THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, May 8, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 5 p.m. [ET] to study matters relating to minority-language health services; and, in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Before we begin the meeting and hear witnesses, I would like to invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion, senator from Ontario.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné, senator from Manitoba.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Thank you all.
I wish to welcome you, colleagues, and viewers across the country who may be watching.
I want to remind you that the lands on which we are holding this meeting here in Ottawa are part of the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Tonight we are continuing our study on minority‑language health services.
For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome in person Fabien Hébert, President, and Peter Hominuk, Executive Director of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario.
By video conference, we welcome Lily Crist, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique.
Good evening, lady and gentlemen, and welcome to the committee. We are ready to hear your opening statements. We will begin with Mr. Hébert and Mr. Hominuk.
There will be a question and answer period with the senators afterward.
The floor is yours, gentlemen.
Fabien Hébert, President, Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Honourable senators, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the most important challenges facing our Franco-Ontarian community in the area of health and long-term care.
I am Fabien Hébert, President of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, and I am accompanied by Peter Hominuk, our Executive Director.
I am pleased to see that the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is addressing key themes such as access, human resources, digital services and conclusive data in its study. These issues are of great concern to our community.
We have recently provided recommendations to the Ontario government in two submissions to the committee. These recommendations are designed to specifically address these concerns.
Our most recent survey on the priorities of the Franco-Ontarian community revealed that more than one in two francophones in Ontario considered increasing access to French language health care and long-term care to be a priority.
We believe that one of the reasons Ontario francophones make French-language health and long-term care their top priority is that our community is aging.
Like the 2016 census, the latest census shows that the Franco-Ontarian community remains four years older than the provincial average. In Ontario, more than one out of two francophones is over the age of 45. This is a big challenge, especially in northern and eastern Ontario.
In south central Ontario, the francophone population remains older than the regional average, but is still within the provincial average. This youthfulness in the central southwest, especially in Toronto, is in large part explained by francophone immigration.
We believe that increasing access to French-language health care requires an increased effort in designating organizations covered by the French Language Services Act of Ontario, as well as an alignment of our francophone lenses with the health care system, which is currently undergoing transformation.
It is also important to ensure greater accountability and better data collection to measure the effectiveness of our efforts.
However, one of the biggest challenges for our community is the shortage of francophone and bilingual workers. Without a sufficient workforce, the future of our French-language services is in jeopardy, both on the government and private sides and in non-profit organizations.
At the end of last year, more than 2,500 designated bilingual health and long-term care positions remained unfilled due to a lack of applicants. This is a huge number for our health care system. This problem is not limited to health care, but exists in all other sectors, including education.
Recognizing credentials, encouraging francophone immigration and investing in a full continuum of education are essential to addressing this shortage.
We regularly talk about the recognition of immigrant credentials, but we also need to talk about the credentials earned by our Canadian academics abroad. These degrees also do not allow them to practise in their region.
AFO is currently undertaking a study on the francophone and bilingual labour shortage and plans to present recommendations next fall.
In terms of access to health care and long-term care in Ontario, we see many regional inequities.
To give you an example, access to this care is provided in five hospitals governed by and for francophones, 21 hospitals designated under the French Language Services Act and 45 other hospitals that are identified. There are also 11 community health centres designated under the act and another 10 that have been identified.
However, Ontario is also a province where many areas designated under the French Language Services Act do not have a health or long-term care provider designated under the act.
Before concluding, I would like to mention that the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario will be watching the implementation of the Canada-Ontario Health Accord. It is important that the Franco-Ontarian community be an integral part of the implementation of this agreement, as it should be in all such agreements between the federal and provincial governments.
I would like to thank the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages for inviting me to speak to you today. I hope that my testimony will help to shed light on the challenges our community faces in health and long-term care. I thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hébert. I would like to invite Ms. Lily Crist, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, to make her opening remarks. We will then have a question and answer period.
Lily Crist, Chair of the Board of Directors, Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique: Honourable senators, thank you for taking the time to listen to me. Here is what I have to share with you.
In British Columbia, we are finding that there are not enough francophone health professionals; there is a shortage of workers. There is a great deal of difficulty in having degrees obtained outside the province recognized. When recognition of diplomas is possible, exams must be written in English, even though francophone practitioners will not practice in English. They have difficulty with these tests that are only offered in English.
In 2018, our community organization, RésoSanté, which is involved in promoting health care in British Columbia, conducted a study on the health of francophone immigrants. It found that the vast majority of francophone immigrants are in excellent health before they arrive — often in better health than the B.C. population. However, after their arrival, this deteriorates over time. The study found that five years after arrival, their health status is poorer than that of the general population. This is attributed to the difficulty of accessing health care and the differences in the system with their country of origin.
In fact, there are barriers to accessing care, such as a lack of health care personnel and a lack of understanding of the system, which means that when you don’t fully understand the system, you are sometimes reluctant to seek care or you can’t find adequate care.
Our community has been thinking about how to address this. Health services in British Columbia are a provincial responsibility. It is the only province in the country that has no language legislation. We therefore have very little room for manœuvre and everything depends on the goodwill of the government. We would like the federal government to impose language clauses in health transfers and a clear and precise action plan that takes into account several points.
First of all, access to health care, i.e., a legislative or regulatory framework that would impose the presence of francophone or bilingual clinics and accessibility through telemedicine. We would also like to focus on increased mental health care, palliative care for people with cognitive loss, care during intense stress or serious illness that causes loss of control of a learned language, and above all, the recognition of diplomas obtained outside of British Columbia, so that health professionals can work and we can facilitate access to the offer of care to francophones in our province.
There is quite a major opioid crisis in British Columbia. In this regard, RésoSanté Colombie-Britannique has also called for certain things, such as the identification of francophone health professionals, the recruitment and retention of francophone professionals, the recognition of diplomas, but also an increase in active offer. Collaboration should also be developed between the various provincial players in the health care system. These are all possible solutions.
Obviously, since I also worked in health care, more specifically in support, I will be able to answer your questions specifically. I thank you for your time.
The Chair: I thank our witnesses for their opening remarks.
I would like to ask the members of the committee who are in the room to refrain from leaning too close to their microphones or removing their earpieces when they do so. This will prevent any feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
We’re ready to move on to the question period.
Senator Moncion: My question is for Ms. Crist and the Interim French Language Services Commissioner for Ontario. I would like to hear from you first, because I know that you are aware of the issues that affect the francophonie in Ontario. Ontario’s French Language Services Strategy is a three-year agreement. One of the objectives of this bill, which received Royal Assent in December 2021, was to increase the francophone and bilingual workforce; it also included health professionals, service planning and delivery, and the provision of digital services in the health sector. What is the status of these projects? Are things progressing or have they stalled?
Mr. Hébert: I was asked this question during the budget consultations. Unfortunately, we did not hear anything about the francophone community in terms of progress. There has been some progress through La Cité, but that is about all I know. I can’t answer your question in more detail.
