. Garner: Just recently, the Regional Association of West Quebecers started a French second language training course. There’s been a long-standing complaint that anglophones, if you are not an immigrant, did not have access to affordable French second-language training. Immigrants get it but anglophones would have to pay for it.
We’ve organized those courses, and within the first week we had 150 applicants. We had to open up secondary courses. For the fall, we have over 500 people registered to be in the course.
Ms. Hunting: We recently received funding for a pilot program through the provincial government’s new Secrétariat aux relations avec les Québécois d’expression anglaise to develop a French immersion program for recent graduates of English educational institutions with a health care profile. It’s been brought to our attention by the public health partner that those graduates are not staying and working in the system in the region because their linguistic capacity in their second language is not judged to be at par with their francophone counterparts.
The program is working on developing terminology, mentorship — being able to provide anglophones with the same kind of spaces we provide francophones who are interested in learning the second language.
Senator Poirier: New Brunswick is the only official bilingual province. I was there when we did the revision of the law. It was every 10 years we should be revising the Official Languages Act. I’d like to hear your thoughts. Is that something we should be putting in, that the revision of the act be at least every five or 10 years instead of going along for a period of time like we did last time?
The other thing we heard from different witnesses is some say they prefer the act be implemented by the Treasury Board. Do you agree with that proposal or both proposals?
Ms. Hunting: I can’t speak to the Treasury Board question as confidently. I’ll start with the first question around time limits.
The evaluation of any piece of legislation, but one that could have such a significant impact on so many different communities across Canada, is primordial. It needs to be revised. Even if there aren’t significant changes made every 10 years or so, just that it’s looked at. Is this current? Is this up-to-date? Does this reflect the world that we live in and the objectives that Canada has as a country moving forward?
Senator Poirier: Would you say five or 10?
Ms. Hunting: I would say 10. Five is difficult because it’s not a substantive amount of time given what goes into the kinds of consultations and exercises that happen around an evaluation. I think maybe a 10-year timeline would be more effective.
Mr. Garner: I’m in agreement as well, 10 years. I think five years puts too much pressure on the system to change and evolve. We know that evolution of things don’t happen as quickly as we’d like. They don’t happen in real life as quickly as they do on paper.
As for the Treasury Board, all these people want to ensure there are adequate resources behind the legislation to be able to implement it. Since the Treasury Board reaches into all aspects of the government in terms of allocations of budget, it would have the means to attach riders to budgets around their performances on official languages. That might be very useful, that it would be more enabling of ministries to respond in a more adequate way.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentations. I note that you represent two Quebec regions — the Outaouais and the Eastern Townships. It would have been nice to hear from Voice of English-speaking Quebec, as they would tell us more about Quebec City and the Chaudière-Appalaches regions.
It seems to me, Ms. Hunting, you’ve addressed the issue of the Commissioner of Official Languages. As I understand it, the powers of the commissioner should be broadened, increased. Have you or Mr. Garner had an opportunity to meet with the commissioner?
Ms. Hunting: I have not personally had an opportunity to meet with the new commissioner yet. We have met, in the past, with previous commissioners of official languages.
Senator McIntyre: From your presentation I understand the act should allow legal recourse for all of its parts. Could you elaborate further?
Ms. Hunting: I think it speaks to a notion that Linton brought up in his presentation that for Monsieur et Madame Tout le Monde, the act doesn’t necessarily pack a meaningful punch. It’s not a piece of legislation understood as actively safeguarding language rights for English speakers in Quebec. Often the results of investigations or complaints that have been lodged, there are a number of recommendations but there is very little follow-up and real-time impact for the community members affected by those particular incidents.
In that regard, for the act to have a bit more teeth behind it in terms of being able to act on some of those recommendations with a little bit more force would be helpful.
Mr. Garner: I’m in agreement. The official language community isn’t very visible or have a great presence in the province. As I know from my days on working on civil rights issues, justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done.
That’s the important’s aspect of the Official Languages Act. The community doesn’t see remedies being afforded to the community by the legislation. Therefore, most people don’t know it’s there. Most people are seemingly disappointed in the role the federal government plays in linguistic matters.
We have been looking for greater leadership in those areas. We thought the Official Languages Act would do that. It hasn’t lived up to what our expectations are in that area.
We are looking in terms of the revision that there would be more presence, more visibility and more action on the part of Official Languages Act to remedy linguistic situations the community is complaining about.
Senator McIntyre: On May 28 the Quebec Community Groups Network appeared before this committee and submitted a brief. I’m sure you’re aware of this brief. I further understand many of the proposals in the brief reflect the ideas of francophone organizations regarding modernization of the act.