Senator Moncion: So I will ask the next witness.
My next question is about long-term care facilities. Here in Ottawa, I believe there are two facilities that are designated as offering French services. There may be three, but I know that throughout the province there are not many. There is no guarantee that the spaces are reserved for francophones.
I know that, for example, a few years ago when my father was placed in the Montfort Renaissance Residence, he was very well cared for, but I was told at the time that there was no guarantee that he would be placed in a facility like that. Can you tell me about the efforts that are being made to ensure that the spaces are protected for francophones? Also, you talked about five designated francophone hospital facilities. So I’d like to hear from you about their ability to maintain services for francophones. Or is there no guarantee there either?
Mr. Hébert: To answer your first question, with respect to long-term care facilities, you talked about the guarantee of services. Currently, there is no guarantee of service, let alone since Bill 7 was passed in Ontario, which provides for the rapid transfer of patients between hospitals and long-term care facilities. We have seen beds designated for French-speaking patients quickly filled by English-speaking patients. The long‑term care system is at capacity, so we have to wait for that bed to become available to bring in another French-speaking patient.
A perfect example is Bendale Acres in Toronto. In this long‑term care facility, 37 beds are designated for French-speaking patients, yet 40% of these beds are occupied by English-speaking patients. So it can take years for these beds to be allocated to francophone patients, and it’s the same story across the province. Bill 7 allows the government to transfer patients without considering the language requirements of the institution. So this is a great loss for the francophone community. It is not protection; it is erosion.
Senator Moncion: This seems to be a guideline for the current government in everything that affects services to francophones, because they are also doing other things that are rather hidden. Perhaps I should not say that publicly, but I will say it.
Mr. Hébert: I would like to add that we have made recommendations in the documents that we have sent to you in terms of the tools that the government could use to ensure that resources are maintained for francophone communities.
As for francophone hospitals, their ability to continue to offer services in French is directly related to the availability of francophone resources. There are 2,500 nursing positions that are vacant or that may be filled by unilingual English-speaking nurses. Obviously, this creates an erosion of the availability of French-language services for clients in these institutions.
Even when we find ourselves at the Montfort Hospital or other hospitals, such as the Notre-Dame Hospital in Hearst, the Smooth Rock Falls Hospital and the West Nipissing General Hospital in Sturgeon Falls, which are francophone hospitals, created by and for francophones, with a francophone board of directors and governance, we find ourselves with many nurses who come from private agencies who are unable to work in French or who are not bilingual. We still find ourselves providing health care in English in French-language facilities, to the detriment of quality of care.
One of the sayings I often use is that when you are sick, you are not bilingual. When we are sick, we want to be sick in our own language to be able to express our reality.
Studies show a direct link between language and the outcome of health care services. That is clear.
I don’t know if Mr. Hominuk would like to add a comment.
Peter Hominuk, Executive Director, Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario: Since 2015, the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario has been calling on the Ontario government to capture the language variable on the health card. Since they don’t have this information, it’s hard for the government to make informed decisions. If they don’t know that we are francophone, they don’t know that we want services in French. This remains one of the key tools to be able to offer health services in French. That leads to all the other problems in the system.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: Welcome to the witnesses. It’s always a pleasure to have you at the committee.
I wanted to ask a question about the 2023-28 Action Plan for Official Languages. I want to talk about the last plan and then the future plan.
I wanted to know if the last action plan allowed you to implement innovative health projects in your province.
I would also like to know what the expectations are for the increased funding for French-language health in the 2023-28 Action Plan for Official Languages.
I would first ask Ms. Crist to answer the question. Then I will ask a question of Mr. Hébert and Mr. Hominuk.
The Chair: Ms. Crist, the floor is yours.
Ms. Crist: Thank you very much. You were asking if we had put in place any innovative projects in the last action plan, is that correct?
Senator Gagné: That is correct, yes.
Ms. Crist: I don’t think there have been any innovative projects, other than the survey that was done by our organization RésoSanté Colombie-Britannique. We haven’t had different projects that have amplified or improved access to care for francophones. Disparities in care between francophones and the populations of British Columbia directly impact the health of francophone populations. The lack of access to French-language health care in our province is killing people.
I’m not going to talk about the determinants of health, because we know them well, both culture and language and gender. In our province, at the moment, I know that there is an increase in funding, but until there is an agreement with language clauses, the province is still in a situation where there is no obligation on its part to offer anything more.
For example, we have a site called Immunize BC. This site has been around since before the COVID-19 pandemic, and its purpose is to promote vaccination in populations. When we talk about public health, we often talk about preventive health. This site exists only in English, so parents who want to have their children vaccinated against measles, for example, have access to this information or information on vaccination records in English only.
What’s important to remember is that in our community, in 2018, in three francophone schools in Greater Vancouver, there was a measles outbreak.
We have glaring public health needs that are not being met by the province that directly impact our populations.
I look forward to seeing what the funding increases will bring, but until there are language clauses, I don’t see change on the horizon for our populations. Does that answer the question?
Senator Gagné: Yes, thank you.
Mr. Hébert: In the last action plan, we did not really see an innovative strategy to improve health care.
I don’t know if Mr. Hominuk has anything to add.
Mr. Hominuk: We are looking forward to seeing the government’s announcements on the OLSPs, the Official Languages Support Programs. I assume that this will translate into funds that will be included in the agreements between Canada and Ontario and between Canada and the provinces. These agreements should give us some answers.
We are happy with the agreements in principle that already exist. The principle of equity is included in these agreements.
Official language minority communities are specifically mentioned in relation to this principle. We are anxious to see how this will translate. We hope that we will have better health services in French across the country.
Now that the goal is set, we will follow up to ensure that this happens. Through the Société Santé en français, which has three networks, we want the Ontario government to work with the networks and with the entities that exist to ensure French-language services in all regions, because there are still regions where there are really no French-language services.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Mégie: I was listening to you speak about your requests concerning the language clauses and the agreements between the federal government and the provincial governments.
However, Mr. Hébert, when you talk about the erosion of the number of beds in CHSLDs and the decrease in the number of francophone nurses, do you still believe that language clauses can help? If so, are there specific points that should be added to the agreements to make them effective when it comes time to implement them?
Mr. Hébert: When it comes to immigration and prior learning assessment, Mr. Hominuk and I travelled to the south central region to meet with the communities. We met a young man who was recruited to come to Canada because he was a specialized nurse. He had 10 years of experience in critical care. He has been in Canada for a year and a half. He has not yet been able to set foot in a hospital. His wife, who was a midwife, has not been able to get her credentials recognized.
We really need to work on finding solutions. I am not saying that specific elements of the law will change this, but we need to include measures in our federal and provincial agreements to develop strategies for the recognition of prior learning acquired abroad.
It is the same thing with Canadian students who study abroad, come back to Canada and are not able to find a job in the field in which they studied. There is an acute labour shortage. However, we may not be doing what we should be doing to ease the situation. If we were able to recognize these achievements, it would be a great step forward.
Senator Mégie: If we could find elements to ensure that there are a minimum number of points that must be respected for this to be effective, are there other requirements that should be respected when language clauses are drafted? If we leave them as they are, we will go around in circles and it will be the same thing; people will simply say that they need spots for anglophones, so they will take the beds of francophones and that is fine. Is there anything that could be included in these language clauses? A penalty? I don’t know.
Mr. Hébert: In Ontario, for example, one of the solutions is to allow for a longer grace period to find a francophone client to occupy that bed, but that comes with the data collection and information available to the people who are doing the placement. In the Ontario system, when a person applies for admission to a long-term care facility, it is noted in the file that the client is francophone, but the data is not collected in terms of their bed preference. So that information is lost in the system and the client does not necessarily go to the right place.
Senator Mégie: It goes back to what Mr. Hominuk said earlier, that there should be data on the health card that would indicate that a francophone client is coming. Maybe that would help?
Mr. Hominuk: The Canada-Ontario agreement could force data collection. If there were a requirement to collect data in all provinces in the federal-provincial agreements, that could actually support it. It might give the impetus that the government needs to do the data collection. It would force the issue.
Mr. Hébert: It has been more than 10 years now since we were promised the collection of data on the language variable on the health card in Ontario. We are still waiting for the goods to be delivered on this element. It is the first step on the path to a system that will allow us to better serve the francophone community. Even after 10 years, this has not yet happened. If requirements were added to the contribution agreements with the provinces, it would ensure that this responsibility would be portable.
Senator Mégie: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Am I wrong? On the map, they agreed to put the accents in French. You welcomed this initiative. I don’t know if that’s a strong enough sign for everyone to find out that these are French-speaking patients rather than English-speaking patients.
Senator Clement: It’s Clement without an accent, but I’m a francophone. This is a very good conversation about language clauses. Thank you for the questions and thank you to all the witnesses. For the AFO representatives, the labour shortage exists everywhere, in every province. I would like to know if you work with other provinces, if there is a good sharing of information on solutions with other provinces. Are you also working with the municipalities? We always talk about the federal and provincial governments, but many cities use their own budgets to recruit and pay for studies to find solutions for their population.
Ms. Crist, the study you mentioned — it’s discouraging to hear that the health of immigrants deteriorates five years after they arrive in Canada. What follow-up do you do with this kind of study, and what do you need to be able to do the necessary follow-up?
Mr. Hébert: In terms of a national strategy or collaboration, the FCFA is starting to discuss possible methods of collaboration with different provinces. With respect to the labour shortage, one of the barriers is the recognition of prior learning between provinces vis-à-vis professional bodies. It is difficult to transfer a nurse from Manitoba to Ontario or vice versa without having to meet requirements. This is a barrier that could be more easily negotiated. If we were to have discussions at a higher level with all the colleges, could we come up with national standards to ensure better portability of health care professionals?
Senator Clement: It is not happening?
Mr. Hébert: More or less. There are agreements, but I think they are difficult. There may be a way to make the process more navigable for people who want to go to work in another province.
For us, the labour shortage involves education. Foreign credential recognition is one issue. Increasing capacity in training institutions is also important. The education labour shortage in Ontario is severe. In Ontario, there are currently 3,500 teaching positions being filled by people who are not certified and do not have their teaching certificate, because we have a shortage. How do we increase the seats within that?
Can we have a discussion about professional practice requirements? Often, professional colleges are self-governing. They have a board of directors, so they decide on their own regulations, but can we have a discussion to impose similar standards across Canada? Do we need nurses who are at the baccalaureate level or professionals who are at the master’s level? Were the right decisions made at the right time to meet the needs of the community? Do we need to question that again?
Mr. Hominuk: Just to follow up on the issue of relationships with municipalities in Ontario, AFO is responsible for the provincial work. Nationally, it is the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. In Ontario, it is the regional Associations canadiennes-françaises de l’Ontario, or ACFOs, that have the mandate to work with municipalities. Our regional ACFOs are really poorly funded. Seventeen of them receive about $800,000. It’s almost impossible for them to do the work that needs to be done on the ground and it’s detrimental to the work that can be done. There are other structures in immigration and other organizations that work on the ground, but our regional ACFOs are still the key. It would be interesting for you to invite one or two ACFOs to discuss the issue and the work they do on the ground.
Ms. Crist: In terms of the study that was done in 2018 by RésoSanté, the deterioration of immigrant health is something that could be identified. We know that immigration is a key vector in the province for francophone growth and that we need to continue to collect more data.
Other organizations — like La Boussole — that work with Canadians from other provinces, refugees, homeless populations and also populations suffering from multiple addictions are collecting data. We have a lot of other provincial organizations that are collecting data that might be useful in terms of knowing exactly what kinds of public health policies might be appropriate for our francophones. That’s a start.
When we talk about refugees, I personally saw the case of a Haitian refugee couple who arrived in 2018, who were there, who lost a child at birth because of language barriers; the negative consequences in the delivery room and in the emergency room for refugee or homeless populations can be really devastating.
Not having access to French language health care at all in our province will have medium- and long-term impacts on our populations. We have the data through our organizations across the province. It is now a matter of having adequate funding to establish avenues of research on how to better serve francophones in British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your answer.
Senator Dalphond: My first question is for the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario. Mr. Hébert, you mentioned 2,500 unfilled francophone teaching positions. Last year, for the first time, the targets for francophone immigration to Ontario were met. Have you felt a decrease in pressure on the system? Do you have new resources, or is this not reflected in education or health positions?
Mr. Hébert: We welcome the fact that Ontario has reached its immigration targets. However, I believe that the number is not sufficient to fill our resources. Despite the fact that we have reached our targets, in the short term, we are not having the expected impact. It may seem that we have not reached our targets for 20 years. Today, we have reached them once, but there are still major gaps.
Senator Dalphond: The target can be met, but you talked earlier about a midwife and another person who worked in the emergency room who came to Ontario but could not work in their area of expertise.
Mr. Hébert: Yes, and it’s very disappointing for the francophone community to see some of the professionals in their community who decide to do something else. They say: “I’m going to stop fighting to become a nurse, because it’s been a year and a half and I can’t do it; I’m going to drive a cab, because it’s relatively quick to find a job. That way I can meet the needs of my children, my family.”
However, that doesn’t help us with our lack of professional resources. So yes, it is very disappointing.
Senator Dalphond: Have you documented that? We can talk about anecdotal events, not systemic issues. Do we have a report and evidence on that? If so, can you share it with the committee?
Mr. Hominuk: We could share with you what we have, but I don’t think there is a report on it, although they are still collecting data here and there. That’s one of the problems that remains, collecting evidence for this type of element. Mr. Hébert talked about 2,500 teachers, but that number does not meet the immersion needs. With the significant investment in immersion, there will be a greater demand. The faculties of education of other provinces are also coming to hire in Ontario. We are happy to share Franco-Ontarians with the whole country, but this puts pressure on the systems, which are not meeting the demand at this time.