Do you support their recommendations?
Ms. Hunting: Yes, we do endorse their recommendations.
Mr. Garner: We do too, and as well we also as regional associations have long supported the actions of francophones outside of Quebec. We understand we’re in the same boat. What we understand as difficulties in terms of serving our population in the language we desire also impacts the francophone community outside of Quebec.
Ms. Hunting: Further to that, a lot of time in Quebec decisions made in regard to official languages minority communities outside of Quebec, they stand to impact the communities in Quebec because our policymakers, our leadership in the province is waiting to see what those results are and how they can then interpret and apply the act in Quebec regarding English speakers. The decisions made regarding francophone communities in minority language situations are very important to the English-speaking communities in Quebec as well.
Senator McIntyre: What is interesting about QCGN is they are looking for a clearer definition of the concepts contained in Part VII; for example, positive measures, vitality development and so on.
Mr. Garner: Those are important because in many cases, for instance, from Heritage Canada, our funding in many cases is based upon our explaining some of those very issues, particularly around community vitality. At times we have difficulty in convincing some other government bodies how important the measurements of community vitality are to our sustenance. It would be helpful, should there be other bodies also interested in addressing and defining what those elements mean.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Welcome. I am pleased to receive you here this evening. I am a Franco-Manitoban, and I have had the opportunity of meeting many representatives from communities from the four corners of Canada, either through this committee or on other occasions and in other circumstances.
One of the things we have heard, and which I heard personally, is that it is important to ensure that the Official Languages Act is sufficiently flexible to really meet the needs of official language minority communities in various regions of Canada. Recognizing the needs of the anglophone community in Quebec is one thing, but meeting the needs of a community in British Columbia, Manitoba or New Brunswick is something else. What are your thoughts about that? Is applying the law in a way that would take the particular circumstances of each community or region into account something that can be considered?
Ms. Hunting: I think so.
[English]
It can happen.
[Translation]
However, these are methods and mechanisms. I don’t think anyone around the table is advocating a uniform approach. We are aware that there is a risk that such a solution would not be suitable for one community or another. I think what is essential is that we develop a mechanism whose expertise comes from these communities, and that modalities be put in place so that the leaders of minority linguistic communities throughout Canada have the opportunity to express their needs, but also to propose solutions.
We are often asked, “What are your needs, what is happening in your area?” However, we also have a lot of solutions to offer, and we are the experts when it comes to knowing how we can get organized and work with the majority communities to find a way of serving a minority anglophone community, in my case, but also francophone communities. In my opinion, what happens is that people think that English-speaking Quebecers have access to English in Quebec.
[English]
The language of English in the world is accessible to English-speaking Quebecers.
[Translation]
However, that is not our culture. The public English-language culture we have access to is not the culture of Anglo-Quebecers, it is the American culture, the Ontario culture, the culture of anyone aside from Quebec anglophones.
It is from that perspective that it would be important to include modalities in the law to offer support to those communities, so that we have a better understanding of what those people experience, because their experience is not comparable to that of the French-speaking community of Campbell River, or the island of Vancouver. Those communities will have a completely different experience of access to their culture and their language. I think it is important to include ways of recognizing differences between those experiences.
Senator Gagné: Thank you. You also mentioned the importance of forming a partnership between federal institutions and the communities. Could the type of mechanism you mentioned be integrated into the law?
Ms. Hunting: Yes.
Mr. Garner: Yes. For instance, as Ms. Hunting mentioned, the expertise is in the community. If we can create partnerships with the institutions, we can work together to deliver the merchandise. Up till now, the institutions may have been afraid to lose control if they opened their doors to us and allowed us to plan with them ways in which to meet our needs. I think that fear is felt by many of the institutions, in several areas. They do not recognize that the best way to help them deliver the merchandise — what they wish to have to accomplish their mission in a more satisfying way — is to co-operate with us, the program recipients, in order to boost their success.
Senator Gagné: So, this is comparable to the “by and for the communities” concept that was put forward by several organizations, including the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, if I may interpret your words.
Mr. Garner: Yes, certainly.
Ms. Hunting: That is correct, because the solutions brought forward “by and for the communities” are not imposed by one institution on another. That is what works best. If we create a group, if we feel involved in developing solutions, both on the institutional and the community side, it is a better winning formula, I think.
Senator Gagné: You also mentioned that the consultation aspect needs to be strengthened in the modernization of the act. Here as well, for this type of modality and for the groups, there has to be consultation. Do you think that Quebec’s anglophone community was sufficiently consulted in the development of the action plan?