Mr. Hébert: I wonder if, at Immigration and Citizenship Canada, within their economic recruitment program, they select newcomers for the specific skills they have. Is there any follow‑up? One year after their arrival, do they find themselves in a market that they had targeted for their immigration? It would be much easier for them to have that information than for us.
Mr. Hominuk: During our previous appearance, we talked about the fall report that we are producing on labour shortages, and there will certainly be things that can be identified in that report. We would be happy to share that with you.
Senator Dalphond: Ms. Crist, is it possible to send us the 2018 report that you mentioned, which talks about a lack of access and even deaths? You gave the example of that Haitian family that lost a child. It seems to me that’s a pretty shocking image.
If the report documented that, it would be interesting for the committee to have that.
Ms. Crist: The 2018 report did not document that. This was documented at La Boussole, a community organization that helps refugees. Because it’s an agency that works with social workers and street outreach workers, it’s all documented because we then provide that data to the B.C. Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.
Of course, I will share with you the report that RésoSanté released in 2018. There was another report produced on francophone women’s health. In the 2018 report, one of the things that I didn’t mention earlier, but that you have to consider, is that health students in British Columbia have to give up the French that they acquired during their studies. Medical students who could continue to practise in French, because they have a base in French, have been asked to stop taking French courses while in medical school.
La Boussole has produced reports on other cases as well. There is work being done to identify what is happening with francophone health care professionals who volunteer at times. We have a team of francophone midwives who have identified these cases and who could also share their data with you. There are also retired physicians who help our populations. I find that our community is always asked to carry the burden because of the lack of access to care. I can think of many other instances. There is a white paper that La Boussole has started to write, because we quantify everything and we have a front row seat to see what is happening — and it is disastrous.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much.
Senator Mockler: I remember very well when the Société Santé en français was created in 2003. I remember the various speeches that were made by representatives of our communities. At this time, I am reading an article from 2008 about demands that were made by others. Today, these are your demands. You say you have been waiting for 10 years. Have the Ontario and British Columbia governments negotiated an agreement with the federal government? Have you been informed that your claims might be considered?
Mr. Hominuk: Your question is a good one. Again, the lack of data does not allow me to answer your question today. I have been at the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario since 2012 and we do not receive any reports on the agreements or on the benefits of these agreements for francophones.
Senator Mockler: What do you think of the investments announced in the 2023 budget with respect to health transfers? Do you think it is enough?
Mr. Hébert: Yes, we are aware of the investments that have been made. We don’t know how the Ontario government will translate these investments into the Franco-Ontarian community and we don’t know the benefits for our community.
It is therefore very difficult for us to judge whether the funds are adequate, because there is no accountability on the part of the Ontario government to ensure that we know what funds are being allocated to the francophone community within that.
Senator Mockler: There are two responsibilities: the provincial responsibility — health is a provincial jurisdiction — and that of the funder, which is the federal government. Have you had an opportunity to sit down with the deputy minister or senior officials, both provincially and federally?
Mr. Hominuk: In Ontario we just started, about six months ago, to get much more actively involved in health issues. Yes, there have been meetings with the assistant deputy minister responsible for French-language health services. We sense a desire to improve access to health care in French for francophones in Ontario.
At the same time as these changes are being proposed, the health care system is undergoing an enormous transformation in Ontario and across the country. The creation of Ontario Health just before the start of the pandemic created complexity, because the ways of managing the system are being transformed at the same time as we are experiencing a pandemic and everything that comes with it. That’s why we often come back to language clauses in federal-provincial agreements. Accountability measures must be included in these agreements. This will help in the collection of data and, in the long run, will lead to the improvement of direct health services to the francophone population of Ontario and the other provinces.
Senator Mockler: Should the Canada Health Act be reviewed — with your experience, and especially since the creation of the Société Santé en français 20 years ago — to include a specific commitment to official languages? Can you tell us more about this issue?
Mr. Hébert: For me, the answer is simple: Yes, I believe that we need accountability in terms of the provinces’ linguistic obligations. This accountability within the agreements and the law would force governments, such as Ontario’s, which does not currently do so, to collect data. I think that would be a good solution for us.
Mr. Hominuk: It’s all about the data collection and the measures that need to be described. That’s one of the reasons why we don’t always have answers for you today. We don’t have access to the data, and that’s detrimental. It’s somewhat surprising that we’re still at this point in 2023.
Ms. Crist: To go back to the question about the cash transfers and investments that will be made for health care, I would say that the transfers will be insufficient because they are not tied to language clauses. In British Columbia, we are fortunate in that our Minister of Health, Mr. Dix, is also the Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs. We hope that he will have a better understanding of the health needs of our francophone population. This remains to be negotiated, but without these language clauses, there is no escape; we will not see positive changes in the medium and long term. We need to know what these agreements are. As my colleagues have said, the fact that there is a lack of accountability and transparency leaves us in the dark.
Senator Mockler: Thank you, all three of you. I am sure you are aware of Bill C-13. As we say in Acadia, it is in abeyance. I would like your opinion: Given that you have seen Bill C-13, what changes should be made to improve health care?
Ms. Crist: If I may, [Technical difficulties] has proposed an amendment for language clauses. That would be a good start.
The Chair: Ms. Crist, I think he was asking you what you’re proposing in terms of language clauses. I think you have already spoken on this.
Ms. Crist: There should be agreements for each federal-provincial agreement and there should be language clauses in all areas, including health. With this devolution system, every time the federal government transfers something to the province, we see that our rights go out the window.
Mr. Hébert: We would like to see the bill become law, so that we finally get to implementation, and so that we can work with the content of the law, knowing that there is a review planned eventually and that we will be able to refine it at that time. We have been waiting for this for several years. We need a review of what we have now to move forward.
Senator Mockler: Thank you.
The Chair: We have a few minutes left. There is a lot of talk about the lack of conclusive data. In the last few days, there have been some rather alarming reports on the challenges related to research in French in Canada. People in this sector are very concerned because very few research projects in French are accepted. I don’t know if my percentage is right, but 95% of research projects in Canada are in English. This has an impact on the research, but also, indirectly, on the data that can be collected. Maybe I’m out of line, but does the government need to be more active in supporting research in French in Canada?
Ms. Crist: If I may answer that question... I just spent a week in Rome presenting two public health research projects at the World Congress on Public Health. I also submitted a proposal to [Technical difficulties], a conference in Canada, in Ontario, in Ottawa. Unfortunately, because I submitted my research in French, I was told that I absolutely had to present it in English. In Rome, I was able to present research done by my team from British Columbia, but I was not able to do the same in Canada.
I totally agree with you. There is a gap in health research.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Hébert?
Mr. Hébert: To add to that testimony—
The Chair: For example, what does the fact that health is recognized in Bill C-13 as a critical sector — if that is the case — mean in practical terms? If it’s in the legislation, how do you see that playing out in terms of the implementation of the legislation, especially in the health care situation in your community?
Mr. Hébert: Obviously, in terms of accountability in the federal-provincial agreements, I think we could see some big steps forward. That would be positive, but it takes an element of accountability on the part of the province to be able to properly identify... The data collection starts there. Ontario tells us that they are making a shift in their data collection system. Language requirements need to reflect this reality to allow for future progress within the health system. We can’t afford not to be part of that reform.
The Chair: We have about three and a half minutes left. Senator Moncion and Senator Gagné, you are on the list for a second question. If you ask it very quickly and the answer is short, we could take the time to hear them.
Senator Moncion: My question was about Bill C-13 and the language clauses. I had another one for my colleagues, but I will—
Senator Gagné: My question has been answered.
The Chair: With that, Ms. Crist, Mr. Hébert and Mr. Hominuk, I thank you for your testimony and your clear answers. They will help us with the work we have to do in this study.
For our second panel this evening, we are pleased to welcome Mr. Carl Bouchard, Interim French Language Services Commissioner, Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario.
Good evening, Mr. Bouchard, and welcome to our panel. We are ready to hear your opening remarks and then we will proceed to a question and answer period.
Carl Bouchard, Interim French Language Services Commissioner, Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario: Good evening, everyone. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. My name is Carl Bouchard and I am the Interim French Language Services Commissioner for Ontario.
“Please speak in English” was the note left on the pillow of a French-speaking patient by the nursing staff of a hospital designated to provide French-language services in Ontario. The note was found by her family shortly before her death. This French-speaking patient ended her life by being denied health care in French. Imagine being in that situation. The patient’s family contacted us. My team and I at the French Language Services Unit of the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario worked with the hospital to resolve this issue. As an independent officer of the Ontario legislature, I ensure that issues are resolved in a way that demonstrates a satisfactory solution that leads to reliable and sustainable French language services.
As a result of our intervention, the hospital did a complete review of their policies regarding French-language services and ensured that the services that needed to be offered in French were available and actively offered. In this case, we were able to intervene because the hospital is designated under the French Language Services Act to offer some of its services in French. With the exception of education and justice, French does not have official language status in Ontario. For the province, designation is generally the only way in which hospitals, and most health care for that matter, are required to provide services in French.
Designation is a process by which an organization becomes subject to the French Language Services Act and is subject to obligations to provide some or all of its services in French. There are approximately 20 designated hospitals in Ontario for a population of over 620,000 francophones. Eighty per cent of Ontario’s francophone population resides in one of the 27 regions designated by law. These regions receive an increased offer of French-language services from the province. Of these 27 regions, only 13 have at least one hospital designated to provide some or all of its services in French.
These 13 regions are located primarily in eastern Ontario, leaving south central Ontario, which includes Toronto, and northern Ontario with very few designated hospitals. The ability to obtain French-language services through the French Language Services Act is therefore limited in the health field — and so is our capacity to respond.
Entities such as Ontario Health teams are not government agencies and do not fall under the French Language Services Act, leaving a large part of the health system without the obligation to provide services in the minority language, French. Organizations such as local public health units in municipalities are not government agencies within the meaning of the French Language Services Act, and therefore do not have an obligation to provide services in French.
As part of your study on improving French-language services in the health sector, I encourage you to assess whether the Government of Canada has sufficient data on the results of its investments in health with respect to the delivery of services in the minority language — French, in the case of Ontario.
Health care is one of the three sectors for which we process the most cases. Over the past three years, one out of every five cases we have handled has been in the health sector. One third of these cases involved online service issues and the other third involved issues related to the provision of in-person services to francophones, primarily in designated hospitals.
These issues were resolved with the Ontario government and the organizations involved finding solutions. One example is the ability to add French-language characters to health cards in Ontario.
We found that the vast majority of the challenges faced by francophones would not have been the subject of complaints if strategic planning had been in place. In our first annual report, we recommended that planning issues be addressed. We recommended that every ministry in Ontario develop a strategic plan for its French-language services.
Planning is especially important in Ontario because, as of April 1 of this year, the Government of Ontario is subject to a regulation under the French Language Services Act that requires an active offer of French-language services.
Active offer means that you don’t have to worry about whether or not you can speak French; you know you can.
Now imagine what this means for the health sector, which receives a huge portion of the province’s budget. Strategic planning is therefore critical to maximizing the capacity to meet the needs of Ontario’s francophones. This is where intergovernmental collaboration can play an important role in ensuring that francophones have access to French-language health care with or without legal obligations.
Planning requires gathering data, proactively looking at the lived experience of francophones using French-language services, and measuring and adjusting our efforts to ensure that our resources are invested in relevant and reliable services.
Why do all this? I think it is important to remember why Ontario has a French Language Services Act. The preamble to the act recognizes that French is an official language in Canada, and while it does not have the same status in Ontario, Ontario wants to safeguard the cultural heritage of the French-speaking population for future generations.
Ontario plays a pivotal role in the development of French in Canada.
Ontario is home to the largest number of francophones outside of Quebec. The French Language Services Act helps protect part of Canada’s linguistic and cultural identity. The Government of Ontario has accepted our recommendations and we will continue to work with them until all of our recommendations have been implemented.
I am now ready to take your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your opening statement, Mr. Bouchard.
Senator Moncion: Thank you, and welcome. The position of premier is available in Ontario and it would be nice if it were a francophone like you, if you have such aspirations.
The three-year French Language Services Strategy in Ontario aims to strengthen the planning, capacity and delivery of French-language services in the province. This strategy includes the modernization of the French Language Services Act, which received Royal Assent in December 2021. Some of your comments are in response to the implementation of this act.
It includes objectives such as increasing the francophone and bilingual workforce and also, for health professionals, planning and delivery of services, particularly the provision of digital services in the health sector.
Where are we with these famous recommendations? I understand that there are obligations, but to what extent is the government open to responding to these needs and requirements that appear in the French Language Services Strategy in Ontario?
Mr. Bouchard: I often ask the same questions. Thank you very much for your question.
The French Language Services Strategy in Ontario is certainly an excellent example of planning to improve services over the medium and long term.
I meet with many organizations in Ontario, such as health care providers, hospitals, clinics, nurses and people who work in all sorts of other areas. Typically, I ask the following questions. What do we really know about the health care system in Ontario? What do we know about bilingual capacity in our institutions? I’m talking about true bilingual capacity.
All of the people who are able to offer services in French do not necessarily identify themselves as offering services; so what do we know about the ability to advance in a career when you hold a bilingual position? These are often hard-to-fill positions and people in these positions tend to stay in them for a long time. What do we know about the quality of the work? What do we know about the hours and the ability to care in places where, of course, French-speakers are not always available? What about night shifts, weekends, vacations and places where the labour shortage is even more acute? What do we know about the ratio of patients to professionals when we speak French and we are the only resource on site able to offer a service to many people who end up in an institution?