Mr. Garner: No, because for some time, we have been wondering what would happen with the modernization of the act. We heard very little about it. We were not really involved in discussions as to the criteria to be included in the project.
I also think that for the communities, there was a certain inequality with regard to the representatives who could be present around the table. In our organization, for instance, I represent 50 per cent of the workforce of our association. The institutions we work with send a minimum number of their personnel to do the planning.
We aren’t given enough resources to hold discussions and create a plan, because it would take time. We cannot in a single day plan the organization of service delivery to a community. This would take long negotiations. If 50 per cent of our staff needed to be present at each planning session, it would be cumbersome and painful for our organizations. What we would like is to ensure that the communities are supported well enough to be able to participate in consultations.
Senator Gagné: I understand, thank you.
Senator Maltais: Mr. Garner, your brief was unequivocal, and you delivered it in a firm and determined voice. How many associations belong to your organization?
Mr. Garner: We are a part of the Quebec Community Groups Network, which has 53 member organizations.
Senator Maltais: So, 53 organizations from west Quebec?
Mr. Garner: No, from all of Quebec. Our association has a partnership with six or seven different organizations that serve the English-speaking population of the region.
Senator Maltais: How many anglophones are there in west Quebec?
Mr. Garner: Approximately 70,880.
Senator Maltais: So, about 71,000, if you round it off.
Mr. Garner: Yes.
Senator Maltais: You said that 28 per cent of them are unilingual.
Mr. Garner: No. The unilingual population is located in rural rather than urban areas, such as Gatineau, which includes Aylmer, Hull and Gatineau, but also in the Pontiac, where the majority of the population is English-speaking. They are used to getting along and integrating into the francophone population. That is why the demand for the French language courses we organized is so high. People want to integrate further.
Senator Maltais: Regarding these courses, anglophone schoolboards receive the same funding per student as francophone boards. Are your school boards too inept or too wasteful to free up funding to open immersion schools, as do some francophone school boards, using their own financial envelope? How is it that that is not being done by the anglophones in your area?
Mr. Garner: I can’t speak to the intention of the school boards. They are in the best position to know their needs. Yes, those school boards do organize some courses, but they are expensive.
Senator Maltais: For the school board, not the individual.
Mr. Garner: No, for the individual, because they are adult education courses. We aren’t talking about students. The students have good French programs in their curriculums. According to the statistics, 85 per cent of those between 15 and 54 are now bilingual. That is due to the good work the Quebec school boards have done in this area over the past 40 years.
Senator Maltais: Do you take advantage of the linguistic component in the Ministry of Labour labour force training programs?
Mr. Garner: As it happens, a few months ago we had talks with Mr. Blais, the Minister of Employment of Quebec, about the fact that the members of the English-speaking community are anxious to have more access to training to help them find jobs. We want to retain our population. If we have the tools to do so, we will have better success.
Senator Maltais: I wasn’t talking about internal Ministry of Labour programs, or labour force training components. I didn’t refer to the language component, because there is a language component within the department which you can avail yourself of and which is free, as it is funded by the entire population of Quebec.
Mr. Garner: Yes, there are French courses offered to those people also, but the English-speaking community is not in the habit of signing up for that type of course. Our concern was more focused on post-secondary education. We are now trying to do better to help young people understand that there are opportunities in that area that would allow them to create a place for themselves.
Senator Maltais: There are linguistic components within the provincial ministries; it depends on how you want to use them.
At the beginning of your presentation, you said something that stood my hair on end regarding French as a second language. Mr. Garner, in Canada, there is no second language; there are two official languages. This is what I advocate from Vancouver to St. John’s. If you talk about French, you talk about the French language; if you talk about English, you are talking about the English language, and one does not supersede the other. So, there are two official languages.
Mr. Garner: Certainly, but the terminology that is used in second language learning is the expression “second language,” whether you are talking about English or French. We are planning English as a second language classes for the francophones in the regions who would like to take some. There is no insult behind those words.
Senator Maltais: You won’t make me swallow that. We can agree on this: there are two official languages in Canada. There is the French language, and the English language; there is no second language.
Ms. Hunting, you spoke about culture, and that intrigued me somewhat. It is true that the Eastern Townships are close the American border. You have access to English-language television, and radio. Is the CBC present there?
Ms. Hunting: CBC Quebec provides programming in the Eastern Townships. CBC Montreal does not reach us, and there is no regional CBC.
Senator Maltais: CBC Montreal does not provide service to you. Why not?
Ms. Hunting: I couldn’t tell you, but our affiliated network is Quebec.