There is very little of that data and information available, from what I’ve seen so far and from the work we’ve done and the questions we’ve asked.
I would encourage the Ontario government, as part of the intergovernmental collaboration, to ask those questions and find out where the system is and where we want to take it.
It is obviously important to develop the workforce; let’s face it, there is a shortage of francophone workers in Ontario and in Canada. How can we be effective if we do not know exactly where we are starting from?
Senator Moncion: Thank you for your very clear answer. It goes back to what the previous group was saying, that the lack of data means that we have very few tools for implementing strategies.
I have a second question for you. My understanding is that the Office of French Language Health Services advises the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care on the delivery of services in accordance with the requirements of the French Language Services Act. Some facilities, in Ottawa for example, are designated as French-language facilities providing services primarily to francophones, especially in the area of long-term care. However, when names are on a waiting list, as soon as a space becomes available, whether it’s in a francophone facility or not, that’s the next place they’re going to send someone, regardless of language.
What kind of strategy can be put in place to protect these spaces that should be reserved for patients who need long-term care and to keep them for francophones?
Mr. Bouchard: The creation of the office you are referring to is a result of the French Language Services Act, which requires each department to appoint a French-language services coordinator for the department and advises the department of its obligations under the French Language Services Act, even before I exercise my role in overseeing the implementation. This is extraordinary; the department in question has the necessary tools to do proper planning and evaluate the impact of its investments.
Where reflection is needed, as you mention, is on the optimization of resources. The availability of services is announced, but these services are not necessarily used by francophones, either because the need is not there or because there is a coincidence of events that results in a surplus of inventory for francophones — perhaps in three years’ time they will be needed, but not at the moment. That’s often what happens. And we are starting to fill these services that should be available for francophones with people who need them now.
Senator Moncion: Because of the More Beds, Better Care Act, 2022 — Bill 7 — that doesn’t apply so much anymore; can you also elaborate on that?
Mr. Bouchard: The ability to have a direct impact in the health field is limited under the French Language Services Act, as long as the organizations themselves are not designated. The province must work with the available inventory of designated services. This is where there is an opportunity to increase the availability of services.
Outside of the French Language Services Act, when the Government of Ontario decides to allocate beds in the long-term care sector, for example, those beds do not necessarily have a direct link to the French Language Services Act that I oversee. That said, these beds are in organizations that are often designated as having the capacity to provide French-language services. This is not the case in all organizations and is a result of various pieces of legislation, such as the Connecting Care Act, 2019, or other related legislation, such as the More Beds, Better Care Act, 2022, that are causing the government to make decisions that go beyond the French Language Services Act.
Certainly, realistically, we need to be aware that there are a number of resources available and therefore they need to be maximized and utilized. That is why so much emphasis is placed on planning. What has been noticed since I joined the French Language Services Unit at the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario over three years ago is that the lack of planning results in discussions about where resources are sent and how they are framed. For example, if a bed is sent to a long-term care centre that is not designated under the French Language Services Act, does the francophone capacity exist for that bed, or is a francophone sent to be served by who knows who?
Since this capacity to intervene under the French Language Services Act is limited, we insist that there be planning on the part of the departments to ensure that these discussions are evaluated and that the resources, whether they be financial, technical or human, are properly assigned so that francophones have the services they are entitled to, but also need, despite the legal obligations.
Senator Moncion: Thank you very much.
Senator Mégie: Thank you for being with us, Mr. Bouchard.
I heard you say that a certain percentage of complaints have been resolved; what do you mean by that? Are they complaints that are reviewed through the complaint resolution mechanism, including meeting with the families and so on, and then a favourable response is given to those people, or is it a resolution?
Once the family is satisfied — if that is what is required — are lessons learned from that complaint to ensure that it does not happen again?
Mr. Bouchard: I hope that lessons are learned from our intervention. I certainly do, and that is also the basis of the recommendations put forward in our annual report, which are a result of the complaints that were dealt with. We are learning and we want to share the best practices developed through these complaints. As an agent of the legislature, this means that we develop our own record of complaint resolution; we hear from francophone complainants who share their stories, their realities and their experiences in using French-language services.
We then contact the departments to understand the issues that have been raised and to try to understand why these issues have arisen.
We work with the departments until we find a resolution that we are satisfied with, until the service that has been put in place is of high quality, and until we are satisfied that the situation that was brought to our attention will not recur. From there, we share best practices with the various agencies. We share best practices through our recommendations. We do this because we hope that our experience in the health field, post-secondary or otherwise — I’ll use the example of our investigation into the cuts to French-language programming at Laurentian University. We made findings in this context on the management of designated organizations in Ontario. We realized that there was a lack of communication and collaboration between the parties involved in managing an organization’s obligations to provide services in French.
Ministries and agencies needed to talk to each other more and clarify the ways in which obligations were being met, so that services were reliable and sustainable in the field. These same observations apply to the health field or any other field where we are talking about governed assets, a service that is as important as a service that stems from the French Language Services Act.
Senator Gagné: Welcome, Mr. Bouchard.
I would like you to take a step back and assess your role. Do you feel your powers under the French Language Services Act are sufficient to bring about changes in the practice of organizations subject to that act?
Mr. Bouchard: Obviously, in a position like this, the power to influence is very important. Since we started writing our annual reports with the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman, in 2019 and 2020, we have tabled three annual reports containing 11 recommendations. All of the recommendations have been accepted by the government and have been or are being implemented.
We have resolved over 1,100 cases to date with the Ontario government, its agencies, third parties and institutions of the legislature, including the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman, the Privacy Commissioner or the Chief Electoral Officer.
In our investigation of Laurentian University, we made 19 recommendations. All of our recommendations were accepted and considerable progress has been made. We tabled our report just over a year ago.
This opportunity to influence change in a positive direction, which sees organizations strengthening the offer of services in French, can only be exercised if we are able to provide concrete facts and convince both the government and francophones in Ontario that our approach is reasonable and necessary and that it can lead to positive results for francophones, especially if our recommendations are listened to and implemented.
We are experts at solving issues, finding solutions and sharing best practices. It is in the best interest of people, whether they are leaders in government or their agencies or any other private company that provides services on behalf of the Ontario government, to work with us and listen to what we put forward to better serve francophones in Ontario. If people continue to listen, our powers are adequate.
Senator Gagné: The last sentence is important: If people listen to you. Would you have any recommendations to make to improve the situation and to ensure that the government takes action or that the organizations subject to the law comply with it?
Mr. Bouchard: I wouldn’t want to comment on hypothetical situations. That being said, we have concrete examples of problems in Ontario that would be important to address.