Senator Maltais: God protect you! CBC Montreal is like Radio-Canada Montreal, it’s the Plateau. Continue with CBC Quebec.
Ms. Hunting: The community loves CBC Quebec, and it often speaks to us about access to community radio and CBC in English. If you could do something to bring back “The Farm Report,” that would make a lot of people happy throughout the province. It has not been on the air for years, but it was a type of lifeline for the farmers. It’s been off the air for at least six years.
Senator Maltais: What about local newspapers?
Ms. Hunting: Local newspapers need support, they need to survive and their needs are great. It’s very difficult in the region, for papers like The Record in Sherbrooke, for instance.
[English]
It’s the last daily English newspaper in Quebec.
[Translation]
It is plagued by all the same problems as the French-language newspapers and dailies. People no longer want to buy newspapers, they want online access. It’s very difficult for them to attract funding.
Senator Maltais: Through advertising.
Ms. Hunting: Yes, exactly.
In our region, we have an urban area with Sherbrooke, Magog and a large part of the Townships, but the area is also very rural. In the rural area, there is a shortage of access to high-speed Internet. Sometimes, you need a USB satellite key if you want to connect, in places like West Bolton, for instance. People don’t have access to digital content. The newspaper The Record is delivered every morning. It is in jeopardy because it can’t meet all the needs.
Senator Maltais: Have business people thought of consolidating local newspapers? In the regions, local newspapers are still profitable in Quebec. Le Soleil and La Presse have been living from public charity for a long time. Le Devoir is on newspaper welfare. In the regions, people still prefer the brief eight-page publication because it talks about them.
Ms. Hunting: Precisely. What’s essential about those newspapers is that they present local news. It’s the only way of getting news from your area about what is happening in the schools, the churches, the retirement homes, the community centres, et cetera. It’s very important to those communities to find ways to ensure the survival of those newspapers.
Senator Maltais: I think that consolidation is the way those newspapers will survive, while trying to keep the clientele that reads the newspapers. The challenge is the same for francophones. The tablet is all well and good, but not everyone uses one.
Ms. Hunting: Especially in our region, where there are a lot of elderly people. They don’t use a tablet to read the papers.
Senator Maltais: What about community radio?
Ms. Hunting: It is present in the Eastern Townships. There are two community radios that serve the anglophone community, CIDI, which is based in Knowlton, and CJMQ, which is based in Lennoxville. They do what they can. Their situation isn’t as dire as that of the newspapers, but they are also declining.
Senator Maltais: Are there still summer theaters?
Ms. Hunting: Yes.
Senator Smith: What is your most pressing need?
[English]
What is your most important need to be addressed immediately? We have heard so much feedback from the various groups. What is your number one need?
Ms. Hunting: Employability, support and measures for English speakers, especially in rural Quebec.
Senator Smith: What will it take to fix that or make it better?
Ms. Hunting: We have pages and pages of solutions we can send you.
Senator Smith: If you had a magic wand to make it happen, what would it be?
Ms. Hunting: It needs a concerted effort on the part of several departments to make an inclusive space for English-speaking Quebecers in the employment sector in the province of Quebec.
There needs to be a fundamental understanding that including an English-speaking worker in your work environment will not affect, denigrate or disrupt the fact that French is the language of the workforce.
There is a not a single organization we work or partner with that would ever promote English over French as a language of business in Quebec. There needs to be a space for those English speakers to develop the terminology, to develop their confidence, and to be able to practise their French language in an environment that accepts and values them. That’s really what is missing.
Senator Smith: A change of attitude?
Ms. Hunting: Yes, a change in attitude, but it’s a little bit more than that. It’s a clear understanding that francophones are the clear dominant majority in the province of Quebec, that their institutions are our institutions, that we are all the Québécois. That the opportunities to be successful and vital for our communities don’t exist in silos. They exist, but through integration measures, understanding and the creation of those spaces.
Senator Smith: What would be the simple requirement for the anglophone looking for that opportunity, from a language perspective?
Ms. Hunting: I don’t think there is a simple requirement. Definitely being afforded the opportunity to improve their French-language skills in an affordable way and a way that works for their specific field would be a really great place to start.
Senator Smith: Mr. Garner.
Mr. Garner: I’m in complete agreement. I think employability is the factor. Every community wants to be fully integrated and able to make their home. They need economic opportunity to be able to do that. The English-speaking community has demonstrated by not leaving Quebec over the last 40 years it is trying to do just that.
Our bilingual rates have gone up from under 50 per cent to over 80 per cent in our communities. Our schools have been committed with the immersion classes that started back in the sixties. We have 12 per cent of eligible English-language students going to French-language schools. We see in the response to our French courses a desire even for older people to be able to integrate, work and stay in this community.
Senator Smith: Who will make it happen?
Mr. Garner: It has to be a collaboration between all levels of government: municipal, provincial and federal. We see at the municipal level people having great difficulty understanding what is going on in their own towns because the language of the city council is only in French. You can’t get materials like tax information or those kinds of things in English. That has to happen there.
Senator Smith: What are you doing to mobilize the business community to help you in your efforts?
Mr. Garner: We look at what is in it for them. We tell them, “If you are opening your business to English-language workers, you are going to attract more business from the English-speaking community. If you participate with the community in their schools, come in and talk about your industries, give scholarships and so on, it will develop your capacity to be successful economically.”
If that demonstrates to the cities that the community is taking an active part in the development of the economy, then that opens greater doors.
We recently had our mayor of Gatineau support our effort to get our French-language courses because of the fact we have been demonstrating we want to be part of society and not apart. We are not demanding things only be in English and that it only serves the English-speaking community. We understand the realities of the French-speaking community and of Quebec, and we join that. We have done so over a long period of time, and we have not gotten the recognition for that.
That’s one of the bigger things the community needs and wants, to have people understand we have done our part to be more integrated into the community. We have not resisted. We have been encouraging our young people to learn French so they will stay here in the province. Who wants to see their children and grandchildren go off somewhere else because they can’t find jobs here?
The important thing is we need to have all those sectors working together to say we have a situation where our communities don’t feel included, there is not an inclusive approach to this issue, and we need all levels of government to work together to realize that with the communities.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: If we were to create an administrative tribunal responsible for examining breaches of the federal act which would have a more specific effect on official languages, what use would you make of such a tribunal? You may answer in English.
Mr. Garner: First, I’d like to go back to our history.
We created employment accessibility programs. They included contracts that were granted by various levels of government. Those contracts contain employment requirements that offer more opportunities to minorities and mean, for instance, that more women will be able to join the labour force.
We can still use this type of measure without being penalized for not complying with the act. The idea is to encourage employers to participate fully in federal government policies. It is also intended to recognize the contribution of each linguistic group.
Senator Mégie: Thank you for your presentations. I must admit that I was surprised by some statistics. I arrived in Quebec a long time ago, and I often hear people say things like, “If I spoke English, I could have found a job. Those who speak English find jobs more easily.”
When you spoke about employability, your statements were the opposite of what I hear. Does employability differ in the large cities and rural regions? What would you answer to someone who said that?
Ms. Hunting: I would say that there is a combination of opportunities in large cities as compared to rural areas. That is also the perception of the Quebec anglophone, who feels the language he speaks affects his job prospects. If I submit my CV, with my very anglophone name, Rachel Hunting, at this time, there are still employers who will put it aside, even if it is written in very good French. Also, when I am granted an interview, if I speak with a Quebec accent, there is a good chance that everything will go well. However, if I speak French with a very different, very anglophone accent —
[English]
— there are assumptions made about your linguistic capacity based on how you sound when you speak the other language.
[Translation]
That is why our community is often excluded from these employment opportunities and why, in my region, there are people with a high level of education who earn less and eventually leave. The fact that they speak English is not considered an asset, whereas elsewhere in Canada being able to speak French, even with an English accent, is an asset anywhere, but not in Quebec. So it’s very particular.
Senator Mégie: I am not convinced. We aren’t going to agree on that.
Mr. Garner: Some statistics have shown that bilingual people in linguistic minorities outside Quebec succeed better than bilingual people in linguistic minority communities in Quebec.
People always wonder whether an anglophone will be able to live in a francophone environment. Before I found my current job in the Outaouais, I lived in Montreal for 53 years, and I had a series of interviews in east Montreal. Every time, I was asked, “How are you going to manage in a francophone environment? Will you feel comfortable?” Finally, even if we had a good conversation and even if people liked my skills and my personality, I was not hired, because they doubted that I could function in a francophone milieu.
Ms. Hunting: It’s not just about taking French or English courses. There is also the immersion aspect and the cultural aspect. For our project, it’s a matter of mentorship, the ability to establish these links and relationships, so that people will be comfortable in the other culture or environment.
Senator Mégie: That’s interesting. Thank you.
The Chair: On those words, Ms. Hunting and Mr. Garner, we thank you.
[English]
Thank you very much for your presentations. You gave us some great information for our report.
[Translation]
Colleagues, we are going to continue the meeting in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)