For example, Regulation 398/93, which is a regulation that exists under the French Language Services Act, concerns all designated organizations in Ontario. This regulation has existed since the early 1990s. There are more than 260 designated organizations under this regulation. Anecdotally, my team and I have identified 80 organizations that have changed their name, closed their doors or merged with organizations that offer mostly English services. The ability to determine where these services are located and to understand accountability and obligations is a significant headache. In our last annual report, we recommended to the Ontario government that this issue be addressed to update the regulation and to determine where the obligations are to provide French-language services through designated agencies in Ontario. We want to know what to expect in our monitoring work. We want to know that these services are indeed offered in French and that they are of high quality. We want to know what French-language services will look like in 2023.
We have some pretty important issues that show us that we have the capacity to influence things and that we can achieve substantive results for francophones in Ontario — both in terms of planning and updating the governance tools for French‑language services in Ontario — as we continue to work with the government.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
The Chair: I too am going to ask you a couple of questions. I appreciate your knowledge of the field. I am impressed with that. It’s clear that you are extremely familiar with the challenges of health care in Ontario.
In the federal context, I wonder if you have any thoughts that you can share with us on the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages, among others. In Bill C-13 and in the Canada-Ontario agreements on French-language services, for example, on the issue of language clauses that was discussed earlier, what do you think the federal government can do to help improve French-language services in Ontario and help you in your work?
Mr. Bouchard: The idea of cross-departmental planning that we put forward in 2019-20 was largely inspired by best practices that exist at the federal level through the Action Plan for Official Languages and the Annual Report on Official Languages.
We also looked at the situation in Manitoba, which also has an obligation to produce plans for all departments to comply with their obligations. We draw heavily on what exists elsewhere in Canada and what other levels of government are doing. There are agreements between the different levels of government in their intergovernmental negotiations, whether it is in health or in the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Agreements on French-language services. There is constant cooperation between the various levels of government.
When we talk about the importance of understanding the state of French-language services and establishing performance measures to determine where we can make a difference, I think the discussion is quite appropriate among the different levels of government that invest in the same place, as is the case in health through federal government transfer payments to the provinces and through the provinces’ investments in their own territory to provide services. The French Language Services Act is limited. I think I’ve illustrated that well. There are opportunities to improve the offer of services in French through investments and negotiations.
We still need to understand exactly what the needs of francophones are, what data is available and how we can evaluate the impact of our investments and our actions in order to be able to assess how we want to move forward.
I think that these discussions are not taking place, because we can see that there is no systematic planning, at the present time, for the provision of services in French. In the health field, this is an extremely important issue, given the nature of the service itself. If we want to protect cultural heritage for future generations, there must be future generations. This assumes that these generations are healthy.
You don’t force people to make choices about their identity. In Ontario, there is a lot of intersectionality because of where people come from geographically and their life experiences. How do we define quality of service in French in a sector as critical as health care, where people are in a vulnerable state and we don’t want to be forced to choose between different parts of our identity, to be able to express ourselves in French, or to drop our francophonie to express ourselves more on other levels. I think these are modern and relevant thoughts. I don’t see any concrete examples where these reflections are taking place.
In a government context where investments are determined and where we are going to invest in services, I think it is responsible to ask ourselves questions and to evaluate the impact of our investments and our approaches.
The Chair: Thank you for that answer.
Senator Clement: Thank you very much for being here. I worked for a long time with Étienne Saint-Aubin, who worked on this legislation under Roy McMurtry. I’m glad we’re still talking about this legislation.
You mentioned that the regulation needs to be revised and that we need to be clear about who is providing the services. Do you think there has been a loss of momentum in the designation process? Do you think that the agencies that had to go through this process are underfunded and under-resourced and unable to stay current?
You mentioned intersectionality. In terms of complaints received, are you able to determine whether people who face multiple barriers will complain or be able to complain? Is there anything in your data that reflects the impact of intersectionality in health services?
Mr. Bouchard: I’ll start with the second part of your question and then go back to the first. Intersectionality is a very important concern for me. I continue to develop data that will allow us to assess the situation of people who contact us. This data is still difficult to identify. A lot of thought and planning needs to be done to do it properly. I invite all stakeholders, whether the Senate, the Government of Canada or the Government of Ontario, to reflect on the reality of 2023. What is the typical profile of the people who come to us? Who are the people who work with us? Who wants access to our services? How do we define these identities so that people recognize themselves in our French-language services? This concerns me.
I have been the French Language Services Commissioner since March 3, 2023. If I am able to make progress in this direction, I will be very proud to have done so. This remains an important concern. So far, I have met with some sixty organizations, many of which come from the different realities of Ontario’s francophonie. I hope that they will be able to recognize themselves in all the work we do and that they will continue to be proactive in getting to know us.
On average, we have 300 to 315 new cases that come to us each year. There are over 620,000 francophones in Ontario. I find it hard to believe that people have developed the reflex to share their experience, and I hope that the efforts we are making to reach people in their daily lives and to reflect their reality will encourage them to work and share their daily lives so that we can have a concrete impact and develop advanced knowledge about their reality and their identity.
With respect to the French Language Services Act and the loss of momentum that you mentioned earlier, I am optimistic by nature. I hope that people continue to be as passionate as I am about the importance of supporting Ontario’s francophonie and Canadian bilingualism.
Senator Clement: I was talking about a lack of capacity. It is not a lack of passion. Francophones are passionate, but there is a real loss of momentum.
[English]
It has to do with a lack of resources.
[Translation]
Mr. Bouchard: Resources are limited. French-language services should not depend solely on financial investments. A right is a right. If a francophone is entitled to a service, we must plan and be able to offer that service. I look at the French Language Services Act in terms of the obligations it places on the system in Ontario. I encourage the system to ask the right questions to get the services in place and to have a concrete impact on people’s daily lives. The more people there are, the more services there are, the more thought that goes into it.
We are building something. It’s a societal project. French-language services in Ontario are not just a question of francophones or bilinguals; they also affect the anglophone majority. It is part of our linguistic identity, it is part of us as Canadians.
I hope that people will feel challenged by this reflection and will contribute to the effort. The more we build something together, the more we develop new services and new approaches in a changing world, the more we see the Official Languages Act and the French Language Services Act being revised. In Ontario, the new powers now require active offer. Active offer means that when you walk into an organization, the signage is in French, the staff is able to offer bilingual service immediately and electronic services are available. This is no small feat.
Since the implementation of the French Language Services Act began in the late 1980s, the work has been ongoing and has required a great deal of thought and passion on the part of francophones and the general population to ensure that services are offered. If we learn from the past, there are certainly important questions to be asked. I hope that we will have the energy and the social support necessary to continue to move forward as Canadians towards the recognition of English and French as two equal official languages.
Senator Clement: Thank you, Mr. Bouchard.
Senator Mockler: First, I want to congratulate you. You know your subject. I would like to ask you a few questions. I see that you are an officer of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Is it wishful thinking to believe that Ontario will one day become officially bilingual, like New Brunswick?
Mr. Bouchard: This is a question to be asked of the representatives of the Ontario government and no doubt also of the representatives of the Canadian government. If we take the example of New Brunswick, it is obvious that in Ontario, the French Language Services Act offers interesting possibilities. As part of the modernization of the French Language Services Act, the Government of Ontario has redefined subsection 5(1), which provides access to French-language services through any central agency, ministry or office located in or serving a designated area or any other office designated by regulation to provide services in French.
This addition to the French Language Services Act that defines the right to access French-language services is important because it gives the Ontario government the flexibility to identify where the need is and where it is necessary to have obligations that are not necessarily dependent on the designation of regions.
In Ontario, there is a lot of work done with the designation of regions, which imposes obligations on the Government of Ontario throughout a region in terms of offering its services in French through its ministries or any office, such as ServiceOntario or the LCBO, that are located in that region. The modernized section provides additional flexibility to overcome the barriers of designated regions. The power of digital should not be underestimated. However, we must be careful. When I talk about equivalent, timely, reliable and quality services, we must ensure that digital does not become a band-aid for the French-language service offer, which by default will become a digital offer. That said, digital technology offers us very interesting opportunities to improve the offer of service in French.
Senator Mockler: I am looking at one of the commissioner’s recommendations, on pages 31, 36 and 47, which says that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat should review the employment policy in the Ontario public service so that French-language postings are not limited to designated bilingual positions. Can you elaborate on how this could be improved?
Mr. Bouchard: A habit has developed because of the way the policy has been structured up to now: Only positions that require bilingual capacity are posted in both languages. When we talk about recruiting francophones and increasing the capacity of the Ontario government, in order for agencies and third parties to offer services in French, we must create an environment where francophones feel welcome and where they have access to information.
If information is only available in French for positions that require bilingual capacity, this means that, by default, when we talk to francophones, we are only addressing their capacity to provide services in French. When we want to increase bilingual capacity, we must ensure that francophones see all the opportunities that exist. Francophones need to know where there is a capacity to bring a francophone lens to different places, whether it is for strategic planning or for higher governance positions where decisions are made. We need to make sure that we communicate properly with francophones about the capacity they have to contribute to public service.
Senator Mockler: You have a second recommendation. Here it is:
That, by September 30, 2023, the Ministry of Francophone Affairs develop a plan, addressed to the Commissioner, to update Regulation 398/93 [list of designated organizations].
What role should the Ontario government and the federal government play in this recommendation?
Mr. Bouchard: The Ontario government needs to make sure it knows the tools it is working with. It is the direct obligations, whether in ministries, agencies, third parties or designated organizations, that ensure that the government increases the capacity to offer services in French beyond the public service. The organizations themselves have certain obligations. If the government is not aware of its obligations and capacity to offer French-language services, how can we plan or measure the impact of our services?
Do we even know where these services are, geographically, and what the potential is for progress? By establishing this baseline and having a good understanding of the availability of French-language services, we can then make targeted investments or adopt targeted measures to ensure that French-language services meet the needs of francophones. I think that this base needs to be assessed before we can even talk about negotiations or progress. There is a significant lack of knowledge about the obligations.
Senator Mockler: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: We are talking about designated institutions. What would be the benefit to an institution that is not designated to provide services in French of having these additional obligations in the context where, right now, the institution is not designated as such, and therefore has no interest in providing services and is not obliged to do so? Once an institution is designated, if it’s anglophones, for example, who are in charge of the organizations, they will say they don’t want to hear about it. How do you correct the situation in such cases?
Mr. Bouchard: It’s a shame for those who have these thoughts. I haven’t necessarily encountered any so far, but why close the door to a part of the Ontario population that can access our services? We can serve more people. There are all kinds of benefits to that.
When you’re a business, you can look at the profits. When you’re a government agency, you can look at whether you can provide services much more efficiently and become an even more interesting partner for the Ontario government. I think we need to look at this issue from the perspective of what we are missing when we close ourselves off to the francophonie.
Although the obligation does not exist in all spheres, I hope that people will feel sufficiently challenged in this reflection on the protection of the francophonie and the offer of services in French to build their own capacity and to potentially evaluate whether they want to adopt obligations to make their offer of services permanent. They then become a trusted organization, a reference; francophones can trust them and they are able to serve more people. Exogamous families exist in Ontario. The more we can serve the different identities of the same family, the more we can become the place of choice for new users that we might not have been able to serve if we had closed ourselves off to that possibility.
Senator Dalphond: Mr. Bouchard, you are the one to turn to if the designated organization has not fulfilled its obligation. Is there a power of remedy? Can we go to court and claim damages or seek a structural injunction to force change?
Mr. Bouchard: There are a number of ways for people to look at the cases in question. As far as the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario and the French Language Services Unit are concerned, we work directly with the ministries to use our influence to find a resolution to the issues before us and to ensure that these issues do not occur in the future.
Senator Dalphond: Have people gone to court to try to force the organization to fulfil the obligations arising from its designation?
Mr. Bouchard: In terms of the cases that we have dealt with so far, I would not be able to tell you that that is the case. To date, everything we have resolved has led to a satisfactory resolution without going to court.
Senator Dalphond: To your knowledge, there have been no legal proceedings undertaken by francophones who have said that their rights were not respected or who sought damages or injunctions?
Mr. Bouchard: Not in the files we have handled so far. If this has happened, I am not aware of it. We do not undertake legal proceedings.
Senator Dalphond: For example, someone who is dissatisfied with Air Canada’s services can complain to the Commissioner of Official Languages and can also sue Air Canada for damages, all the way to the Supreme Court. Does the equivalent exist under the French Language Services Act of Ontario?
Mr. Bouchard: The last case that comes to mind is the Montfort Hospital; it was to prevent its closure. This was long before the existence of the French Language Services Commissioner or the oversight powers that the French Language Services Act has given to the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario as of May 1, 2019. I hope that our influence helps to unclog the justice system. I hope that our influence and the results we can achieve are positive, both for the people who work with us and for the government, to ensure the availability of services at another level.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that answer. Colleagues, Mr. Bouchard has a plane to catch, so we may have to stop before 7 o’clock. Do you have a final question?
Senator Moncion: When will Regulation 398/93 be updated?
Mr. Bouchard: The timeline is September 2023 to have a plan to update the regulation. This regulation will require significant thought. The French Language Services Act stipulates that, for any change in the scope of the service offer that would negatively affect that offer — i.e., if the government wishes to limit or abolish the offer of services — strategic thinking must take place on the part of the government before proceeding with these changes.
Every change made since the 1990s needs to be thought through to see whether or not services were properly withdrawn or reduced and whether it was reasonable and necessary to do so. It is no small task to look at each designated agency and assess how to make changes. A plan has been requested to proceed with updating the regulations — hopefully with a reasonable timeline. It’s September for the plan, but I would hope that the full update would not be on an unreasonable timeline.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bouchard, for the quality of your presentation and for the enlightening information you have given us. We wish you a safe journey home. We will take a short break and then go into an in camera session to discuss future business.
(The committee continued in camera.)